F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Courtney Mil]

...hence my earlier comments about LOAL for IR mx. The principles and risks are pretty much the same. Well said, O-P.

I suspect this line of discussion is getting beyond the thread and frequently diverging into the realms of FlightSim land.

[glad rag]

Originally Posted by LowObservable

, although there is a towed or expendable system (BAE ALE-70) for use when the aircraft is carrying external stores.

I'm pretty sure there's a one liner in there, but as I've promised to behave.....

[MSOCS]

I link this article, not only because it quite accurately (in my opinion) contexts the issues we've all been recently debating; but also to place some element of doubt in peoples' minds. Please continue to doubt the capabilities of the F-35; it actually proves that the real capability is still unknown and underestimated.

Is the F-35 the worst fighter ever? | Fighter Sweep

[LowObservable]

MSOCS -

I disagree. The condescending tone should tip you off that the author's current knowledge of fighter/sensor/weapon technology is weak to non-existent. Some of the points he makes are strawman arguments (in the real sense, not the way he uses the term) - that is, he's arguing against points that almost nobody makes. (For instance, far from everyone compares the F-35 to the F-105.)

He also seems to be equating BFM with guns and assuming that HOBS weapons mean that BFM is obsolete in a missile engagement. I don't think that view gets much support here.

His arrogant, unqualified "You don't have a right or a need to know" (which is where he hangs his hat, because he otherwise makes no case for the F-35's value) is a disgrace. You swore to defend the Constitution, sunshine, not subvert it by asserting that if the Government wants to keep anything secret for any reason, STFU and sit down, Citizen!

Of course there is intelligent discussion on military technology and operations at the unclass level. It happens here. I am continuously involved in it, and it is taken seriously (in my personal experience) by people who do have clearances. (The author should get out more and attend a few shows and conferences.)

[Note - as you can tell, I find his attitude offensive. The best I can say for him is that it may be driven by complete lack of knowledge of how the world of open-source works. But in that case he should give his keyboard a rest.]

And if I had $5 for every time someone said "Ah, but if you had the real Secret Squirrel brief you would understand why this widget is worth every $100 billion you paid for it" I would be richer by many $5s, at least. Aside from Soviet or really black programs, I can't recall any cases where such secret and decisive capabilities have been revealed by history; I alluded earlier to such claims made for the F-22, which are largely belied by the AF's currently lackadaisical approach to upgrading the jet.

Overall, I'd say that the author is letting his worldview be defined by animosity towards the sources of criticism.

[KenV]

I'm sorry, that is absolutely not true. There has never been any functionality such as that. Any more than AIM120 has a thermal seeker......You haven't yet explained your post about the AIM-120 thermal seeker.

I never stated nor remotely suggested AIM-120 has a thermal seeker. Midcourse it can be command guided or it can fly to a waypoint using internal inertial guidance. Terminal guidance is purely active homing RF.

I am curious.Your posts are not making sense to me. There is no reason whatsoever why the F-35 should be any better at supporting AIM120 than, for example F-15. The command guidance is what it is, and it doesn't matter what platform that guidance comes from.....why is the F-35 especially adept at tracking its own missiles and, second, how does it do that passively?

I'm NOT talking about the command guidance, which is currently only one-way anyway. F-35 has the ability to track the missile(s) it shoots both via its own radar and via its passive IR system. No other aircraft can do that. And both the RF and IR pictures are linked to other F-35s in the fight to maintain a more complete and more accurate air picture that is updated at a much higher rate than any other aircraft.

My use of the term "uncertainty" has nothing to do with what the guy in the cockpit thinks, it's to do with the mx search parameters when it decides to go active. Uncertainty is a technical term, not an expression of not being certain about what is going on.

My use is similar to yours. Specifically, once one has built up an air picture, as time passes that air picture becomes increasingly stale and uncertainty about what the situation is now vs what it was increases. Uncertainty can be removed/mitigated by updating the air picture with fresh AND accurate data. In short, the pilot loses situational awareness without constant updates of the air picture, which he/she must build up manually. The F-35's sensor suite and datalinks provide more data at higher rates than any other aircraft, including the F-22. In addition, the system's ability to fuse the raw data from multiple sensors makes the data more accurate and the F-35's ability to display this data to the pilot in a meaningful and intuitive manner is unmatched, even by F-22. In short, the F-35 pilot remains more situationally aware of the entire air picture and uncertainty of the air picture is mitigated if not eliminated entirely.

And finally, current US (USAF, USN and USMC) air doctrine is to fire weapons at 3 to 30 miles and avoid the furball. I can't speak for other nations. A big part of that engagement envelope is within visual range and the AIM-120 is most certainly a capable weapon anywhere in that envelope. So the characterization that when fighting visually stealth is no asset because only IR missiles will be used is just plain false for two reasons:

1. Radar guided missiles are most certainly used in visual air engagements
2. F-35 stealth is about a LOT more than just RF. F-35 has a lower IR signature than F-22 in nearly every aspect other than tail on. So yes, stealth most certainly matters even in a visual engagement.

[KenV]

Oh my.

One guy makes a (false) assumption about me stating that AMRAAM has IR terminal homing and the fan boys jump on board and make a sh*tload of personal attacks. Very "professional" indeed.

[KenV]

Your post here appears to be based upon the premise that all, or at least some, of the sensors are tracking all the targets. I'm sure your experience will have proved that is seldom the case, especially when the air situation is highly dynamic.

Oh my. So many false assumptions/assertions in two sentences. Where do I begin?

1. My experience is in a cockpit (F/A-18C) that was pretty advanced in the early part of this century and remains largely so today. The air picture in that cockpit was generated by the pilot's eyeballs which was fed data from two sources: looking outside and looking at an active RF (radar) display. That radar picture was updated manually by the pilot and fuzed with eyeball data in the pilot's head. That remains true of essentially every cockpit flying today.

2. F-35 has multiple onboard sensors beyond the pilot's eyeballs. It has passive RF, passive IR, and active RF. That sensor data is fuzed by the system and updated continuously and the updates displayed continuously to the pilot in a very intuitive format. In addition, the air picture generated by the airplane's onboard sensors are fuzed with offboard data (like other F-35s, other fighters, AWACS, AEGIS, ground radar, etc.)

3. No(!!), not all the sensors are tracking all the targets all the time. Each sensor has its strengths and attributes and each provides a PIECE of the air picture. The strength of the F-35 is that the airplane itself takes all the separate bits and pieces and fuzes them together to form a single air picture. The airplane as a system possesses a far more complete air picture than any single sensor and thru the (allegedly contradictory) helmet system, the airplane can communicate that air picture to the pilot very quickly and in a manner that the pilot can quickly and intuitively understand. So effectively the F-35 system forms a complete air picture (no other system does that, not even AWACS or AEGIS) and pipes that picture almost directly into the pilot's head.

[KenV]

AIM 120s WVR (the old boresight) mode was called "Mad dog in a meat shop" for a very good reason!

Oh my! The characterization that AIM-120 can only shoot guided beyond visual range and must use "boresight mode" to shoot within visual range is not only utterly false, but downright absurd. Looks like the (clueless) fanboys are coming out of the woodwork.

[LowObservable]

The F-35's sensor suite and datalinks provide more data at higher rates than any other aircraft, including the F-22. In addition, the system's ability to fuse the raw data from multiple sensors makes the data more accurate and the F-35's ability to display this data to the pilot in a meaningful and intuitive manner is unmatched, even by F-22.

You know this how? From your detailed briefings on (for example) Rafale F3R? (I don't know whether your claim is accurate or not - but then, neither do you.)

My experience is in a cockpit (F/A-18C) that was pretty advanced in the early part of this century and remains largely so today. The air picture in that cockpit was generated by the pilot's eyeballs which was fed data from two sources: looking outside and looking at an active RF (radar) display. That radar picture was updated manually by the pilot and fuzed with eyeball data in the pilot's head. That remains true of essentially every cockpit flying today.

The final sentence is false. (That's a statement of fact, not a personal attack.) Are you genuinely unaware of what has been done outside of Lockheed Martin, are are you actively trying to inject misinformation into the discussion?

[KenV]

You know this how? From your detailed briefings on (for example) Rafale F3R?

From Wiki:

In January 2014, Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian announced that €1 billion is allocated towards the development of the F3R standard. The standard will see the integration of the Meteor BVR missile, among other weapons and software updates. The standard is to be validated by 2018.

So the F3R standard won't even be "validated" until 2018. Fully developing, testing, and producing the product built to the F3R standard and then installing it in the aircraft take place when? And that standard while providing a new weapon does not provide any new sensors. So your Rafale F3R example is actually a form of what you call "misinformation". May I ask if this is hypocrisy or just unprofessional inconsistency?

The final sentence is false. (That's a statement of fact, not a personal attack.) Are you genuinely unaware of what has been done outside of Lockheed Martin, are are you actively trying to inject misinformation into the discussion?

Hmmm.

1. I work for a COMPETITOR to Lockheed Martin. So your implication that I'm somehow biased is false.

2. Rafale (and indeed any other existing aircraft) does not and cannot have the passive sensor suite of the F-35 and F-22 simply because they need to be integrated into the structure and loft lines of the aircraft. Unlike most other systems, such a sensor suite cannot be (cost effectively) scabbed onto an existing airframe. Is the deletion of that fact "misinformation" or an example of the very ignorance (falsely) attributed to me?

[Hempy]

Ken, methinks you complain too much to be genuine (either that or you are simply 'angry').

Have a stiff scotch and a lie down..

[LowObservable]

F3R will not be in service until 2018. Neither will the Block 3F version of the F-35, and 2B/3I, as has been publicly confirmed, includes patches for sensor fusion and other limitations. It's a fair comparison with the capability that was ordered in 2001.

Despite your bluster, the sentence with which I took issue is still false, in that several other fighters have more than radar data (including optronics and passive EW) and have fused tactical situation displays.

[glad rag]

I thought Rafale was no longer allowed to play in red/green games, in part due to it's passive sensor capability, by the home team

[LowObservable]

The phrase used was "sucking up all the trons", IIRC.

It's a Dyson when it comes to trons, by all accounts.

[glad rag]

Ah right so obviously a "useless" sensor platform then!!


shouldhaveboughthesetforqe2then...

[O-P]

Ken,


Where exactly did I say that the AIM 120 could ONLY be used WVR in a boresight mode? It is a reversionary mode at best. I referenced "the OLD boresight mode" so those that had only employed the AIM 7, or SkyFlash, would have an idea which function we were talking about.


Have you ever flown with an AIM 120 equipped aircraft? I have.

[KenV]

Ken, methinks you complain too much to be genuine (either that or you are simply 'angry').

So among the many other ad hominem (unprofessional, out of touch, obsolete knowledge, no real knowledge, no real air-to-air experience, obsolete air-to-air experience, not really a pilot, not really an engineer, passive aggressive, etc etc) now I'm not "genuine" (whatever that means.)

[KenV]

Head tracking is very different to eyeball tracking.....

Indeed. And the F-35s helmet system does both.

....although that's really not relevant here because the sensor is the same either way.

Even assuming the sensor system "is the same" for either, the system that processes the sensor data most decidedly is NOT. For that, the difference between head and eyeball tracking is very important.

[KenV]

F3R will not be in service until 2018.

Really? Then why does it say the F3R standard will be "validated" in 2018. There is a huge difference between validating a standard versus building that standard, testing it, placing that standard into production, and installing it in the fleet.

[Hempy]

sort of like F-35 IOC in 2014??