F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that once upon a deluded time they said that 'the bomber will always get through', which was of course nonsense, but cheered and scared in equal measure depending on whose bombers you were thinking about.
I have similar feelings about the 'cruise missile will always get through' school of thought. I don't buy it for a second. Some might, but to which locations? The heavily defended ones? Which tend (uncannily) to be where the baddies put their valuable stuff - I doubt it. Sure they did in previous conflicts and sure they will have a role to play in the future. But against high capability IADS I think that whilst they do have utility their day - of impervious attack of the high value list - might have been and gone.
Others will, naturally, disagree.
I have similar feelings about the 'cruise missile will always get through' school of thought. I don't buy it for a second. Some might, but to which locations? The heavily defended ones? Which tend (uncannily) to be where the baddies put their valuable stuff - I doubt it. Sure they did in previous conflicts and sure they will have a role to play in the future. But against high capability IADS I think that whilst they do have utility their day - of impervious attack of the high value list - might have been and gone.
Others will, naturally, disagree.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by t43562
Is it possible to make stealthy cruise missiles?
-RP
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by busdriver2
I don't agree with your assessment, but what makes you think the cruise missiles will fair any better?
I fail to see why you think 2 AWACs would somehow close the airspace over Korea. If that were the case, the whole DMZ problem would have been solved years ago. Detecting the pretense of an LO platform is a very different animal from being able to engage it.
N.Korea aside, if Chinese lay their hands on such a radar however (providing they haven't already) you're most likely back to square one, but with only half or less of the total TAC inventory compared to legacy fleet and since you'll probably end up shooting cruise missiles anyway, does the LO requirement justify the cost difference and what's the bottom line in comparable fleets' efficiency?
Don't get me wrong, I'm all about the progress.
It's just that I don't see it coming with F35 as it has been advertised.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think having enough cruise missiles on hand to saturate a modern IADS is more expensive than you think. Regardless, even with LO aircraft, the future will still include cruise missiles. It's not really an either or thing; same deal for tailless UAVs. They'll come on line and get integrated into a bigger pie.
AN/TPY-2,
Touche, my brain automatically saw and typed apy vs tpy into google. The THAAD radar may be a really long range X band radar but that doesn't mean nothing gets in either.
AN/TPY-2,
Touche, my brain automatically saw and typed apy vs tpy into google. The THAAD radar may be a really long range X band radar but that doesn't mean nothing gets in either.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by LowObservable
The site you link to is the work of a perpetually cranky individual who has a tendency to mangle data.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are these swarms of LO cruise missiles with embedded EW of some kind going to be air launched? If so then wouldn't it be best to strap them to LO aircraft which could be used on the other days of the war when those parts of the IADS that survived the opening salvo were still around?
Even if you dispute the need for LO aircraft one assumes most on this forum would support a Gen 4 delivery device - which would have to be kept in service alongside the LO CM stockpile. Sounds expensive.
I wonder what plan B would be in these situations?
'LO CMs haven't brought the diplomatic response we were hoping for Sir and whilst we have degraded the IADS we haven't rolled it back to the extent that Gen 4 can cope with.'
'In that case my boy, send in Gen 5!'
'We didn't buy any of those Sir, we thought a Gen 4, drone mix plus CMs would crack it'
'Awesome, let's go home.'
Even if you dispute the need for LO aircraft one assumes most on this forum would support a Gen 4 delivery device - which would have to be kept in service alongside the LO CM stockpile. Sounds expensive.
I wonder what plan B would be in these situations?
'LO CMs haven't brought the diplomatic response we were hoping for Sir and whilst we have degraded the IADS we haven't rolled it back to the extent that Gen 4 can cope with.'
'In that case my boy, send in Gen 5!'
'We didn't buy any of those Sir, we thought a Gen 4, drone mix plus CMs would crack it'
'Awesome, let's go home.'
There's nothing quite as stealthy as a target that is on the other side of 50 million tons of rock. (Universally available and cheap terrain data, and computer processing/memory improvements, have done wonders for the flexibility of terrain/imagery referenced navigation.) And quite simple LO measures like a flat top and inlets concealed under the wings and body can give the best AEW&C a hard time, when target is deep into the terrain clutter.
There's not a lot of good, active defense. although the Russians and Chinese both use gun/missile Shorads to protect relocatables. The best bet is to rely less on fixed facilities, the counter to which is adding more smarts (even a datalink) to the missile.
On the other hand - if you're going in to stooge around in your 5genTM Wunderwaffe, looking for S-400s and TELs inside the red bubble, you need to make sure that your signature allows you to do that. X-band dominated bowtie may cut it. It may not. Don't want to find out which, the wrong way.
TPY-2 is a very powerful X-band radar that looks up in the sky for inbound ballistic missiles. over a fixed sector. Not a lot of good for air defense.
There's not a lot of good, active defense. although the Russians and Chinese both use gun/missile Shorads to protect relocatables. The best bet is to rely less on fixed facilities, the counter to which is adding more smarts (even a datalink) to the missile.
On the other hand - if you're going in to stooge around in your 5genTM Wunderwaffe, looking for S-400s and TELs inside the red bubble, you need to make sure that your signature allows you to do that. X-band dominated bowtie may cut it. It may not. Don't want to find out which, the wrong way.
TPY-2 is a very powerful X-band radar that looks up in the sky for inbound ballistic missiles. over a fixed sector. Not a lot of good for air defense.
@MC
As I don't, the rest of your petulance is ignored.
It doesn't require cynicism to see what the JSF impact on acquisition was while I was still on active duty. It had impact on programs and projects I was directly involved with. I got to do some small amount of work on the Joint decisions regarding bases for initial f-35 training, but I'd rather not resurrect that painful period in my life. The program has lumbered along and the bird is up in the air ... progress is being made. What hasn't changed is how JSF acts as the 800 pound gorilla in the acquisition of weapons systems. Why? Because it costs a lot?
Is it worth it? We don't know, yet. (I hope it is, for a lot of reasons).
Similar impacts arose with, for example, F-18 E/F and some of the USn submarine programs. Bit ticket items do things to finite (even if quite large in absolute terms) defense budgets.
The F-18 has over time shown to be a good platform. It received a non-trivial amount of criticism during its development and its early years in IOC. It is no surprise to anyone who has been around a while to see JSF getting its share of criticism ... it comes with the badge and the winning of the award ... over a decade ago.
So, what do you get for your money in the F-35?
We don't know yet.
What we do know is that it is expensive.
If you view the F-35 through a cynical and hateful lens of doom
It doesn't require cynicism to see what the JSF impact on acquisition was while I was still on active duty. It had impact on programs and projects I was directly involved with. I got to do some small amount of work on the Joint decisions regarding bases for initial f-35 training, but I'd rather not resurrect that painful period in my life. The program has lumbered along and the bird is up in the air ... progress is being made. What hasn't changed is how JSF acts as the 800 pound gorilla in the acquisition of weapons systems. Why? Because it costs a lot?
Is it worth it? We don't know, yet. (I hope it is, for a lot of reasons).
Similar impacts arose with, for example, F-18 E/F and some of the USn submarine programs. Bit ticket items do things to finite (even if quite large in absolute terms) defense budgets.
The F-18 has over time shown to be a good platform. It received a non-trivial amount of criticism during its development and its early years in IOC. It is no surprise to anyone who has been around a while to see JSF getting its share of criticism ... it comes with the badge and the winning of the award ... over a decade ago.
So, what do you get for your money in the F-35?
We don't know yet.
What we do know is that it is expensive.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 9th Mar 2015 at 17:16.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Besides the F35 being as agreed expensive, as the IOC is so delayed, nations who bought into the cheap to purchase and cheap to operate 5th generation fighter / attack plane, are having to fund the continuing high costs of their long in the tooth 4th generation fleets.
A combination of the above and the recent financial uncertainty of most of the world would suggest that the resources are not necessarily there to purchase the planned number of planes. Or am I missing the plot?
A combination of the above and the recent financial uncertainty of most of the world would suggest that the resources are not necessarily there to purchase the planned number of planes. Or am I missing the plot?
Phil, I think that major theme is directly linked to the first post in this thread. 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 52
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting DoT&E report ;
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/...2014f35jsf.pdf
summary;
Not Ready for Prime Time
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/...2014f35jsf.pdf
summary;
Not Ready for Prime Time
DOT&E Report: The F-35 Is Not Ready for IOC and Won't Be Any Time Soon
Cooking the Numbers
Testing Being Deferred, Not Completed
Significant Safety Risks Are Still Unresolved
Wing Drop Concerns
Engine Problems Continue to Hold the F-35 Program Back
Dangerous Helmet Failures
Initial Combat Capabilities for the Marien Corps Variant Will Be Even More Limited Than Planned
ALIS Software Failures
Software Snarls Jeopardize Combat Suitability
Hiding Today's Failings While Building a Huge Future Cost "Bow Wave"
A Maintenance Nightmare
Conclusion: Exquisitely Limited Capability
Cooking the Numbers
Testing Being Deferred, Not Completed
Significant Safety Risks Are Still Unresolved
Wing Drop Concerns
Engine Problems Continue to Hold the F-35 Program Back
Dangerous Helmet Failures
Initial Combat Capabilities for the Marien Corps Variant Will Be Even More Limited Than Planned
ALIS Software Failures
Software Snarls Jeopardize Combat Suitability
Hiding Today's Failings While Building a Huge Future Cost "Bow Wave"
A Maintenance Nightmare
Conclusion: Exquisitely Limited Capability
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
And in this I call massive bull****. This is a fundamental area of data integration in many layers of sensor integration; it's incredibly complex in even ground based supercomputer based systems. The fact they've called in outside experts, outside the base software team, shows they're panicking....
F-35 Software Challenge Won't Delay IOC
WASHINGTON — The F-35B joint strike fighter remains on track to go operational for the Marine Corps this year, despite a recently discovered software fusion problem that manifests itself when multiple F-35 sensor suites attempt to communicate.
Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, the head of the F-35 Joint Program Office, said the problem with the targeting software is being worked by a team of experts from inside and outside the Pentagon, and expressed confidence the issue would be solved relatively shortly. He also notedthe Marines are aware of the issue and have decided it is not anything that should prevent them from reaching initial operating capability (IOC) with the 2B software package.
The software issue highlighted by Bogdan involves the sensor fusion that occurs between F-35 jets. The fighter is designed to gather information through its sensor suites and share it with other F-35s in the area, with up to four jets gathering situational awareness data and creating a joint operational picture for the pilots.
In most cases, Bogdan told reporters Tuesday, the software fusion worked well. But in the most extreme cases, with multiple air and ground threats affecting a set of four F-35s, "we found out that the fusion model sometimes, not all the time, sometimes creates an inaccurate picture for the pilot," he said. "If there is a single ground threat, a surface-to-air missile [battery] on the range, and I have four F-35s all with their sensors on and operating flying into that airspace to see that one threat, what we want to have happen is we want, no matter which airplane is picking up the threat, from whatever angles and sensors, to correctly identify that single threat and then pass that information [to] all four airplanes, so all four pilots are looking at the same threat in the same place at the same time," Bogdan explained.
But during testing, operators found the F-35 system had trouble identifying if the target was one target or multiple, something Bogdan said was a result of each plane looking at the target from a slightly different angle or using different sensors. In response, Bogdan's team has began work to fix the issue, including bringing in outside software fusion experts and having them consult with Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor on the F-35.
In the meantime, the Marines are able to operate the jet by changes in the concept of operations used in flights. Although Bogdan was unwilling to go into operational details, he noted one potential workaround could involve breaking up the four-ship F-35s in favor of two two-ship pairings.......
F-35 Software Challenge Won't Delay IOC
WASHINGTON — The F-35B joint strike fighter remains on track to go operational for the Marine Corps this year, despite a recently discovered software fusion problem that manifests itself when multiple F-35 sensor suites attempt to communicate.
Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, the head of the F-35 Joint Program Office, said the problem with the targeting software is being worked by a team of experts from inside and outside the Pentagon, and expressed confidence the issue would be solved relatively shortly. He also notedthe Marines are aware of the issue and have decided it is not anything that should prevent them from reaching initial operating capability (IOC) with the 2B software package.
The software issue highlighted by Bogdan involves the sensor fusion that occurs between F-35 jets. The fighter is designed to gather information through its sensor suites and share it with other F-35s in the area, with up to four jets gathering situational awareness data and creating a joint operational picture for the pilots.
In most cases, Bogdan told reporters Tuesday, the software fusion worked well. But in the most extreme cases, with multiple air and ground threats affecting a set of four F-35s, "we found out that the fusion model sometimes, not all the time, sometimes creates an inaccurate picture for the pilot," he said. "If there is a single ground threat, a surface-to-air missile [battery] on the range, and I have four F-35s all with their sensors on and operating flying into that airspace to see that one threat, what we want to have happen is we want, no matter which airplane is picking up the threat, from whatever angles and sensors, to correctly identify that single threat and then pass that information [to] all four airplanes, so all four pilots are looking at the same threat in the same place at the same time," Bogdan explained.
But during testing, operators found the F-35 system had trouble identifying if the target was one target or multiple, something Bogdan said was a result of each plane looking at the target from a slightly different angle or using different sensors. In response, Bogdan's team has began work to fix the issue, including bringing in outside software fusion experts and having them consult with Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor on the F-35.
In the meantime, the Marines are able to operate the jet by changes in the concept of operations used in flights. Although Bogdan was unwilling to go into operational details, he noted one potential workaround could involve breaking up the four-ship F-35s in favor of two two-ship pairings.......
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Perth Western Australia
Age: 57
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting, sounds like a resolution problem in either, or both the spatial and time domain. Hence not able to determine their the same object by the time everyone gets around to talking each other and comparing cards.
an aircraft that is supposed to be "operational" this year.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fusion problems
The reported fusion problems might have something to do with the Marines trying to achieve it on a bare bones hardware and 2B software. All other arms have decided to at least wait until the technical refresh of the systems, which I understand brings much greater processing power, might be helpful in the fusion area.
