F-35 Video

[Jonfliesgoats]

 

[Nibb31]

Just imagine the number of Sopwith Camels you could buy for the cost a single F-35 !

[UnusualAttitude]

And just imagine how many pairs of boots you could put on Mars for the cost of the F-35 program. Looking at military budgets really puts things into perspective... 

[kerbiloid]

If tie the Sopwith Camels with ropes, no F-35 could fly through the net.

[mikegarrison]

The most embarrassing thing about the F-35 is how the Chinese managed to "borrow" a bunch of the design features and make their own version cheaper and more quickly. And possibly better.

[Dman979]

2 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

 And possibly better.

"Possibly" because they haven't had to fight each other, and hopefully they never will.

[Jonfliesgoats]

Just to add a little gasoline to this thread:

http://www.rand.org/blog/2013/12/do-joint-fighter-programs-save-money.html

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9759.html

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9858z3.html

Personally, I am it much of a multi-role aircraft fan, and multi-role aircraft have had mixed results, historically.  

More importantly, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, y'all!

 

[Jonfliesgoats]

Agreed.  However, the F-35 is supposed to be the cheap, capable partner in Air Dominance to the F-22.  The F-35, being neither cheap nor capable, fails to fill its role.  Restarting the F-22 line, currently being considered, along with lots of sustainable, older gen aircraft may give us literally more bang for our defense buck.  500 F-22s with 1100 Eurofighters (built under liscence in the US) would be a very capable mix.

On 12/24/2016 at 3:05 AM, Nibb31 said:

Just imagine the number of Sopwith Camels you could buy for the cost a single F-35 !

 

Edited December 25, 2016 by Jonfliesgoats

[Thor Wotansen]

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.

[Rakaydos]

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

[Nibb31]

3 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

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

There's barely a need for fighters at all at this point. The next gen will probably be drones.

[Rakaydos]

5 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

There's barely a need for fighters at all at this point. The next gen will probably be drones.

Air superiority drone, then. Same thing, minus pilot.

[Darnok]

In some cases numbers does matter... during WWII Germans had superior technology, but Soviets had numbers and medicore technology.

[Darnok]

On 26.12.2016 at 11:29 AM, Nibb31 said:

There's barely a need for fighters at all at this point. The next gen will probably be drones.

Drones or not, any flying craft is going to have trouble during laser war age, because it is super easy and super light armored target.

[TheDestroyer111]

1 hour ago, Darnok said:

In some cases numbers does matter... during WWII Germans had superior technology, but Soviets had numbers and medicore technology.

In War Thunder (a WWII MMO flight/tank sim), many Tiger tank users say that the T-34 is the most annoying vehicle in the game - sure, it has inferior armour and armament, but it's quite fast, and eventually a Tiger will attract a lot of attention and get overrun.

and btw the f-35 is not actually invisible to visible light (no matter whether it is the 10 dollar model or the actual plane), it's only invisible for radar (and the 10 dollar model is visible in all wavelengths)

Edited December 27, 2016 by TheDestroyer111

[LN400]

1 hour ago, TheDestroyer111 said:

and btw the f-35 is [...] only invisible for radar (and the 10 dollar model is visible in all wavelengths)

No aircraft, including the f-35, is invisible to radar. It is harder to lock on to and spot at range but not impossible to spot or lock on to. Low visiblility is different from invisibility and invisibility is all in the realm of sci fi fantasies.

[Nibb31]

I have the feeling that in the real world, US stealth technology is overrated. All jet engines blow hot air. If you look at the latest Russian fighter jets, they are all equipped with a big IR sensor pod in front of the cockpit.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-china-russia-plan-crush-americas-stealth-aircraft-13708

[Rakaydos]

2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

I have the feeling that in the real world, US stealth technology is overrated. All jet engines blow hot air. If you look at the latest Russian fighter jets, they are all equipped with a big IR sensor pod in front of the cockpit.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-china-russia-plan-crush-americas-stealth-aircraft-13708

I get the feeling it's more a stratigic shoice than a tactical one. You dont have coast-crossing IR scanners looking for aircraft 24/7, like you do radar. And those heat-sensing fighters arnt doing anything if their pilots are still having a beer. So like a submarie, a stealth aircraft can sneak in and take out air defenses before the war actually starts.

[Nibb31]

2 hours ago, Rakaydos said:

I get the feeling it's more a stratigic shoice than a tactical one. You dont have coast-crossing IR scanners looking for aircraft 24/7, like you do radar. And those heat-sensing fighters arnt doing anything if their pilots are still having a beer. So like a submarie, a stealth aircraft can sneak in and take out air defenses before the war actually starts.

Wars don't typically come out of the blue, especially nowadays. It takes months of escalations, UN talks, congressional approvals, and military muscle flexing, before a POTUS orders actual air strikes. You might not know exactly where or when, but when the F-35s are heading your way, you generally know that they're coming.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Nibb31

[Jonfliesgoats]

Lots of good ideas worth discussing!  Rather than quote them all here, let me address some general topics.  I encourage you to point out my errors in ego, analysis, etc.  As usual, I enjoy all of your contributions.

 

Manned v. Unmanned fighters:

Manned systems have inherent advantages and inherent weaknesses in comparison to unmanned systems.  For example UCAVs can maneuver more aggressively and be sacrificed in aggressive SEAD efforts.  UCAVs are only as smart as their data-link or whatever algorithm they use for autonomous operations.  UCAVs can only see what their sensors can detect, and any sensor regardless of how advanced can be spoofed.  Human platforms can innovate, especially if you give your pilots, systems operators and commanders lots of training and war gaming.  (Tangent: check out this story of military war gaming and politics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002)  In other words UCAVs can execute better while manned assets can innovate and adapt better.

Because of this, it is unliely we will see the end of maneuverable manned fighters within the next fifty years.  What we may see is a paradigm shift to integration of unmanned UCAVs flying with manned fighters.  Perhaps a lone fighter would be the manned, local C2 of a small strike package?  UAVs also can move take some AEW capabilities to support large, four engine airplanes.  AEW and C2 is the lynch pin of air superiority.  RAND has identified these large, four engine aircraft as a weak point for a defense of airspace over Taiwan or Japan. 

I think I'm awesome and you should too!  When it comes to fighters, I am out of my element, however.  My background is in airlift, certain other projects and some testing and development.  Perhaps someone less obnoxious and with more insight can offer their ideas about the future of air combat?

 

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.

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.

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.  

Stealth is a great technology that can become part of a great, specialized platform.  A stealthy multi-role aircraft?  I don't know.

 

Multi-Role Platforms:

A Jack of all trades is a master of none.  Does this mean there is no role for multi-role aircraft?  I think some careful attention needs to be payed to performance and cost trade-offs.  Getting this calculus right gives us great successes while getting it wrong gives us costly and dangerous lemons.  The AV-8 Harrier really doesn't do much of anything well.  VTOL was and is really expensive in terms of reduced fuel and stores.  The F-16, however doesn't do CAS as well as the A-10, but it does it well enough.   The F-16 doesn't do air superiority as well as the F-15, but it does well enough.  The V-22 eats maintenance hours to deliver less crap at higher cost than the helicopters and planes it is designed to replace.  It also can't fly in dust for more than a fraction of a minute.  The C-130 can serve as a tanker, electronic warfare platform, awesome CAS platform, etc.

Of course, if you are the guy to say the newest super-project is a lemon, prepare to watch your career and future in private defense go up in smoke.  So human factors and the way we promote actually has a lot to do with why we often field sub-par gear.  Luckily all other nations are equally dysfunctional.  

 

Wars out of the Blue:

You would be amazed!  We shift our political and military administrative inertia in a direction, and it takes a significant crisis to get us to shift back again.  In Korea, MacArthur had lots of intelligence regarding the massing of 300000 Chinese troops north of the Yalu River.  Why was this intelligence ignored?  Well, personalities prevented observation and adaptation from occurring, but that is a matter for historians.  The result was strategic suprise.

More recently, a rebellion developed in Libya that caught NATO flat-footed.  We had been warming relations with the Qaddafi regime after he surrendered his chemical weapons stockpiles in the wake of 9/11.  Also, our attention was elsewhere during the Arab Spring.  NATO was perpetually two steps behind developments on the ground for the first few weeks of those events.  We didn't get our act together fast enough. 

With the forces Russia has massed near its western frontier, it can roll over NATO forces through the Baltics before we even decide how we want to respond.  We know this, and it keeps Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians and Germans up at night. 

Big organizations can't walk and chew gum at the same time.  I have faith in NATO's and America's ability to recover after letting things devolve terribly.  I don't believe we are very good at all in detecting the next crisis or identifying and acting on fleeting opportunities.  We are slow until crisis lubricates our joints.  After that, we get really mean.

Finally, I know we like to say that we don't know how many crises have been averted because we did see problems coming.  To be sure this happens too, just not often enough.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by Jonfliesgoats

[YNM]

I suppose most modern fighters in one way or the other have to diffuse their exhaust to reduce IR signature.

But, most offensive moves today...

... are done by some officer (or some random guy) sitting mile(s) away from (battle)ground.

Edited December 28, 2016 by YNM

[Jonfliesgoats]

Drones like the MQ-9 integrate with manned reconnaissance systems, like the MC-12 to compliment each other's strengths and limitations in the field.  This is why I wonder if a similar synergy can occur with air superiority.

[Codraroll]

I've been thinking about this for a while, maybe this is the thread to bring it up...

Would it be possible to create a drone that is cheaper to launch than it is to shoot down? Something built out of bamboo and canvas like a WWI warplane, guided by a smartphone or something similar, launched from aircraft or by the aid of balloons, and with limited aerial reconnoisance abilities or some very simple ordnance? Just a piece of scrap built for one single mission, incapable of landing or returning to base, but with a payload that would be a nuisance to enemies if it wasn't shot down, and capable of flying high enough that you'd need a missile or an interceptor to shoot it down.

In a sense, a slow, dirt-cheap missile with some loiter/recon capability, a simple guidance system and a small warhead, which could be churned out by the thousands and launched in wave after wave into enemy skies. The first few waves would be ignored, until they started falling down directly on top of field command centres, artillery guns, anti-air radars, aircraft hangars or other lightly protected, high-value targets. The next few waves would be shot down. Then the requests for more AA missiles would come flying in from all over the front, as much as the storages hold or the factories could produce. Then more cheap drones, and more, and more, taking their pictures and dropping their ordnance, flying straight into dangerous territory without fearing for their safety, or for that matter, caring at all about anything. Left to their own devices, they would pester the enemy. Shot down, they would still inflict losses, as missiles and flight hours don't come cheap. Canvas, wood, simple engines and rudimentary computers do, by comparison.

[Jonfliesgoats]

That's a fantstic question Cordraroll!  In fact, I think it should have its own thread!!!  

There is a tug of war between cheap drones and cheap drone-stoppers happening in Ukraine right now.  Cheap drones sent to Ukraine are having their data links broken, renderining them useless.  Check out this Russian propaganda that holds some grains of truth:

http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread.php?239305-Video-Junk-US-Military-Drone-Technology-Abandoned-and-Thown-back-by-3rd-World-Pui!

http://www.unian.info/war/1691672-us-supplied-drones-disappoint-ukraine-at-donbas-front-lines.html

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by Jonfliesgoats

[Jonfliesgoats]

So can a drone be made that is cheaper than th technology required to shoot it down or disable it?

Bullets are cheap, so anything that flies below about 1000 feet, which is the effective altitude of small arms would have to be less expensive than the number of bullets it takes to boot it down, say 30 7.62mm rounds.  Initially this seems dubious, but cheap cameras and cheap quadcopters are already moving in this direction.  The bigger issue is production rate.  I don't see a person being able to carry more mini drones than bullets in the near future.   Still, imagine a future in which every single soldier has four small drones to see around corners, over walls, etc.  Swarms of camera drones feeding information into facial recognition software could be hugely valuable, especially in areas without much CCTV coverage.

At higher altitudes, we move away from small arms to AAA and missiles.  This is where your idea becomes really interesting.  When you start trying to engage an aircraft more than a few thousand feed above you, things get costly either for missiles or in risk to shooters.  A DshK is cheap to shoot, but is noticeable enough to get anyone associated with it killed, for example.  We already live in a world where it is less expensive to build and fly some drones, especially those that fly above 20000 feet than field the weapons to shoot them down.

Electronic warfare significantly alters these equations.  Jamming and signals interference can be done without much cost.  Worse, unencrypted data can be used against us, as happened in Iraq with VDL feeds (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB126102247889095011 ).  The drones can actually tell bed guys where we are lookning rather than show us where bad guys are hiding.  How much support does it take to maintain a drone reconnaissance program in the face of active jamming or, worse, passive monitoring of feeds?  I don't know.

Gustav Carl Von Rosen used teeny, cheap airplanes to destroy the only night fighter in Nigeria during the Biafra war.  He preserved the airlift that was keeping food and munitions coming to the Biafrans.  During the Battle of Britain, the U.K. produced more fighters than the Germans could shoot down (pilots were another matter).  So producing more aircraft and at lower cost than the munitions and systems to shoot them down is not a new concept.  China bases its Air Force around this idea.

These same economic factors apply to drones.  

Edited December 30, 2016 by Jonfliesgoats