F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ORAC,
I'd like to come back. I think what I said was that in my view (and that was deliberately phrased), the F-35 will be a success. I don't think I 'boasted' in any way. Sorry if I gave that impression. I stated my view. There's a difference. I try not to bash my head against walls.
On comms, the MADL link was designed to allow F-35s to fight more effectively as a team. I think it's going to do that quite well. (Note - just my view). Whether it's adopted more widely across other platforms is another matter. But at present, it's on the way to meeting the requirement it was designed for.
LO, thank you. Yes, you are quite right - the OSD plan also aimed at generating an aircraft that was more likely to meet a wide range of needs and so win export orders. Affordability was a key metric. F-22's lack of export orders shows they might have been right - again, purely my view.
Best Regards as ever to those having to make big calls in the early years,
Engines
I'd like to come back. I think what I said was that in my view (and that was deliberately phrased), the F-35 will be a success. I don't think I 'boasted' in any way. Sorry if I gave that impression. I stated my view. There's a difference. I try not to bash my head against walls.
On comms, the MADL link was designed to allow F-35s to fight more effectively as a team. I think it's going to do that quite well. (Note - just my view). Whether it's adopted more widely across other platforms is another matter. But at present, it's on the way to meeting the requirement it was designed for.
LO, thank you. Yes, you are quite right - the OSD plan also aimed at generating an aircraft that was more likely to meet a wide range of needs and so win export orders. Affordability was a key metric. F-22's lack of export orders shows they might have been right - again, purely my view.
Best Regards as ever to those having to make big calls in the early years,
Engines
Thank you, Engines, for another good account of the route to were we are. Carefully crafted as ever. 
MADL is, as you describe, essential to networking F-35s and making the sensors more effective. In terms of passive sensors it is the key to passive detection, ranging and targeting. It is, in essence, a core element in the capability and it is a great strength.
Right now it also precludes easy integration with other platforms. That runs contrary to many years of work to try to hook platforms into any kind of network - Link 16 was the vehicle of choice - but we struggled due to funding (the radio wasn't that expensive), integration and clearance costs.
Now, which way do we go? Start from scratch and have all the other platforms move to MADL, buy into the "portal" to connect the two networks or accept that we may have two, unrelated networks.
Yes, I know there are other data transfer methods.
MADL is, as you describe, essential to networking F-35s and making the sensors more effective. In terms of passive sensors it is the key to passive detection, ranging and targeting. It is, in essence, a core element in the capability and it is a great strength.
Right now it also precludes easy integration with other platforms. That runs contrary to many years of work to try to hook platforms into any kind of network - Link 16 was the vehicle of choice - but we struggled due to funding (the radio wasn't that expensive), integration and clearance costs.
Now, which way do we go? Start from scratch and have all the other platforms move to MADL, buy into the "portal" to connect the two networks or accept that we may have two, unrelated networks.
Yes, I know there are other data transfer methods.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Courtney,
I thought I'd come back to you on one aspect - but with the alert warning that I'm no comms specialist.
Your last post seems to infer that the F-35's MADL system precludes use of other systems such as Link 16. Again, as far as I know, the aircraft has a fairly comprehensive range of comms links, including:
MADL
SATCOM receive
Link 16
Secure VHF/UHF (incl. Havequick)
SINGCARS
Plus others
So, unless I have missed a key point (highly possible) the F-35 can use Link 16, while using MADL. I don't think it's an either/or situation.
I do recall that at one stage on the programme, the stock answer to any question about how data was to get on and off the platform was: 'We'll use Link 16'. That view was somewhat altered once a quite excellent pair of young RAF aircrew came over to Fort Worth and told an agog LM Mission Systems team just how Link 16 operated in the real (NATO) world.
In my earlier post, I was trying (and not very well) to make the point that the whole point of MADL was to allow F-35s to move very large amounts of data around an F-35 formation. To some extent, the issue of how to reconcile physical bandwidth limitations with the ever increasing desire for more and more 'data' to be passed back to central commands is not one that F-35 could solve on its own.
I do know that data communications linkages were closely examined and modelled in the many sets of scenarios run in the US (and also the UK) during the build up to release of the JORD, which specified the required data linkages. Again, as far as I know, none of those comms/interoperability requirements were 'traded away' during development.
Sorry if my lack of knowledge here is too apparent,
Best regards as ever to those making the ones and zeroes move around,
Engines
I thought I'd come back to you on one aspect - but with the alert warning that I'm no comms specialist.
Your last post seems to infer that the F-35's MADL system precludes use of other systems such as Link 16. Again, as far as I know, the aircraft has a fairly comprehensive range of comms links, including:
MADL
SATCOM receive
Link 16
Secure VHF/UHF (incl. Havequick)
SINGCARS
Plus others
So, unless I have missed a key point (highly possible) the F-35 can use Link 16, while using MADL. I don't think it's an either/or situation.
I do recall that at one stage on the programme, the stock answer to any question about how data was to get on and off the platform was: 'We'll use Link 16'. That view was somewhat altered once a quite excellent pair of young RAF aircrew came over to Fort Worth and told an agog LM Mission Systems team just how Link 16 operated in the real (NATO) world.
In my earlier post, I was trying (and not very well) to make the point that the whole point of MADL was to allow F-35s to move very large amounts of data around an F-35 formation. To some extent, the issue of how to reconcile physical bandwidth limitations with the ever increasing desire for more and more 'data' to be passed back to central commands is not one that F-35 could solve on its own.
I do know that data communications linkages were closely examined and modelled in the many sets of scenarios run in the US (and also the UK) during the build up to release of the JORD, which specified the required data linkages. Again, as far as I know, none of those comms/interoperability requirements were 'traded away' during development.
Sorry if my lack of knowledge here is too apparent,
Best regards as ever to those making the ones and zeroes move around,
Engines
Thanks, Engines. Yes, I agree entirely with your premise there. The only snag with the other comms is the stealth issue, which is MADL's niche. My interest here is how best to share the air picture which F-35 can build without many or any emissions without blowing the whole game. Perhaps under such circumstances they simply don't and just get on with their day one missions in isolation.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Just to be explicit, to remain stealthy the F-35 cannot use use L16 in combat, which is a bit of a handicap. MADL currently has to use a gateway for communication with other platforms and HQs, and the US is investigating stand-alone airborne platforms, which is less than optimum - and not an option for many other customers.
The F-35 is planned to network MADL through satcom using MUOS. But that slipped to Block 4 (one of the things the Norwegians need at their northerly elevation), but access to non-US customers is not guaranteed.
So, at the moment, non-US customers will have an asset which when stealthy can only talk to other F-35s, and have no guaranteed path to achieve stealthy networked data communications.
The F-35 is planned to network MADL through satcom using MUOS. But that slipped to Block 4 (one of the things the Norwegians need at their northerly elevation), but access to non-US customers is not guaranteed.
So, at the moment, non-US customers will have an asset which when stealthy can only talk to other F-35s, and have no guaranteed path to achieve stealthy networked data communications.
Last edited by ORAC; 13th Jul 2015 at 10:55.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV,
I would like to point out a couple of things:
The development of the F-18 E/F did come from the earlier F-18 airframes. But, there were changes. The length increased 4 feet, the height by a 1 foot and the wing span by 4 feet (a new wing). The maximum gross take off weight increased by 14,100 pounds and the range increased by 200 miles.
I would like to point out a couple of things:
The development of the F-18 E/F did come from the earlier F-18 airframes. But, there were changes. The length increased 4 feet, the height by a 1 foot and the wing span by 4 feet (a new wing). The maximum gross take off weight increased by 14,100 pounds and the range increased by 200 miles.
The F135 engine is a derivative engine from the F119 engine used on the F-22. The F135 engine is not a completely new from scratch engine.
Last edited by KenV; 13th Jul 2015 at 12:02.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting point with regard to the $400,000 or so helmet. The helmet capability of launching high-off-bore-sight missiles is moot, because the F-35 is such an abysmal dogfighter and specifically designed to never be in that situation anyway. And if it carries the weapons for a dogfight (Aim 9X), it can't maneuver for it. Bit of a contradiction in the design.
$400,000 helmet on a F-35 is (partly) like throwing pearls to a pig?
$400,000 helmet on a F-35 is (partly) like throwing pearls to a pig?
1. The whole point of the helmet is being completely missed. The F-35 is the ONLY fighter that has spherical coverage in the RF and IR spectrum. A conventional HUD does great when all your sensors are optimized/limited to a narrow tunnel in the forward hemisphere. Making a HUD with spherical coverage (including backward and down) is literally impossible. The solution was a helmet that becomes a HUD with totally spherical (4Pi steradian) coverage. This enables the pilot to literally look down through the bottom of the airplane or backward through the engine and tail of the airplane and see (at both long and short range) EVERYthing that his sensors are seeing. That's why the F-35 has no HUD. And the helmet is integral to the ability of the avionics systems to display fused sensor data. That simply cannot be done on flat panels and HUDs in a single crew airplane. And BTW, has anyone priced a conventional holographic HUD lately? No you say? Well a holographic HUD costs only slightly less than the helmet system. So cost wise, its nearly a wash. Knocking the price of a helmet display is about as sensical as knocking the price of stealth. It's the cost of doing business in the modern world of air warfare. And calling it a "contradiction in design" indicates (please excuse my bluntness) a rather gross misunderstanding of the design.
2. Characterizing the F-35 as "such an abysmal dogfighter" is in my opinion both utterly false and hugely irresponsible. It's ONLY short coming is in close-in dogfight maneuverability which while not stellar, is far far far from "abysmal". And in every other realm of the dog fight it is stellar and if flown and fought properly, should enable the pilot to avoid the knife fight in a phone booth. Because no matter how stellar a close quarters knife fighter you are, such a fight is immensely dangerous and much better avoided in the first place. This is a lesson learned the hard way by the pilots of zero fighters well over half a century ago and a lesson many on this forum have apparently never learned.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The F-35 is planned to network MADL through satcom using MUOS. But that slipped to Block 4
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Really KenV?
You should tell the USN who accept that the F-35 is not stealthy enough in all aspects to penetrate enemy defences without a F-18G EW escort.
With which they cannot share enemy threat data without turning on their L16 and exposing themselves to threats such as the DWL002.
You should tell the USN who accept that the F-35 is not stealthy enough in all aspects to penetrate enemy defences without a F-18G EW escort.
With which they cannot share enemy threat data without turning on their L16 and exposing themselves to threats such as the DWL002.
Engines,
Interesting point about MADL's data rate. When I heard a (very rare) brief on Swedish fighter datalinks in 2003, a key point was that the system was designed to minimize the volume of data. (The speaker used the analogy of identical twins who understand one another almost without speaking.)
CM - I don't know how well MUOS is expected to work at high latitudes, being geosynchronous. Conformal antennas don't make life easier (envision standing in an open manhole with your eyes just below pavement level - you can't see the other side of the street). The B-2 was supposed to get a system with two big conformal antennas, one on each side of the dorsal hump, but it was cancelled. The last I heard, Saab was going to put DRS' Face III (which uses Iridium) on Gripen.
And Ken - There are multiple video-capable HMDs on the market (BAE Striker, Elbit Targo, Thales Scorpion to name but three) that are simpler and less costly than HMDS, which was designed using older technology for very specific requirements. And your citing of the F-35's "stellar" performance in "every other part of the dogfight regime" is of course completely unsupported by data. As far as most of the world is concerned, it's marketing puffery.
Interesting point about MADL's data rate. When I heard a (very rare) brief on Swedish fighter datalinks in 2003, a key point was that the system was designed to minimize the volume of data. (The speaker used the analogy of identical twins who understand one another almost without speaking.)
CM - I don't know how well MUOS is expected to work at high latitudes, being geosynchronous. Conformal antennas don't make life easier (envision standing in an open manhole with your eyes just below pavement level - you can't see the other side of the street). The B-2 was supposed to get a system with two big conformal antennas, one on each side of the dorsal hump, but it was cancelled. The last I heard, Saab was going to put DRS' Face III (which uses Iridium) on Gripen.
And Ken - There are multiple video-capable HMDs on the market (BAE Striker, Elbit Targo, Thales Scorpion to name but three) that are simpler and less costly than HMDS, which was designed using older technology for very specific requirements. And your citing of the F-35's "stellar" performance in "every other part of the dogfight regime" is of course completely unsupported by data. As far as most of the world is concerned, it's marketing puffery.
Last edited by LowObservable; 13th Jul 2015 at 14:04.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
I'm not arguing the processing power of PC or the game code itself, but as CourtneyM (IMO correctly) noted, level of detail and the value of input alone.
Maybe I'm too conservative, but ID-ing fighter's radar at 290nm in the cluster**** of EW going on all over the place while the guy is just pinging the space in RWS, is a bit SciFi to me.
But as I said, I may be completely wrong here and modern RWRs are indeed sensitive and powerful enough (as in PRF/modulation separation) to do that.
I'm not arguing the processing power of PC or the game code itself, but as CourtneyM (IMO correctly) noted, level of detail and the value of input alone.
Maybe I'm too conservative, but ID-ing fighter's radar at 290nm in the cluster**** of EW going on all over the place while the guy is just pinging the space in RWS, is a bit SciFi to me.
But as I said, I may be completely wrong here and modern RWRs are indeed sensitive and powerful enough (as in PRF/modulation separation) to do that.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two comments:
1. The whole point of the helmet is being completely missed. The F-35 is the ONLY fighter that has spherical coverage in the RF and IR spectrum. A conventional HUD does great when all your sensors are optimized/limited to a narrow tunnel in the forward hemisphere. Making a HUD with spherical coverage (including backward and down) is literally impossible. The solution was a helmet that becomes a HUD with totally spherical (4Pi steradian) coverage. This enables the pilot to literally look down through the bottom of the airplane or backward through the engine and tail of the airplane and see (at both long and short range) EVERYthing that his sensors are seeing. That's why the F-35 has no HUD. And the helmet is integral to the ability of the avionics systems to display fused sensor data. That simply cannot be done on flat panels and HUDs in a single crew airplane. And BTW, has anyone priced a conventional holographic HUD lately? No you say? Well a holographic HUD costs only slightly less than the helmet system. So cost wise, its nearly a wash. Knocking the price of a helmet display is about as sensical as knocking the price of stealth. It's the cost of doing business in the modern world of air warfare. And calling it a "contradiction in design" indicates (please excuse my bluntness) a rather gross misunderstanding of the design.
2. Characterizing the F-35 as "such an abysmal dogfighter" is in my opinion both utterly false and hugely irresponsible. It's ONLY short coming is in close-in dogfight maneuverability which while not stellar, is far far far from "abysmal". And in every other realm of the dog fight it is stellar and if flown and fought properly, should enable the pilot to avoid the knife fight in a phone booth. Because no matter how stellar a close quarters knife fighter you are, such a fight is immensely dangerous and much better avoided in the first place. This is a lesson learned the hard way by the pilots of zero fighters well over half a century ago and a lesson many on this forum have apparently never learned.
1. The whole point of the helmet is being completely missed. The F-35 is the ONLY fighter that has spherical coverage in the RF and IR spectrum. A conventional HUD does great when all your sensors are optimized/limited to a narrow tunnel in the forward hemisphere. Making a HUD with spherical coverage (including backward and down) is literally impossible. The solution was a helmet that becomes a HUD with totally spherical (4Pi steradian) coverage. This enables the pilot to literally look down through the bottom of the airplane or backward through the engine and tail of the airplane and see (at both long and short range) EVERYthing that his sensors are seeing. That's why the F-35 has no HUD. And the helmet is integral to the ability of the avionics systems to display fused sensor data. That simply cannot be done on flat panels and HUDs in a single crew airplane. And BTW, has anyone priced a conventional holographic HUD lately? No you say? Well a holographic HUD costs only slightly less than the helmet system. So cost wise, its nearly a wash. Knocking the price of a helmet display is about as sensical as knocking the price of stealth. It's the cost of doing business in the modern world of air warfare. And calling it a "contradiction in design" indicates (please excuse my bluntness) a rather gross misunderstanding of the design.
2. Characterizing the F-35 as "such an abysmal dogfighter" is in my opinion both utterly false and hugely irresponsible. It's ONLY short coming is in close-in dogfight maneuverability which while not stellar, is far far far from "abysmal". And in every other realm of the dog fight it is stellar and if flown and fought properly, should enable the pilot to avoid the knife fight in a phone booth. Because no matter how stellar a close quarters knife fighter you are, such a fight is immensely dangerous and much better avoided in the first place. This is a lesson learned the hard way by the pilots of zero fighters well over half a century ago and a lesson many on this forum have apparently never learned.
..coin-gettit?
gr.
There is no EW and no kind of "numbers" in the ARG to handle the capability of a CVN.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines- thanks for soem really well balanced and informative pots
the only thing I'd comment on is your statement
"Affordability was a key metric. F-22's lack of export orders shows they might have been right"
IIRC the Israelis and the Japanese (and possibly the Koreans) tried to buy the F-22 but were turned down as the technology was considered too advanced to be sold on...........................
the only thing I'd comment on is your statement
"Affordability was a key metric. F-22's lack of export orders shows they might have been right"
IIRC the Israelis and the Japanese (and possibly the Koreans) tried to buy the F-22 but were turned down as the technology was considered too advanced to be sold on...........................
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH,
I did say 'might' - I certainly wasn't privy to the deliberations of the USAF's export control people. Technology release was most certainly an issue. I did sit in on a conference where Lockheed proposed the idea of a sort of FMS 'lease', where the aircraft would be kept on US bases, controlled and loaded by the USAF, and all sorties to be approved by the USAF, under USAF tasking. Unsurprisingly, this idea got few takers.
However, the GAO reports on the F-22 programme make sobering reading - very long delays, huge production costs, really poor initial availability in service, and simply eye watering bills for getting a very limited air to ground capability. And with some airframe issues. I was reliably told that when the F-22 had its weight crisis (and it had a biggie) a sign went up in the airframe design area that read 'Not a pound for air to ground' - this was as the airframe was being cut back to remove every single piece of metal designed against an air to ground loading spectrum.
For what it's worth,. I see F-22 (and possibly Typhoon) as the last examples of the 'single role performance at any cost' combat aircraft of the 80s and 90s. Both of them are wonderful at their designed role, but both cost a simple fortune and both were (again only my view) too heavily optimised for their primary role. In both cases, affordability became a big issue. Honestly, I see PAK-50 and the Chinese equivalents as going down the same route.
Again, just my views. I know others will differ - I'm not trying to criticise or put any one or any aircraft down - just my view.
Best Regards as ever to those at the front line putting the kit to the best possible use,
Engines
I did say 'might' - I certainly wasn't privy to the deliberations of the USAF's export control people. Technology release was most certainly an issue. I did sit in on a conference where Lockheed proposed the idea of a sort of FMS 'lease', where the aircraft would be kept on US bases, controlled and loaded by the USAF, and all sorties to be approved by the USAF, under USAF tasking. Unsurprisingly, this idea got few takers.
However, the GAO reports on the F-22 programme make sobering reading - very long delays, huge production costs, really poor initial availability in service, and simply eye watering bills for getting a very limited air to ground capability. And with some airframe issues. I was reliably told that when the F-22 had its weight crisis (and it had a biggie) a sign went up in the airframe design area that read 'Not a pound for air to ground' - this was as the airframe was being cut back to remove every single piece of metal designed against an air to ground loading spectrum.
For what it's worth,. I see F-22 (and possibly Typhoon) as the last examples of the 'single role performance at any cost' combat aircraft of the 80s and 90s. Both of them are wonderful at their designed role, but both cost a simple fortune and both were (again only my view) too heavily optimised for their primary role. In both cases, affordability became a big issue. Honestly, I see PAK-50 and the Chinese equivalents as going down the same route.
Again, just my views. I know others will differ - I'm not trying to criticise or put any one or any aircraft down - just my view.
Best Regards as ever to those at the front line putting the kit to the best possible use,
Engines
The "Not a pound for air-to-ground" was the Mac Air mantra about the F-15. From quite early on there were aspirations to include a mud-moving role and the engineers were allowed to include areas for growth into this as long as there was no weight penalty whatsoever.