Significance of the "Leaked" F-35 vs. F-16 Report ?

[Fonsini]

I have seen the leaked F-35 test pilot report of his dogfight with a standard service configured F-16D Block 40 discussed everywhere from the Huffington Post to Mother's Weekly, but there is only one source I trust for expert opinions - this one.

So, without injecting my own unprofessional thoughts on the significance/insignificance of this encounter I would hope that I can encourage you to pitch in with your take.

For reference, here is what we know in addition to some questionable editorial comments.

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/test-pilot-admits-the-f-35-can-t-dogfight-cdb9d11a875

[a1bill]

an ex-f-16 pilot has an opinion
Why The "F-35 v F-16" Article Is Garbage | Fighter Sweep (http://fightersweep.com/2548/f-35-v-f-16-article-garbage/)
Is the F-35 the worst fighter ever? | Fighter Sweep (http://fightersweep.com/2698/f-35-worst-fighter-ever/)

[Tashengurt]

You're kidding, right?

[Not_a_boffin]

You trust the WIBbler?!!!???

[LowObservable]

Oh my! (Am I infringing copyright?)

Sorry, Fons - you ask a simple question and get two citations, one of which rendered judgment without the inconvenience of reading the leaked report, and a pure ad hominem dismissal.

But basically, if you believed the stories of how the F-35 was better in all respects than anything else (except F-22 in A2A), prepare to be disappointed.

[a1bill]

Perhaps he knows the test pilot or he read the article from last April? LO, You can slag off an ex-F-16 and current FA-18 pilot if you like. But it doesn't have any currency with me. http://aviationweek.com/defense/f-35-flies-against-f-16-basic-fighter-maneuvers

Why would anyone be disappointed with testing and recommending improvements on early Flight Control Laws, LO? I haven't seen anyone credable say that the F-35 isn't second to the F-22 and claim another platform is second in A2A.

As the pilot said. http://fightersweep.com/2574/f-35-vs-f-16-bfm-parting-thoughts/
http://fightersweep.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/11657534_10100794608495029_1468120698_n.jpg


The report is available to read and it is self-evident what is stated.
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2015/06/F-35%20High%20AoA%20Maneuvers.pdf

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
-The F-35 was at a distinct energy disadvantage in a turning fight and operators would quickly learn that it isn't an ideal regime. Pitch rates were too slow to prosecute or deny weapons. Loads remained below limits and implied that there may be more maneuverability available to the airframe.
Rl: Increasing pitch rate and available Nz would provide the pilot more options, especially considering the inherent energy deficit.
-Though the aircraft has proven it is capable of high AOA flight, it wasn't effective for killing or surviving attacks primarily due to lack of energy maneuverability. Perhaps, with a faster AOA onset, there may be some advantages to choosing higher alpha when fighting a bandit.
R2: Consider increasing alpha onset.
-The high AOA blended region was not predictable primarily because it seemed too close to the ideal fighting AOAs and not intuitively "high" to the pilot while he remained focusing on the bandit rather than the displayed AOA.
R3: Consider increasing the beginning of the blended region to 30 degrees or greater.
-Significant anti-spin control authority has been demonstrated on this and other high AOA flights. The effect is abrupt, responsive, and powerful whereas pilot input seems to be sluggish and gradual.
R4: Consider increasing pilot yaw rate control authority.
-HMO and canopy configuration is detrimental to visual lookout. The combination should be evaluated to see if it can be improved. HMO BST FAULTs can prevent weapons employment during maneuvering.
R5: Improve HMO Boresight performance to account for dynamic maneuvers and consider improving rearward visibility by creating more space for helmet motion.

[LowObservable]

The recommendations are all well and good. They may alleviate the effects of the deficiency in energy maneuverability (by making some high-AoA maneuvers use less energy) but they do not reduce or eliminate that deficiency.

I'm aware that Lemoine is a pilot, but his secondary defense of the F-35 - that it will win in BVR without having to maneuver aggressively - is based on no better information than anyone else has, and an apparent faith in secret-squirrel capabilities that he imputes to the F-35 alone.

On the other hand, he appears conflicted:

We have sold out our fighting capability on many levels for the F-35.

[a1bill]

Although it's not clear what he's referring to. Most pilots can't help thinking in 4th gen, as this FA-18 pilot found when he transferred to the f-22.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0

[sandy11]

Very interesting and informative talk.
Certainly makes me much more comfortable when i think about the F-35 now.
Great link, thanks.

[KenV]

A few quotes from David "Chip" Berke (a USMC pilot with F/A-18, F-16, F-22, F-35 and Typhoon experience.)

4th Gen Rule 1: "Speed is life and more is better"

5th Gen Rule 1: "Info is life and more is better"

If you are measuring an airplane by speed and agility, you are misunderstanding the capabilities of an airplane in a 5th Generation fight.

The Raptor has more speed and maneuverability than any other fighter. Yet the LEAST impressive feature of the Raptor is its speed and manueverability. Speed and maneuverability are the LAST thing I am concerned about in a 5th Gen fight.

Innovation takes time and it is painful and expensive, but it is absolutely essential in a 5th Gen fight. And when talking 5th Gen, that means 2020 to 2025, not today. We aren't there yet operationally.

If you are thinking in 4th Gen terms, you are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose. It is not just about the role, it is about the potential.

The F-35 facilitates an entirely new war fighting ecosystem in the same way that the iPhone created an entirely new mobile device ecosystem.

If you think of the iPhone as a phone that happens to play music and access the internet, you are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose. If you think of the F-35 as a fighter that happens to be stealthy and interconnected, you are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose. F-35 must be viewed is a sensor/collaborator/shooter platform.

4th Gen air warfare is about airplane dominance.
5th Gen air warfare is about spectrum dominance. F-35 is an overwhelming advancement in breadth and depth of spectrum.

Stealth means access, not just reduced detection, so that WE dictate access, not the threat

The presence of 5th Gen fighters makes 4th Gen fighters more lethal and survivable.

F-35's innovation is not what it does by itself, but what it contributes beyond the aircraft.

It is critically important to understand what it means to be part of a 5th Gen ecosystem. Equally important is understanding what it means to be excluded from it.

=======
That last line may be why so many nations are buying F-35, even though it's expensive. They understand what it means to be excluded from the 5th Gen fight and really want to be part of that fight.

My personal bottom line summary: You cannot use 4th Gen rules nor a 4th Gen pilot mindset to fight a 5th Gen fight. Do so and you are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose.

May I suggest that we seem to have lots of folks here permanently stuck in a 4th Gen mindset.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0

[Lonewolf_50]

@a1bill:

From the recommendations listed in your post, I gather that some of the performance improvements suggested can be achieved by tuning the FBW system and the associated control rates/gains, rather than a redesign of the airframe?

Am I reading that correctly?

[glad rag]

@a1bill:

From the recommendations listed in your post, I gather that some of the performance improvements suggested can be achieved by tuning the FBW system and the associated control rates/gains, rather than a redesign of the airframe?

Am I reading that correctly?

Yes I thunk that’s the gist of it.

Hopefully correct and not some LM pr misinformation...

[t43562]

Surely the test was done for a reason. Doesn't this make all the "you are old and stuck in your ways" stuff a bit irrelevant? Why bother to test or improve something that doesn't matter?

[KenV]

Hopefully correct and not some LM pr misinformation...

An official test report submitted to the US government and eight other governments may be "LM pr misinformation"? And other parts of the same test report are proof positive that the F-35's maneuverability is "abysmal"? I find that to be an interesting conclusion.

[Bob Viking]

Has anyone else seen an interesting dichotomy between this thread and the T-X thread? Here we are discussing the future mainstay of the USAF FJ fleet and how terrible it is in terms of manoeuvrability. On the other thread we are discussing how the USAF has asked for a training aircraft that can sustain 6.5G at 15000' (in a descent).

If the F35 is as terrible as we are led to believe why do they need a trainer to do any more than about 3G?!

Rather than just sh1t stirring without offering my own thoughts, here they are. I don't think a 5th gen fighter needs to be the bees knees in a dogfight but it wouldn't do any harm to have that ability up your sleeve should you need it.

I do not think the F35 is the white elephant everyone wants to believe it is. Once it has achieved maturity and we actually get to see more of what it is really capable of, we will probably all be talking about what an awesome machine it is.

As always though, I could be wrong. It has been known. Very rarely.

BV:ok:

PS. I would still prefer that we had bought the F35C but that is water under the bridge now.

[KenV]

Surely the test was done for a reason.I'm very confident that the test was done to improve the F-35.

Doesn't this make all the "you are old and stuck in your ways" stuff a bit irrelevant?That depends. If all you are arguing about is maneuverability and ignoring everythine else, then I believe all that "you are old and stuck in your ways" stuff is highly relevant.

Why bother to test or improve something that doesn't matter? It most certainly matters, that's why its being tested so it can be improved. But the point is (and apparently missed) that maneuverability must be viewed from an entirely different perspective. One cannot look at any one component and declare "abysmal failure!" as has been done repeatedly. The paradigm has shifted and requires new thinking. According to Berke, old thinking means you are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose.

[Fonsini]

This inevitably makes me wonder what type of noises will be coming out of the UK once their squadron F-35 pilots start to engage in exercises with the squadron Typhoon pilots.

That should prove interesting.

[Wee Weasley Welshman]

That's a tremendous video link.


WWW

[glad rag]

This inevitably makes me wonder what type of noises will be coming out of the UK once their squadron F-35 pilots start to engage in exercises with the squadron Typhoon pilots.

That should prove interesting.

****'*** Pirate, one would imagine...

[LowObservable]

Asserting that concern over apparently inferior energy maneuverability is old hat is just that - assertion. It's a pretty radical claim, and can't be made real with verbiage about iPhones and information dominance. Indeed, if it's true, then the YF-23 should have been chosen over the YF-22, the JSF should have been made a tailless delta, and we should actually be building a fighter that looks like an X-47.

It's funny, however, that the "maneuvering is irrelevant" line only popped out in public in 2008, after the F-35A had packed on an extra 2700 pounds of ugly surplus fat in its early development stage.

[Tourist]

LO

I'm going to choose, for now, to believe the assertions of the Marine with the stellar CV rather than the naysayers with less stellar cvs.....

[LowObservable]

Goodonya mate. It's your choice.

PS, who was right back in 09 or whatever, when LM and the JPO and the rest said that the project was abso-diddley-utely on schedule and cost?

[a1bill]

Everyone should go easy for a week or so, there may be hurt feelings. Now that the plane that we all were told that was going to be cancelled on a weekly basis, is IOC.


If a F-35 pilot finds himself in a one on one dogfight. He has made so many mistakes to get there, he deserves to die.
But a 1 VS 1, guns only, turning dogfight would be better with the F-35C.

[t43562]

Doesn't this make all the "you are old and stuck in your ways" stuff a bit irrelevant? That depends. If all you are arguing about is maneuverability and ignoring everythine else, then I believe all that "you are old and stuck in your ways" stuff is highly relevant.Isn't this a bit of a strawman argument though. I don't have any experience to claim but I do read a lot that it's energy that matters (hence the disinterest in adding thrust vectoring to Typhoon). Presumably about how much is lost in the kinds of manoeuvres that you do need to do.


Why bother to test or improve something that doesn't matter? It most certainly matters, that's why its being tested so it can be improved. But the point is (and apparently missed) that maneuverability must be viewed from an entirely different perspective. One cannot look at any one component and declare "abysmal failure!" as has been done repeatedly. The paradigm has shifted and requires new thinking. According to Berke, old thinking means you are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose.
"Failure" would be quite a bad thing even if you take away "Abysmal", surely?

I think it might be worth noting that iPhones were far faster and more powerful in general than other phones of the era BTW. Much higher performance, not less.

[Tourist]

LO

I never saw a video of the that Marine saying all was right in the program at that time.

I distrust LM as much as the rest of you. It is knowledgable operators I trust.

t43562

iPhone certainly has some metrics you could use to make it seem bad in comparison to older generation phones. At the time, "faster" was not even a metric associated with phones. Phones made calls. What had speed got to do with it? It is only in hindsight that we realised what faster even was.

Battery Life?

If he is right about the revolution in Gen 5, then iPhone may indeed be a very clever analogy.

[t43562]

Battery Life?

If he is right about the revolution in Gen 5, then iPhone may indeed be a very clever analogy.

I can't really see why other aircraft can't acquire information too, however. e.g. the Gripen.

[NITRO104]

If a F-35 pilot finds himself in a one on one dogfight. He has made so many mistakes to get there, he deserves to die.
REALLY??
The pilot **deserves** to die because he got caught in a WVR fight?
What is a pilot? A convicted criminal?
What if he is forced to fight defensively (escort eg.), or the time to respond is very short, or the A.O. is very small, or...?
What if he tries to disengage (even from BVR), but the problematic S.E.P. doesn't make it easy for him?
Your rhetoric is completely inappropriate and offensive.

Now, before this degenerates into another 'but, but, but, F35 ... 188:1 ... kill ratio" debate, I'd like to point out that I don't know how will the F35 fare in air combat and it may yet achieve an unprecedented effectiveness.
However, at this point it's rather clear that its S.E.P. being what it is, won't help winning many power demanding fights and I just can't understand why 'Die-hard V6.0' fans (and for some reason LM, as well) are still insisting on its superlative flight performance?

[a1bill]

it was paraphrased, but would the quote help?
What's the operational impact of reducing the F-35's performance specs? - The DEW Line (http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/01/whats-the-operational-impact-o/)
“The advantage of the F-35 is a result of being a 5thgeneration platform and an evolution in technology. Stealth characteristics and sensor fusion will enable it toget in to a target relatively undetected, have the ability to strike a groundasset or engage an enemy and exit the scenario without the threat even knowingit was there,” Toth says. “We will continue to work, as the system comes online,to develop tactics that take advantage of the 5th generation capability muchlike specific tactics were developed for the F-22, different from fourthgeneration platforms.”
Those tactics will inevitably emphasize beyond visual range combat. “Between [the AIM-9X], DAS[distributed aperture system] and the helmet, you deserve to die if you take this thing to the merge,”

[NITRO104]

it was paraphrased
Thought as much, but you'd do good to stay clear of such quotes.
They speaks volumes of people telling them, but not in a positive way.

[KenV]

Isn't this a bit of a strawman argument though. I don't have any experience to claim but I do read a lot that it's energy that matters

Indeed, in a 4th Gen fight, rule #1 is "speed is life and more is better".

But in a 5th Gen fight, rule #1 changes. It becomes "info is life and more is better". That's the whole point of 5th Gen. It purposely changes the rules. Hopefully in your favor.

"Failure" would be quite a bad thing even if you take away "Abysmal", surely? Agreed. But the point is that in a 5th Gen fight, "failure" (whether abysmal or just slight) is NOT determined by maneuverability. The rules have changed and a completely different set of factors rule the fight.

[KenV]

I can't really see why other aircraft can't acquire information too, however. e.g. the Gripen.And indeed Gripen NG is moving in that direction. And (predictably) the cost (acquisition and support) of Gripen NG is MUCH higher than the cost of early Gripen. And keep in mind that the F-35 program paid for the development of those info systems. But yes, scabbing on F-35 systems technology into an old airplane improves the old airplane. Probably a lot. But can the old airplane really fully integrate/fuse all those systems? Maybe. Maybe not. But at what cost? And when will it deliver? Would it be cheaper to get an F-35 and/or would an F-35 deliver sooner?

And no matter how much you improve and integrate the systems on the old airplane, you still don't have stealth (and not just RF stealth). If you want the whole 5th Gen enchilada, you have to buy a true 5th Gen airplane, not a 4th Gen airplane with some 5th Gen systems.

Having said all that, I'm a USN guy and I'm an advocate of USN putting many 5th Gen systems in the Super Hornet, especially MALD (the high bandwidth datalink) and an upgraded HMD to display all the new data now available to the Hornet. And keep in mind what Berke said: the presence of 5th Gen aircraft makes 4th Gen aircraft more lethal and more effective. That's why USN will for the next few decades have more Super Hornets than F-35s. I'm reasonably confident that those older Hornets will have many F-35/5th Gen systems back fitted into them.

[LowObservable]

And (predictably) the cost (acquisition and support) of Gripen NG is MUCH higher than the cost of early Gripen.

Not according to Saab or the Swedish air force, who have consistently stated that the E is less costly than the C/D, but if you have evidence for the above, please produce it. (Comparing full-package export deals to earlier domestic sales does not count.)

And keep in mind that the F-35 program paid for the development of those info systems.

Yes, Lockheed Martin handed out fat contracts to Saab for integration, core avionics and EW, and to Selex for the radar, IRST and IFF - evidence for which you will now supply, I'm sure. Saab has bought comms hardware from Rockwell Collins, but RC does not play that role in F-35.

But at what cost? And when will it deliver?

One-third, and much more quickly.

[PhilipG]

This debate could be seen as what is the definition of 5th Generation.

Putting the, when eventually working, sensor and integration suites from an F35 into an F15 or F18 would, subject to radar installation etc, give a plane with very good Situational Awareness, in a proven airframe with a proven set of weapon systems.

If it is the SA that gives the new 5th Generation plane the advantage that it has, a solution such as this would in my view by a far more economic and fit for purpose solution for a country looking for an air policing solution. I personally fail to see the attraction of a fairly slow, invisible to attackers radar, with a small internal weapons carriage capacity air defence interceptor. Surely an F15 fitted out with an F35 style sensor suite, integration engine and communications suite would be not far off an F22, or have I missed a total trick?

[BillHicksRules]

5th Gen Mindset v 4th Gen Aircraft.

Surely it is cheaper to remove the 5th Gen functionality and then fight with more capable 4th Gen aircraft.

By that I mean if the "game-changer" of the F-35 is its "interconnectability" then opponents will be better off spending money denying that ability and then defeating it with better handling aircraft.

[KenV]

Not according to Saab or the Swedish air force, who have consistently stated that the E is less costly than the C/D, but if you have evidence for the above, please produce it.

JAS39E: improved version following on from the Gripen Demo technology demonstrator. [/URL]Changes from the JAS 39C/D include the more powerful F414G engine, Raven ES-05 AESA radar, increased fuel capacity and payload, two additional hardpoints, and other improvements. These improvements have reportedly increased the Gripen E costs to an estimated 24,000 Swiss Francs (US$27,000) per hour,and increased the flyaway cost to 100 million Swiss Francs (US$ 113M).

Source: Kleja, Monica (11 December 2012), [URL="http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/fordon_motor/flygplan/article3601869.ece"]"Svensk Gripen E påstås dyrare än schweizisk" [Swedish Gripen E allegedly more expensive than the Swiss one] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#cite_note-gripen_demo-69), NyTeknik (in Swedish) (SE).

NOTE: that was a 2012 estimate. Nearly three years have passed and nothing in the military airplane world gets cheaper with time.

If anyone truly believes a manufacturer can put a more powerful engine, a much more advanced radar, more fuel capacity, more strength, more weapons, etc, etc into a fighter not only for free, but for "less" cost, then it would appear that someone has truly drunk the kool aid.

Yes, Lockheed Martin handed out fat contracts to Saab for integration, core avionics and EW, and to Selex for the radar, IRST and IFFSorry for the confusion. I was unclear. My fault.

I was referencing the F-35's systems. The Gripen E moves in the 5th Gen direction, but it is still far from a 5th Gen fighter and farther still from a non stealthy F-35. It remains a 4th Gen fighter with more advanced 4th Gen systems, just as Typhoon Tranche 2, Block 15+ is still very much a 4th Gen fighter. If someone was going to turn a Gripen into a non-stealthy F-35 as was suggested, they'd need to put the F-35's systems into that airplane. And development of those systems was paid for by F-35. And the price of those systems plus the cost of integrating those system in the Gripen would take lots of money and quite a bit of time. I am confident that there is no way this could be done at "one-third" the price and "much more quickly" than the F-35.

[KenV]

By that I mean if the "game-changer" of the F-35 is its "interconnectability" then opponents will be better off spending money denying that ability and then defeating it with better handling aircraft.The F-35 is a "sensor/collaborator/shooter" platform. If an opponent removed the collaborator component by jamming the F-35's datalink, it's still got a powerful onboard fused sensor suite, is still capable of shooting, and is still stealthy. And any jammer capable of jamming the datalink would be very visible (and thus easy to target) and become a very high value target. Pity the poor guy sitting in the aircraft with the datalink jammer.

[LowObservable]

Ken - The quote you cite about increased costs is found nowhere in your link, which is a Swedish media source citing a Swiss TV station in a campaign that was rife with disinformation. Your quote is from Wikipedia and, moreover, does not specify that the increase was over earlier Gripen versions, which was your original claim.

Sigh. Oh my, &c.

[melmothtw]

Figures released by Saab show a 60% reduction in Gripen NG development costs when compared with the original estimate. Gripen E development is also currently being undertaken to a 60% cost level when compared with the 2009 estimate for the programme.

Saab aims to bring this down still further to 50% by the time most of the development is completed in 2016/17, and according to Saab, the Gripen E will have cost EUR1.5 billion to develop - 30% to 50% cheaper than the Gripen C/D was.

They call this 'breaking the cost curve', though having not independently audited their figures I can't vouch for their provenance.

[KenV]

Saab aims to bring this down still further to 50% by the time most of the development is completed in 2016/17, and according to Saab, the Gripen E will have cost EUR1.5 billion to develop - 30% to 50% cheaper than the Gripen C/D was.

That 1.5B in development still needs to be spread over the production aircraft. And the Gripen E airplanes will include a more powerful (and more expensive) engine, a much more sophisticated (and more expensive) radar, and include a number of (expensive) systems not included in the previous versions of Gripen. Is there anything indicating how SAAB is going to deliver all this at a price less than C/D?

[KenV]

Surely an F15 fitted out with an F35 style sensor suite, integration engine and communications suite would be not far off an F22,Maybe. I don't know. But one thing is certain, Boeing is not yet offering such an upgrade package for either new build or existing F-15s, nor has USAF expressed interest in such an upgrade package. Nor is Boeing offering such an upgrade package for the Super Hornet.

I personally think USN should at least look into such an upgrade, and who knows, maybe they will. On the other hand, if USN developed such an upgrade, that could be used against them to cut off funding for USN's F-35C buy. And USN is keen on getting at least several squadrons' worth of F-35s because they really want to get a stealth jet on their carriers. Maybe once the USN F-35 buy is locked in they'll look at upgrading their Super Hornets. Who knows?

[melmothtw]

They claim to be achieving this by looking at every aspect of the programme; from project management, through to development, purchasing, and manufacturing, in an effort to drive down expenditure.

This approach is said to have served the company well in the legacy Gripens, so they have carried the philosophy over into the development of Gripen E, where it is bringing costs down while enhancing the capability of the airframe.

I get what you're saying about more modern and (presumably) more expensive systems for the Gripen E, but reading between the lines they appear to be suggesting that improvements to their processes is what is driving the cost reductions.

You can make of that what you will....

[LowObservable]

You could say that it's a matter of focusing as much attention on how you design the system, and you you will produced it, as on what you're designing.

In both engineering and production, getting it right first time is huge. The industry as a whole spends much too much time fixing early errors and then redesigning the adjacent parts because they no longer fit. (This gets really fun when extended to electronics and software.)

Another interesting thing about a Gripen on the assembly line is that it's mostly made of this funny stuff that comes in sheets and forgings and doesn't have to be cooked in a huge autoclave for a week. I think it's called "metal".

[Lonewolf_50]

Another interesting thing about a Gripen on the assembly line is that it's mostly made of this funny stuff that comes in sheets and forgings and doesn't have to be cooked in a huge autoclave for a week. I think it's called "metal".
Metal, LO? Isn't that something like using bronze to make a shield for our soldiers?

... you are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose. This post brought to you by :E and :} and :\ and :cool:

A question for our amigos in this thread: do we or don't we think it ought to be merged into the existing F-35 thread/fur ball? :confused:

[KenV]

The funny thing about airplane parts that need to be cooked is that airliners, which are extremely price sensitive, are now largely made of cooked material. With regard to the Gripen specifically, the original had 30% composites, and the new one has significantly more, with the fuselage now made from "carbon nanotube reinforced polymer composites."

It seems increasingly that airplane companies (including SAAB) are moving away from making airplanes out of that "funny stuff" called metal.

[Lonewolf_50]

The funny thing about airplane parts that need to be cooked is that airliners, which are extremely price sensitive, are now largely made of cooked material. With regard to the Gripen specifically, the original had 30% composites, and the new one has significantly more, with the fuselage now made from "carbon nanotube reinforced polymer composites."

It seems increasingly that airplane companies (including SAAB) are moving away from making airplanes out of that "funny stuff" called metal.
FWIW, and perhaps OT, another very expensive and controversial APN-1 acquisition program, Comanche Helicopter, RAH-66, which was axed over a decade ago ... increased the use of composites on the rotary wing side significantly.

When we look at AB 350 and Boeing 787 ... composites seem to be an area of growth.

But what about composite repairs, from the simple to the complex? For the F-35 and for aircraft in general, I'll offer that more progress is needed for it to be as "simple" as metal repairs are/were.

[LowObservable]

Carbon nanotube polymer composites?

According to a blog somewhere (the only source)...

According to some reports, wing area is double of Gripen C’s, fuselage is 20% longer, but it is made out of carbon nanotube reinforced polymer composites, reducing weight compared to Gripen C.

Given the dimensions are tosh, I don't place a lot of credit on that report. By the way, commercial airplanes are far more sensitive to operating cost than price, but that's just another dogmatic misstatement from the usual source.

[Lonewolf_50]

Carbon nanotube polymer composites?

According to a blog somewhere (the only source)...

According to some reports, wing area is double of Gripen C’s, fuselage is 20% longer, but it is made out of carbon nanotube reinforced polymer composites, reducing weight compared to Gripen C.

Given the dimensions are tosh, I don't place a lot of credit on that report. By the way, commercial airplanes are far more sensitive to operating cost than price, but that's just another dogmatic misstatement from the usual source. LO, at the risk of being wholly off topic, it isn't just commercial air that benefits from composites str/weight combination.

V-22. :ok:

[KenV]

commercial airplanes are far more sensitive to operating cost than price, but that's just another dogmatic misstatement from the usual source. Sigh. May I gently point out that the term "price sensitive" includes cost of acquisition (which include fabrication and assembly cost and composites are put together by robots which can reduce the cost of "touch labor" during manufacturing), cost of operations, cost of crew training, cost of maintenance and support, and resale value. That's why even though composites cost way more per lb to purchase than metal, the overall costs of a composite airplane can (and now generally are) below that of a "funny stuff" metal airplane. The "dogmatic misstatement" claim appears to be based on yet another (false) assumption.

[KenV]

But what about composite repairs, from the simple to the complex? For the F-35 and for aircraft in general, I'll offer that more progress is needed for it to be as "simple" as metal repairs are/were.

That depends. If a chunk of primary structure is damaged, often the only way to repair it is by scabbing on doublers, which can be expensive in terms of engineering, fabrication, installation, and weight. Many composite structures can be fixed with scarf repairs (basically glued up layers of composite material) which can be quicker, easier and cheaper than metal. That's why commercial aircraft are going to composites. Not only can the repair be easier/cheaper, but repair can be avoided altogether. Composite structures don't corrode like metal and don't fatigue like metal. LOTS of inspection and repair costs are related to both corrosion and fatigue.

But this is based on the non-stealth composites world. I have no idea how difficult repairs would be on a stealth airplane where very different considerations may apply.

[LowObservable]

Ken - Nobody else here confuses "cost" or "operating cost" with price. Because the words have quite different meanings in the English language.

[KenV]

Ken - Nobody else here confuses "cost" or "operating cost" with price. Because the words have quite different meanings in the English language. Oh my. Nobody else????

price: n. the amount of money expected, required, or given in payment for something
cost: n. an amount that has to be paid or spent to buy or obtain something

English is not my first language, so I on occasion have difficulty with it. But the above definitions are quite close and do NOT have "quite different meanings" in either the UK or the US versions of English. So may I ask which version of English you are using?

To reiterate my original statement, the price (amount of money expected or required) or the cost (the amount that has to be paid or spent) for purchasing, owning, operating, maintaining, supporting, and finally disposing of a used airplane is driven by a huge number of factors. The manufacturers have adopted composites because it reduces the overall price to the airline of all (or most) of those factors except possibly disposing of it. But disposal price is coming down as the industry learns how to recycle composites.

And further, I assume you know the meaning of synonym: (synonyms do NOT have "quite different meanings")
synonyms for price: value (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1548&bih=814&q=define+value&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0CDoQ_SowAGoVChMIh6qhz-KNxwIVS5aICh2tngW2), rate (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1548&bih=814&q=define+rate&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQ_SowAGoVChMIh6qhz-KNxwIVS5aICh2tngW2), cost (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1548&bih=814&q=define+cost&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0CDwQ_SowAGoVChMIh6qhz-KNxwIVS5aICh2tngW2); estimate (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1548&bih=814&q=define+estimate&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0CD4Q_SowAGoVChMIh6qhz-KNxwIVS5aICh2tngW2)
synonyms for cost: price (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1548&bih=814&q=define+price&sa=X&ved=0CCQQ_SowAGoVChMI9ODI192NxwIVRVmICh3uGw-s), asking price (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1548&bih=814&q=define+asking+price&sa=X&ved=0CCUQ_SowAGoVChMI9ODI192NxwIVRVmICh3uGw-s), market price (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1548&bih=814&q=define+market+price&sa=X&ved=0CCYQ_SowAGoVChMI9ODI192NxwIVRVmICh3uGw-s), selling price, unit price, fee (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1548&bih=814&q=define+fee&sa=X&ved=0CCcQ_SowAGoVChMI9ODI192NxwIVRVmICh3uGw-s), tariff (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1548&bih=814&q=define+tariff&sa=X&ved=0CCgQ_SowAGoVChMI9ODI192NxwIVRVmICh3uGw-s), fare (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1548&bih=814&q=define+fare&sa=X&ved=0CCkQ_SowAGoVChMI9ODI192NxwIVRVmICh3uGw-s), toll (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1548&bih=814&q=define+toll&sa=X&ved=0CCoQ_SowAGoVChMI9ODI192NxwIVRVmICh3uGw-s), levy (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1548&bih=814&q=define+levy&sa=X&ved=0CCsQ_SowAGoVChMI9ODI192NxwIVRVmICh3uGw-s), charge (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1548&bih=814&q=define+charge&sa=X&ved=0CCwQ_SowAGoVChMI9ODI192NxwIVRVmICh3uGw-s), rental (https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&biw=1548&bih=814&q=define+rental&sa=X&ved=0CC0Q_SowAGoVChMI9ODI192NxwIVRVmICh3uGw-s)

Me thinks that our problem is mostly one of language. This latest exchange appears to confirm that. For whatever reason, you and I appear to be speaking two different versions of English. I have no idea how to correct that because the language difference does not appear to be driven by the difference between US and UK versions of English.

[LowObservable]

Ken

You are a troll. A quite sophisticated one, but a troll nonetheless.

[NITRO104]

English is not my first language...
So, how come you flew F18s in the Navy, then?

[KenV]

So, how come you flew F18s in the Navy, then? May I ask what does my first language have the remotest to do with me flying F-18s??!!!

But OK, let's go down yet another rat hole.

I was born in Surabaja, Island of Java, Indonesia. (Indonesia was a colony of the Netherlands back then.) My first language was Pasar. That's a "street language" version of Malaysian. (Pasar literally means street market). Sort of like Creole English in the far south of the US. There is no written form.

When the communist revolution happened my parents (and I as a child) were forced out and effectively deported to the Netherlands because my parents had Dutch passports. I learned to speak Dutch.

Then my parents emigrated to the United States. I learned English. I can still understand, speak, and read Dutch (sort of write, but that's severely atrophied.) I've for all intents lost all my abilities in Pasar. I am a naturalized US citizen. Some folks claim our president is also. I deny that. And while naturalized citizens are precluded from becoming President, we are very welcome to serve in the armed forces. I did. And I flew (operationally) A-4s, P-3s and F-18s.

[KenV]

Ken You are a troll. A quite sophisticated one, but a troll nonetheless.

Oh my. This is not some kind of language problem, but something quite different.

Nevertheless, may I kindly ask a sincere question? How does you using a form of English different than the ones commonly used in the US and the UK translate into me being a troll?

[FODPlod]

Ken

You are a troll. A quite sophisticated one, but a troll nonetheless.

A bit late to complain about the standard of competition now. ;)

[glad rag]

A bit late to complain about the standard of competition now. ;)

What was it you bleated on about bullying and victimisation not so very long ago bud?

[t43562]

There seems to be a lot of evasion of the question asked about why non-stealth aircraft can't have sensors, networking and fusion and gain an information advantage. Doesn't gripen have some of this already?

[a1bill]

LO said "Carbon nanotube polymer composites?"

Seeing that they are used on The F-35 in non-structural areas, (they haven't done structural testing yet AFAIK) I see no reason they won't be used in the Gripen NG.
If I were you LO, I'd be careful calling someone else a troll.


@T4, they can go to the expense of fitting 5th gen sensors. The trouble is they wouldn't have a 5th gen platform to get them into the future battle space

[t43562]

@T4, they can go to the expense of fitting 5th gen sensors. The trouble is they wouldn't have a 5th gen platform to get them into the future battle space

I feel that this is a real case of "the answer begging the question" i.e. the answer is just a restatement of the question with no added information.

[a1bill]

Stealth is the entry ticket to the battlespace. No ticky no laundry

[FODPlod]

What was it you bleated on about bullying and victimisation not so very long ago bud?

Possibly some vain attempt to persuade certain posters to act maturely and avoid subjecting others to pejorative language, heavy sarcasm or falsely accusing them of being a troll whenever the argument isn't going their way?

[t43562]

Stealth is the entry ticket to the battlespace. No ticky no laundry

Well, if that's what it amounts to then this whole long, boring discussion about iPhones and information advantage resolves down to nothing and it's just "stealth" again. Because anyone can install increasingly better computers and write software and some people already have bits of it working.

[a1bill]

Perhaps it might make more sense to you if you think of it as a poker game and stealth is the ante.

[glad rag]

Nice metaphor.

Did you actually mean to type that?

[LowObservable]

Your use of metaphor is creative. Have you considered taking a poetry-writing class? (Ha! GR posted the above just as I was writing this.)

I prefer the classic breakdown of survivability into susceptibility and vulnerability. In that case, stealth (along with speed, altitude, agility and countermeasures) is a contributor to survivability.

We know that a singular focus on stealth can be limiting. That's why the F-117 was retired and why the F-22 was designed with M=1.7, >60 kft cruise and supersonic agility.

We know that nobody, today, ignores stealth, even if it's as basic as a Have Glass F-16.

We know that there are many aircraft out there that appear to be designed for much lower RCS than an F-22/F-35.

We know that the F-22 and F-35 actually have a different balance of survivability measures (see speed and altitude above).

And yet people will tell you that the F-35 is the only aircraft in existence that has the ideal balance of RCS and other survivability factors. How do they know that?

[Courtney Mil]

GR and LO, I think it was a simile. That's like a smilie but smarter. :)

[KenV]

Well, if that's what it amounts to then this whole long, boring discussion about iPhones and information advantage resolves down to nothing and it's just "stealth" again. Because anyone can install increasingly better computers and write software and some people already have bits of it working.

May I weigh in here? To me, 5th gen involves a lot of "stuff". A lot (but NOT all) of the stuff involves the ability to collect data, process the data, fuse the data, and present it to the pilot in an intuitive manner. This can be added to a 4th gen fighter and make it much more capable. That's what we're discussing now. But it does NOT end there.

While collecting and processing data is critical, another very important component of 5th Gen is denying your opponent the ability to collect the raw data for his systems to process, fuse, and display. Stealth plays a big role here. A jammer can do this also, at least in the RF spectrum. And with the advent of digital waveform memory jamming (DRFM) this capability can be put on almost any fighter. So RF jamming is spreading across the fighter fleets, denying opponent fighters the use of their AESA radars. But there are two counters to RF jamming:

1. Passive RF systems can detect the jamming signal and provide a high resolution bearing, but not range. But mulitple aircraft linked together can cooperatively generate the range. Problem solved. Maybe. Sort of. How so? A dedicated, stand off jammer aircraft can provide jamming without giving away the positions of the shooters. That is why USN and RAAF are both buying EF-18G Growlers. That's their counter, to the counter, to the counter.

2. IRST (IR search and track) can't be jammed (at least not yet), and acting cooperatively in a linked environment, can generate the range. Problem solved. Maybe. Sort of. How so?

Stealth provides a huge advantage to both the counters listed above. A stealth aircraft has massively reduced RF and does not need to jam, so there is no signal to home in on. And a stealth aircraft also has significantly reduced IR signature in all but the aft quarter so the stealth aircraft has denied its opponent of both RF and IR data for his systems to process, fuse, and display. And that is the difference between a 5th Gen platform and a 4.5 (4.9?) Gen platform. So yes, you can move a 4th Gen aircraft towards a 5th Gen platform, but you can't get all the way to 5th Gen without stealth. But you can certainly narrow the gap.

So now there are at least three questions.
1. How much can you narrow the gap?
2. How much does each increment of narrowing the gap cost?
3. How long will it take?

Is it cheaper and/or quicker to narrow the gap and accept the gap that remains and call it "good enough", or is it cheaper and quicker to go all the way and buy a 5th Gen airplane? Every air arm has to decide that for themselves. USAF has chosen the former route and is moving toward an all stealth fleet. The Royal Navy is going that route also. As are the Dutch and the Danes? But even USAF now acknowledges that they'll have F-15s in their fleet for decades to come. USN and RAAF have chosen the latter route and while buying stealth, the majority of their fleets will be non stealth. But both also have dedicated jammer aircraft. It appears RAF has chosen the latter route as well, opting to upgrade their Typhoons as well as buying F-35, but without dedicated jammers. So unlike religion, there is no "one true" answer to fighter procurement. (yes, a joke.)

And BTW, if you think iPhones are "boring", you're clearly out of touch (and yes, that was a joke also. Both jokes were intended to lighten the dark mood that has descended on this thread.)

[Courtney Mil]

May I weigh in here? To me, 5th gen involves a lot of "stuff". A lot (but NOT all) of the stuff involves the ability to collect data, process the data, fuse the data, and present it to the pilot in an intuitive manner. This can be added to a 4th gen fighter and make it much more capable.

Ken, you appear to be making out like "fusion" is something new and unique to Gen 5. It is not. We did this many years ago with a Gen 4 fighter you may have heard of. It may have more sensors to fuse, but we did this Typhoon way back when. So there is at least one Gen 4 platform that doesn't need it added to make it more capable.

[KenV]

And yet people will tell you that the F-35 is the only aircraft in existence that has the ideal balance of RCS and other survivability factors. May I kindly ask which "people" are making this claim? Certainly not the guys running the F-35 program. From two decades ago to today, they've consistently said that F-35 is reliant on other aircraft for the air-to-air role.

[KenV]

Ken, you appear to be making out like "fusion" is something new and unique to Gen 5. It is not. We did this many years ago with a Gen 4 fighter you may have heard of. It may have more sensors to fuse, but we did this Typhoon way back when. So there is at least one Gen 4 platform that doesn't need it added to make it more capable.Two comments:

1. I will not be sucked into replying in kind with a sarcastic belittling tone.

2. GREAT!!! You get no argument from me on that. If Typhoon has F-35's level of integration and fusion, that is wonderful and a good reason why it should do (and has done) well in the market place. F-15SA, F-15K, F-15SE, Super Hornet, Rafale, and even Sukhoi are not too shabby in that regard and Gripen E clearly appears headed in that direction. There are LOTS of options from which to choose. Each air arm will have to decide themselves what level of fusion is "good enough" for them. And whether they want to go "all the way" with a stealth platform, or not.

And may I add that all the fighter manufacturers (both east and west and NOT just LM) are making huge claims about their platform and its fusion capabilities. Yes, the F-35 is a compromise. But so is every other aircraft out there, including the F-22. But let's let the officials in each nation decide which is best for them and not spread all sorts of wild speculations about "abysmal failures". In my opinion, that's just foolish, and ofttimes downright childish.

[NITRO104]

But let's let the officials in each nation decide which is best for them...
Ken, you're missing the point of this forum.
You need to realize that 'officials' are making decisions based on opinions of some of the posters here.
This isn't a fanboy site, so it'd be nice if you could keep up with the level of this forum.

[WhiteOvies]

Gentlemen and Mods,

This thread has quickly descended to the depths of the other F-35 thread and is repeating the same arguments and slagging matches between the same sparring partners.

Please can it be closed and removed as it serves no purpose?

[glad rag]

Oh Dear.[oh my?]

Can someone come along with some actual positives then, you know something substantiated that can add some light to the tunnel of reality???

cheers

gr

[KenV]

Ken, you're missing the point of this forum.
You need to realize that 'officials' are making decisions based on opinions of some of the posters here. This isn't a fanboy site, so it'd be nice if you could keep up with the level of this forum.Got it! Thanks for the heads up. I'll be sure to up my game for the benefit of those officials.

[KenV]

A quick question for the various and sundry on this thread.

Can MIDS/Link 16 (which operates at the bottom end of the L band) provide the bandwidth required for a Gen 5 fight?
And assuming it can, seeing as it is a broadcast system that can be passively detected, would pilots leave Link 16 turned on and thereby become a target in a Gen 5 fight?

[dagenham]

KenV I think there is a black surburban about to pull up on your drive way.

Something about your window beads need sorting out

[Lonewolf_50]

KenV I think there is a black surburban about to pull up on your drive way.

Something about your window beads need sorting out
I always found the windows with beads, when commented upon by decoration critics, brought attention to beads otherwise innocuously decorating said windows.

Something about cueing someone else to roll back the tape ... do their work for them. :}

[t43562]

Can MIDS/Link 16 (which operates at the bottom end of the L band) provide the bandwidth required for a Gen 5 fight?
And assuming it can, seeing as it is a broadcast system that can be passively detected, would pilots leave Link 16 turned on and thereby become a target in a Gen 5 fight?

Why would it have to be link16?

[Lonewolf_50]

Why would it have to be link16?
Good question. Doesn't the answer depend on what the interoperability standard is or isn't?

(You just gave me flashbacks to a rancid set of meetings and working groups in NATO about 20 years ago regarding data link standards ... thank goodness for alcohol at NATO HQ's. )

[KenV]

Why would it have to be link16?
It doesn't. That's just the NATO standard right now and F-15, F-16, F/A-18, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, AWACS, Wedgetail, etc, etc all have MIDS/Link16.

[LowObservable]

Can MIDS/Link 16 (which operates at the bottom end of the L band) provide the bandwidth required for a Gen 5 fight?

I have checked with multiple sources and can provide accurate and succinct answers to this question.

1 - Yes.
2 - No.
3 - It depends.
4 - It's classified.
5 - What the :mad:ing :mad: is a "Gen 5 fight"?

[Courtney Mil]

KenV, if I have understood the question correctly, then I can assure you that Link 16 can. Regardless of the number of sensors involved, as long as each contributing platform only produces one track for every friendly, enemy and other asset, the volume is the same. Good fusion ensures that, mostly.

Not needing to do secure voice on the net, not needing to put too much ac data (fuel states and such) and not needing to do enormous amounts of net management leaves a huge amount of space on even a single net, let alone stacked nets, should you need more space. Clearly there are other techniques and protocols that are not appropriate here.

Yes, Link 16 can handle the volume, but it may not be the medium of choice in tomorrow's lo observe world. But it will continue to have its place.

Oh, and the portal. And how did we get here from the WVR report?

[NITRO104]

5 - What the :mad:ing :mad: is a "Gen 5 fight"?
+1,
seriously, what's up with people and labels?
As if Mig21bis, with L16 can't play in a '5th gen sandbox'?
Must be a fan thing...

[a1bill]

As well as "here I am, kill me" This f-22 pilot said, link 16 is like a straw to what is 5th gen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0

[KenV]

KenV, if I have understood the question correctly, then I can assure you that Link 16 can. Regardless of the number of sensors involved, as long as each contributing platform only produces one track for every friendly, enemy and other asset, the volume is the same. Good fusion ensures that, mostly.

I guess that's my point. A "typical" (if there is such a thing) 5th Gen fight of 4 v 8 would seem to result in quite a bit more than "one track for every friendly, enemy and other asset." It would require sharing passive sensor data from all four friendly aircraft in real time to develop a precision 3D image of the battlespace.

But I agree that Link 16 will likely always have a place in the battle space. It is just too ubiquitous to abandon.

[KenV]

+1,
seriously, what's up with people and labels?
As if Mig21bis, with L16 can't play in a '5th gen sandbox'?
Must be a fan thing...

If you're struggling to understand what a 5th Gen fight is, listen to LtCol Berke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0

[KenV]

Can MIDS/Link 16 (which operates at the bottom end of the L band) provide the bandwidth required for a Gen 5 fight?
What the :mad:ing :mad: is a "Gen 5 fight"?

If you're struggling to understand what a 5th Gen fight is, listen to LtCol Berke.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxK6O5--9Z0
He claims that if you don't understand 5th Gen "You are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose"

[glad rag]

here ya go...

http://wonderfl.net/images/capture/f/f8/f8f1/f8f13ebc77845bacad810f7f90647de38a9f29a7.jpg?t=1303312852

[t43562]

I think my confusion here is the use of a moniker to mean all sorts of different things which aren't related of necessity. It makes discussion difficult because it seems to me that every debate leads eventually to "5 is a bigger number than 4".

Just for the sake of it I found this article about SAAB's Wiscom thing which is based on their datalink. I'm not saying anything about it being great or amazing - just posting it as evidence that ideas about fusing data and all that stuff are not as unique to stealthy planes as it might seem to an outsider like me.

http://aviationweek.com/awin/saab-takes-next-step-fighter-development

One part of the Wiscom concept is the idea of a “flexible antenna pool” in which all aircraft in a flight share sensor and target data automatically. Another is “silent swarm ingress” where a flight enters combat in a widely dispersed pattern, with primary sensors being infrared search and track (IRST), active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars operating in passive mode, and electronic surveillance measures (ESM).
Under Wiscom, AESA transmissions are restricted and “random”—that is, the aircraft in a flight will transmit at different times, making it difficult to track them by emissions. Swedish engineers have noted that data-linked radars can share plots—not just tracks—and take simultaneous range-rate measurements, allowing two radars to determine a target's velocity almost instantly. Finally, Saab envisages the use of the high-energy MBDA Meteor air-to-air missile to engage from side and rear aspects where targets are less likely to detect the threat.

[NITRO104]

He claims that if you don't understand 5th Gen "You are old, you are behind, you are late, and you will lose"
Well, he also claims the speed is 'yesterday's news', which is rather mismatched with USAF's stance where USAF is contemplating a hypersonic 6th Gen thus clearly delineating the speed trend, so I'm not sure what to think about the rest...is it a salesman, or is it a pilot talking?
Stealth proponents claim they can't be seen, but performance proponents claim they aren't even there, so go figure who's right.
The thing is, without exchanging ideas this forum has no point, as CourtneyM noted and bidding on who's YouTube video is 'bestest' makes the entire forum concept, redundant.

[a1bill]

T4, you are in another realm with SAAB. Sweetman said they are 6th gen and lack of speed and agility is a feature.


Is Saab’s New Gripen The Future Of Fighters?

New Gripen may be the next wave

However, what should qualify the JAS 39E for a Gen 6 tag is what suits it most for a post-Cold War environment. It is not the world's fastest, most agile or stealthiest fighter. That is not a bug, it is a feature.


Is Saab?s New Gripen The Future Of Fighters? | Defense content from Aviation Week (http://aviationweek.com/defense/saab-s-new-gripen-future-fighters)

[Courtney Mil]

I guess that's my point. A "typical" (if there is such a thing) 5th Gen fight of 4 v 8 would seem to result in quite a bit more than "one track for every friendly, enemy and other asset." It would require sharing passive sensor data from all four friendly aircraft in real time to develop a precision 3D image of the battlespace.

I see. There is space to do triangulation, but the manager would need to allocate the time slots specifically in order to minimise latency, but that's just a physics thing.

[LowObservable]

Sharing passive data among multiple aircraft, to a level of accuracy that allows targeting and missile launch, has been done and is (AFAIK) operational.

And just to underscore the invalidity of 5GenTM marketing speak, it wasn't done first on a "4Gen" aircraft.