F-35 Video

[Mikki]

@Jonfliesgoats

You can obviously not imagine how disgusting your ideas are in the eyes and ears of other forumusers.

"Cold War" is over at least since 1990.
NATO is in shards, thanks to "United States of Aggression" foreign policy warmongering and conflictfueling.
"Russia" never ever and will never ever take aggression against other countrys, except they keep loitering around in the near ("Donald Cook, he"), warmongering ("US/Iran Paranoia, dozens of other, like corruption in Ukraine..., pre-emptive strikes,....") and fueling conflicts ("Weapons of mass destruction in mid east, and similars"), import drugs/contraband weapons (Afghanistan in case of the former USSR, the only war ever fought since WWII, btw, against vast amounts of contraband opium and heroine).

Your image of the "old world" and its inhabitants is utterly distorted.

I hope this thread will be closed.

Friendly regards, Mikki (european citizen) and a... happy near year to all the world, U.S. citizens too.
 

Edited December 30, 2016 by Mikki
typo

[Jonfliesgoats]

@Mikki

Mikki, passionate discussion can yield positive results.  With regard to my worldview, it's built on experience working and flying in a variety of roles globally.  And, yes, that involves some experience in combat and in areas of conflict.  It is my hope and belief that advances in technology, which move the humanity forward in exploration, welfare and general understanding are worthwhile.  

This discussion and this forum is an area where we can discuss technology, aerospace, spaceflight and science.  This is and always will be inexorably tied with military action.  We would not have radar, manned spaceflight or thermal imaging without mankind's determination to kill his fellow man.  How military technology is applied, especially in second and third orde effects (microwave ovens, nuclear medicine, advanced imaging in medicine and industry) is not always bloody.  This is where I see a hopeful world advancing from and away from conflict rather than a dystopian one.  We use the very things we invent to kill each other in order to come together as a species and move forward together.  Is there anything more beautiful than beating intellectual swords into ploughshares like that?!

Talk to me!  I like hearing from you!  I post a lot on here, especially while I am traveling, at hotel gymnasiums, laying over or waiting for maintenance on a plane.  I offer my views and thoughts for you to evaluate and, yes, judge.  I welcome your input whether it's hostile and caustic or genuinely productive.  Inferences about my political leanings are likely inaccurate, however.  I would be happy to discuss any geopolitical or economic ideas you have, but probably in a different thread.  Let's share ideas!

With regard to the F-35, drones or surveillance, You obviously find something unpallatable, but I am unclear about what, specifically bothers you.  What are the issues you see?  What bothers you?  Even in something as small as a forum about a video game we can come away from these discussions with new ideas and perspectives.  Rather than commenting on politics, what, specifically, about a technology bothers you?  Again, talk to me!  I like hearing what you have to say!

Finally, I mean what I say.  I genuinely like hearing from you.  This is a nice break from listening to folks talk about their scheduling difficultues or trade information about attractive coworkers, divorce proceedings, etc.  I enjoy this.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Jonfliesgoats
Formatting, brevity, etc.

[Jonfliesgoats]

@Mikki

As an aside, since you are somewhat critical of US foreign policy.  You may enjoy reading the DOD's latest encyclopedia of ethical failure.  One of the hallmarks of our institutions is that while careers rest on keeping buffoonery hidden, we genuinely do have people working to increase transparancy.

http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/dod_oge/eef_complete.pdf

[Jonfliesgoats]

@Codraroll

I was reading some RAND stuff and thought you may be interested in this study in data-linked fighters v, voice only fighters.  I could see lots of drones being pushed into an area to expand detection and communication capabilities into threatening environments.  This would be a scenario in which many drones are used to flood air defenses, get active sensors to reveal themselves, send information to manned assets, etc.  Here's the study regarding the power of networked versus non-networked fighters, if you are curious.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2005/RAND_MG268.pdf

[James Kerman]

DARPA is working on this:
https://www.wired.com/2016/04/darpas-developing-tiny-drones-swarm-motherships/

[Jonfliesgoats]

I read about that!  Very cool!

[Exploro]

On 12/25/2016 at 1:32 PM, Thor Wotansen said:

Or Northrop could simply update the F-20 to modern standards and sell it to the gov for even cheaper.  For those who don't know, the F-20 is Northrop-Grumman's answer to the F-16.  Gen. Charles Yeager considered it one of the best planes he ever flew.

It was not an answer to the F-16; not directly anyway. The F-20 was developed during a time when there was trepidation selling top tier warplanes the US operated to allied nations. In otherwords; the DoD did not wish to sell F-16's to our allies. Instead it would offer systems like F-20 to allies and foriegn customers. Of course by the time the Reagan administration DoD rules became lax; allowing General Dynamics to deal directly with foreign customer but strangely keeping Northrop tied the rules set by the previous administration. This ultimately hamstringed...and doomed the F-20 program.

On 12/27/2016 at 11:06 PM, Jonfliesgoats said:

Stealth:

Any technology can be countered.  Stealth geometry and materials are no longer new.  A worrying trend here is seen in selling points.  Proponents of the F-35 are saying that surveillance radar can be tweaked to see the F-35, but targeting radar can't.  The fact that this post has even made it into the sales effort for this aircraft is significant.  Detection is detection.  Period.  This hasn't changed since Boelke made his dicta or John Boyd made the OODA loop.

Stealth geometry and RAM development no longer being further developed or refined? Gee the fact that the F-22, F-35, and subsequent 5th generation warplanes have vastly more streamlined airframes compared to the first generation of LO platforms prove otherwise. In fact in the case of the Raptor and Lightning shaping accounts for most of those planes RCS reduction. To be able to achieve significant reduction of RCS all the while allowing designers to bestow exceptional aerodynamic performance onto this generation of LO planes suggest considerable advancement in radar LO techniques over the last 30 years. As for RAM I will point out that present 5th generation fleet the US operated need no specialized environmentally controlled hangars, can have the RAM serviced out on an ramp, and allow these planes to operate in weather conditions previous generations of LO planes would struggle to operate within or had to avoid altogether highlights the continued advancement to make the material easier to apply and be more durable in harsh conditions.

I've read about the use of lower frequency radar as a means to counter RCS reduction. However my recollection has been that such systems only alert defenders to the presences of an LO plane operating in vicinity. These type of LF radars are not used in the fire control radars of ground based anti-aircraft missiles nor any adversary aircraft. F-35 is optimized in those bands and thus still difficult to attack. The defenders may have a general direction to go; but they still would not see it nor be able to attack. All the while the F-35 would be tracking the defenders long before the defenders could get in range (a range still degraded by the F-35 tiny RCS) and maneuver around them or into an advantagous position to shoot down the defenders (It should be noted that the F-35 having such a superb view of the battlespace; knowing where the adversaries are to allow the pilot to manuever into a position of advantage is the definition of OODA concept I might add).

See here for more detailed explaination on the limits of LF Radar EW Systems.

And such facilities are suceptible to to jamming and being attack themselves (mobile types are more survivable but still large pieces of equipment). The F-35 has built-in jamming capabilites and in the case of an US/Allied operation additional dedicated jamming assets would further degrade such LF systems.

Quote

Some things are pushed as fads and selling points, even if they don't make sense.  We have stealthy ships, for example.  Well, a stealth boat is still really, really observable.  To take advantage of that stealth, our still really, really observable Boat has to leave all of its active sensing off.  Soooo to my uneducated eyes this has all the hallmarks of "You want stealth? Here's a stealth boat!  We have stealth microwaves and stealth hand lotion too!  Stealth!".  If we want stealth, we build submarines.  A stealth destroyer seems dumb, but I am not a surface warfare guy.

If LO tech were a fad or selling point then why has the Russians, Chinese, Japanese, and others pursued their own indeginous LO programs over the last 20 years or so? For the same reason the US has; LO offers survivability.

To make my point. Are you aware the F-22 has been operating over the skies of Syria in support of Coalition operations against ISIS? Now you might ask for why? Surely ISIS has no air force to speak of and have limited anti-aircraft weaponry. So then why have some of the most advanced American warplanes operating there? The presence of the Raptors is not to counter any threat that ISIS might pose to Coalition aircraft but rather to ensure Coalition airpower is protected against threats posed by the Syrian military and those of the Russians. Presently Syria operates advanced Russian-built missile systems designed to kill the previous generation of Western tactical aircraft (types like the F-16 or F-18). Further after the shootdown of a Russian fighter that crossed into Turkish airspace last summer Russia deployed more of these systems themselves. Thus that leaves the F-22 the only effective countermeasure that can deal with threat should Syria or Russia decide to attack Coalition aircraft.

The same goes for LO warships. As you know modern naval combat involves engaging well over the horizon using primarily radar guided missiles. Thus having radar signation reduction measure on one's ship helps to degrade the means that would likely be used to kill you improves survivability.

Quote

We also have to ask ourselves what we lose for this advantage in reduced radar cross section?  In the case of the F-35, we lose the ability to carry lots of stores.  We lose the ability to mount new sensors on the plane.  We lose the ability to provide VDL to local ground forces.  We lose a lot of stuff!  The F-22 gives us a super-maneuverable and capable air superiority fighter, so the stealth makes sense.  The F-35 gives us a helmet mounted targeting system that doesn't work.

Hanging all the stores in the world on external pylons are useless if your non-LO plane will not survive attempting to penetrate an adversaries air defenses on with capabilities on par with systems I previously mentioned being used in Syria by Syrian and Russian forces. That is why the F-35 was developed. The previous generation of warplanes are quickly becoming tactically anacronistic. While you might lose the ability to mount external store at least a force of F-35 will be able to survive to make it to their objectives, destroy them, and exit safely in such contested environment.

[Jonfliesgoats]

@Exploro

Thanks for your articulate and well presented response!  Let me address your points by topic, and please feel free to tear up my assertions.

[Jonfliesgoats]

@Exploro

Here's my response.  I am at the end of a long workday, so pardon my long post.  Fatigue and editing don't go well together.  Also, I look forward to your response.  I thank you ahead of time for engaging me on this.

 

Stealth and LO:

Yes, I am keenly aware of the F-22's presence over Syria, also in defense of Baltic airspace and in the Western Pacific.

First, I make no assertion that these technologies are not being refined.  As you point out, advances in geometry from over the last few decades are evidence of continued improvement here.  With regard to LO as a fad or requirement for penetrating counter-air, I stand by my statements.

A detectable airplane is detectable.  Perhaps fire control radars can't engage the aircraft, but visual or passive systems can.  There are still guns, and they are still dangerous.  There are lots of dumb fighters, like the J7 which can ruin a pilot's day if they get close enough.  Also things like the element of surprise are lost, etc.  When we get really mean, we need to make sure we don't burn our targets.  Detection burns targets.  However, we are really simplifying the concept of signal to noise ratio and how that plays out in air defense.

A LO airplane is detectable and attackable, but reduced detectability can be thought of as a way to reduce effective ranges of active detection rather than making an airplane invisible.  We certainly get something in survivability in stealth aircraft.  This is why I favor restarting the F-22 line, as is currently being discussed.

In the case of the F-35, what we lose in lethality is not made up for in survivability.  The  F-22 is the platform for penetrating counter air.  It is designed for air dominance, maneuverable, networkable, etc.  The F-35, with reduced stores, reduced fuel, less performance and less interchangeability of sensors delivers a moderately surviveable airplane that can't really do much of anything useful.  

So my assertion is not that stealth and LO is worthless.  My assertion is that we are employing it poorly.  A stealthy F-22 is brilliant.  A stealth B-21 or B-2 is brilliant!  A stealthy F-35 is going to suck at CAS, and JTACs already don't like it in exercises.  A stealthy surface ship, like a frigate is worthy of cartoons.  

 

Stealth and LO as a fad:

Saying that rivals investing in LO is a validation of technology is both unnecessary and double-edged.  As I clarify above, I am not asserting that stealth is useless.  I am asserting that we employ it on systems poorly.  Europe decided to go with the Eurofighter.  They did not see much benefit in LO despite having Russia's PAK FA being developed nearby.

Also, Russia developed VTOL fighters and swing-wing Mig 23s.  Does that mean the weight spent on those systems was worth it?  When the Americans were investing in project stargate, the Russians ran experiments to test the extra-sensory perception of cats.  Is that a validation of ESP?  

 

Penetrating Counter-Air, Penetrating SEAD and survivablity:

You make an excellent point! F-22s, SEAD and EW drones, B-21, B-2 are for this.  The F-35 being marginally survivable against modern a2/ad with just a few stores means LOTS of sorties into contested environements.  Having more pilots flying more sorties in worse airplane in more hostile environments saves our lives and projects force how?

 

Another dumb dad:

Helmet mounted targeting

 

A proposal:

Top notch, manned penetrating counter air supported by vast quantities of drones (perhaps from arsenal planes?) for SEAD, EW, networking.  4th generation platforms backfill and provide CAS as environments  contested.  

LO on ships:

Most engagements are BVR, true.  However flash-points like the straits of Hormuz put fleet assets close enough to active sensors to make LO boats silly.  In the W. Pacific, I will concede that LO boats mean search radars have to broadcast more RF, and may get rid of any red range advantage.

Finally, we miss the role of crew training.  A well trained crew, squadron, wing, etc. will be lethal regardless of equipment.

[Jonfliesgoats]

Our paradigms may be outdated too.  The air dominance effort we disucuss is certainly improtant.  At least some people are considering asymmetric warfare and challenges to air superiority.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a583530.pdf

[WinkAllKerb'']

On 30/12/2016 at 3:36 PM, Jonfliesgoats said:

passionate discussion can yield

the same loop again

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feeling_of_Power

might be the nuance between semantic, form and background ... innovative not that sure personnaly and metaphorically

some can add tech over tech over tech in the "form" like make up in front of the miror in the bathroom, the background remain exactly the same 2cp ...

 

closest synonym, escalation, because escalation

Edited January 3, 2017 by WinkAllKerb''

[Jonfliesgoats]

@WinkAllKerb''

i haven't thought about that story since high School!  It is actually really appropriate.  Great reference!

[KerikBalm]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet

Unit cost in 2016: 98 million

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

Unit cost of the A version in 2016: 98 million low rate production, expected to fall to 85 million in 2018

The main problems here are the inefficiencies of a bloated, for profit, military-industrial complex. The F-18 is not that good of a fighter, and is inferior to the Russian SU-27 derivatives.

The F-15 is a much better platform... but the navy cant use it, the marines cant use it, allied navies can't use it. Also while upgraded derivative prototypes were made (canards, thrust vectoring, much like the SU-35), they were abandoned.

The concept of one fighter for all the services may be flawed here - but 2 out of 3 has worked in the past, such as the F-4 phantom. They could have done a navalized F-22 : sure the F-22 looks hideously expensive, but when you see that old jet fighters that cost <30 million when they were made would be nearly 100 million when made today, the F-22 doesn't look so expensive anymore... just double the cost. Th F-15 has a perfect A2A combat record, but in mock combat, F-22s obtained obscene kill ratios against them - they are worth twice the cost. They could make a navalized variant of it as well.

The clear winner here are allied navies that operate STOVL carriers, and the USMC. The F-35B is a major upgrade to the old Harrier.

[Jonfliesgoats]

Good points.  Like it or not, this airplane is already a central part of Western navies.  Like other platforms it seems these planes get shoved down the customer's(JTAC, pilot, GFC, etc) throats whether they want them or not.

[YNM]

I genuinely have no idea about the whole fighter talks, but IMHO miniaturization shall help a lot. There's a reasong why radio antennas needs to be very long, and small things aren't going to interfere with them.

Maybe in the future we'll have some tiny drones causing menace in the airbase's office (or controller) instead of some bombing of the airfields itself. Or is it ?

 

[DDE]

On ‎26‎.‎12‎.‎2016 at 9:54 AM, Rakaydos said:

It's about time to start planning the NEXT next gen fighter, anyway.

Done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-XX_Program

Edited January 7, 2017 by DDE

[Jonfliesgoats]

I like the push to use existing tech to prevent another thirty year procurement program.  Forces being what they are, we'll see if the F-X project mushrooms into another turducken of lost opportunity.

Miniaturization will be huge.  Networked drones the size of birds rather than planes will likely become part of our air dominance plan.