F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lol that can't be right ORAC, we should ask a distinguished expert [on this very forum] to validate these preposterous claims of failure...
OyOyOy RN fleet defence with a pair of ASRAAMs on the outer pylons [if the wings dont rip off (lol btw)] way to go F35B.
OyOyOy RN fleet defence with a pair of ASRAAMs on the outer pylons [if the wings dont rip off (lol btw)] way to go F35B.
Update 1:The reason for the QF-4 not being shot down is probably that the test was not a test of the AIM-120 missile’s ability to hit a target (something that has been proved in the past) but on the F-35’s ability to track the target and guide the AMRAAM until this reached the kill envelope. Once the missile starts self-guiding to the drone the test is accomplished and there is no need to waste a costy unmanned aircraft: the AIM-120 is directed to self-destruct before impact.
Is it fact or speculation? Don't know, but it makes a certain amount of sense.
Just out of curiosity, how much test flying and weapons testing have you done? Test programs are a thing of their own.
Last ever unmanned QF-4 flight acted a target for an F-35 firing 2 x AIM-120, and survived. Some scepticism as to the claim it was supposed and the Mx were made to self-destruct.
https://theaviationist.com/2016/08/3...-and-survives/
https://theaviationist.com/2016/08/3...-and-survives/
I believe we've even flown the odd re-usable target drone in the past ourselves.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Well they are "missiles" not "hittiles", and designed for a near miss so that the warhead chops the plane in half, rather than hitting the jet pipes etc. With the proximity fuses disabled a hit is a misfortune rather than a success.
I'm just bemused at the self-destruct excuse, I thought the telemetry was used to show how close they came, and the self-destruct was that built in regardless to ensure no blue-on-blue fratricide if they missed the planned target.
I'm just bemused at the self-destruct excuse, I thought the telemetry was used to show how close they came, and the self-destruct was that built in regardless to ensure no blue-on-blue fratricide if they missed the planned target.
We don't fire live rounds with any of the fuzes disabled. What is the point of throwing an AIM120 warhead into the sea? The real question is was it purely a telemetry round?
The reporting is, for good reasons, a little vague. The bottom line is if the ac radar can get the missile to a pol with a decent Q, the missile does the rest. That what the slammer does.
The reporting is, for good reasons, a little vague. The bottom line is if the ac radar can get the missile to a pol with a decent Q, the missile does the rest. That what the slammer does.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder how many other missile test firings this particular QF-4 has 'survived' during its service? It's almost as though someone might want to retain its DAS and other expensive gizmos and recover the full telemetry data for detailed analysis.
I believe we've even flown the odd re-usable target drone in the past ourselves.
I believe we've even flown the odd re-usable target drone in the past ourselves.
Sure let's leave the data "lying around" to be recovered.
After all it's only the performance of the primary AA weapon with the future mainstay of western manned aviation.
Mind you, probably safer than being held on a LM database.
ROFL.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well they are "missiles" not "hittiles", and designed for a near miss so that the warhead chops the plane in half, rather than hitting the jet pipes etc. With the proximity fuses disabled a hit is a misfortune rather than a success.
I'm just bemused at the self-destruct excuse, I thought the telemetry was used to show how close they came, and the self-destruct was that built in regardless to ensure no blue-on-blue fratricide if they missed the planned target.
I'm just bemused at the self-destruct excuse, I thought the telemetry was used to show how close they came, and the self-destruct was that built in regardless to ensure no blue-on-blue fratricide if they missed the planned target.
1. to sanitise wreckage/debris #
2. weapon heading ofrange (again?? the cousin's ain't that gash)
# many moons ago I was "attending" a accident scene when some polite civilian chaps drafted me to "vet" certain bags of detritus, I was able to convince them that all IC's and supporting components could in theory retain code, but there was no sign of a ferrite iron core in the slightest
...
I wonder how many other missile test firings this particular QF-4 has 'survived' during its service? It's almost as though someone might want to retain its DAS and other expensive gizmos and recover the full telemetry data for detailed analysis.
I believe we've even flown the odd re-usable target drone in the past ourselves.
I believe we've even flown the odd re-usable target drone in the past ourselves.
Sure let's leave the data "lying around" to be recovered.
After all it's only the performance of the primary AA weapon with the future mainstay of western manned aviation.
Mind you, probably safer than being held on a LM database.
ROFL.
...In support of U.S. test and evaluation activities, Phantom drones also act as targets for non-lethal tests of missiles, radar and other sensors, and defensive systems. They also support Air Force and Navy training, such as "Combat Archer" missile shoots. Both services also employ sub-scale target drones, which are less costly to operate than FSATs. But only a full-scale target offers the flight characteristics, performance envelope – including subsonic and supersonic flight at altitudes up to and above 50,000 feet – endurance, radar and infrared (IR) signatures, and damage resistance of a real aircraft....
...To evade the weapon system under test, the drone’s flight profile may include defensive maneuvers (including 6-G turns and vertical maneuvers), chaff and flare releases, and radar jamming. Test results are recorded by telemetry and, at WSMR, by optical systems. If the drone is destroyed, its wreckage falls onto the range...
...To evade the weapon system under test, the drone’s flight profile may include defensive maneuvers (including 6-G turns and vertical maneuvers), chaff and flare releases, and radar jamming. Test results are recorded by telemetry and, at WSMR, by optical systems. If the drone is destroyed, its wreckage falls onto the range...
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-RP
The QF-4 does not need to survive a missile shot to have the telemetry data recovered, it's all transmitted live during the flight by the 'expensive gizmos', having the jet back on the ground provides no more info than if it was actually shot down, except for maybe the blast/frag pattern if it survives a live warhead shot...
-RP
-RP
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-RP
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was going to make a new post. However, I thought this news should go here..
Not sure on how old this is BTW..
CNN is reporting that 435 F15's are to be modified;
Air Force investing $12B in F-15s - CNNPolitics.com
But isn't the idea of 'stealth' and particularly the F35 - is to see the enemy before they can see you? And its been said, that as you (the enemy), can see it, you're already dead?
So how important is it to have a dog-fighting plane in todays Gen 5,6 world?
Not sure on how old this is BTW..
CNN is reporting that 435 F15's are to be modified;
Air Force investing $12B in F-15s - CNNPolitics.com
But isn't the idea of 'stealth' and particularly the F35 - is to see the enemy before they can see you? And its been said, that as you (the enemy), can see it, you're already dead?
So how important is it to have a dog-fighting plane in todays Gen 5,6 world?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obba, I think being a good dog fighter is important if it's non-stealth vs non-stealth. The somewhat rhetorical question is, "how many F-15 kills were as a result of a dog fight won?"
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could it be that the current velocity of radar technology improvement is dictating that stealthy aircraft are pretty well a waste of time? Could it be that the combination of radar that can detect but not designate and aircraft/missile radar that can designate simply make stealth pointless? Hence the refurbishment of the F-15. And maybe the pointlessness of the F-35.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Royalistflyer, I think that's an over-simplistic assumption which doesn't account for the sheer technical difficulty of such a concept. To suggest that the USAF's decision to upgrade their F-15 fleet is proof that stealth is "pointless", is a bold leap. Stealth isn't - and has never been - a panacea. It re-baselines the lethal and survivable characteristics of air platforms in the face of newer, more clever radars and EW; radars and EW that may render non-stealthy inventories extremely vulnerable in a near-term fight.
If I have a fleet of jets with hours left to fly on them, I'd like them to be useful in conflict for their remaining life. Ergo, I upgrade them to keep that vulnerability as low as possible, in itself making them more lethal as a result; clearly I'd add direct lethality improvements as well. Agile, E-scan radars, digital EW and a bunch of other eye-watering tech can give a decent hike to an aged platform for relatively low cost, but it will never have the already-described pedigree that stealth affords.
We ignore our potential adversaries' capabilities at our own peril, but we're also very quick to criticise our own. Ultimately, that approach keeps us honest, focused and may even give false succour and confidence to our foes. It's a good thing, IMHO.
If I have a fleet of jets with hours left to fly on them, I'd like them to be useful in conflict for their remaining life. Ergo, I upgrade them to keep that vulnerability as low as possible, in itself making them more lethal as a result; clearly I'd add direct lethality improvements as well. Agile, E-scan radars, digital EW and a bunch of other eye-watering tech can give a decent hike to an aged platform for relatively low cost, but it will never have the already-described pedigree that stealth affords.
We ignore our potential adversaries' capabilities at our own peril, but we're also very quick to criticise our own. Ultimately, that approach keeps us honest, focused and may even give false succour and confidence to our foes. It's a good thing, IMHO.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
We ignore our potential adversaries' capabilities at our own peril...
Chinese LRIP J-20 photographed in Tibet. Might just be high level trials, might not....
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: UK on a crosswind
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MSOCS: In the past we (our misguided politicians?) have made bold predictions that turned out to be very wrong. Nevertheless, I have the impression that near term fights seem unlikely given the air-to-air missile range capabilities. The idea that one approaches unseen and kills the opponent - and that by the time he can see you, he is dead seems to be the "dogfight" premise for the F-35/F-22. However given that the likely arms sellers to our possible opponents are already developing aircraft with similar stealth to F-35/F-22, then when you can "see" him, he can "see" you too. Doesn't that sort of cancel out? Marginal technological advantages will come into play and last for a short while. Nevertheless, I just don't see us (UK) in conflict with any major player who could own such technology. Russia isn't going to attack west. China is more interested in buying us than fighting us. And if we're seriously smart we won't go getting involved in a fight with Iran. So I would question our need for F-35/F-22 technology.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, the old conundrum, per Cold War then: they'll never attack us so why bother! Sadly we need full-spectrum capabilities for self-assurance so that argument fortunately never takes hold with those who have a responsibility to protect.
You assert that Russian/Chinese stealth is equitable to F-22/F-35. That, again, is a bold statement. There are physical aspects in the pictures of both J-20 and T-50 that tell me they are reduced signature compared to Mig X and Su-Y, but perhaps not true LO or VLO. Whether that reduced signature can be maintained, relatively cheaply in-Service ("supportable"), is also another consideration of importance.
Beyond this, we seem to have little debate on the tactics and training either "side" employs for these latest capabilities. The USA are THE global experience in the 'operationalising' stealth in combat aircraft.
You assert that Russian/Chinese stealth is equitable to F-22/F-35. That, again, is a bold statement. There are physical aspects in the pictures of both J-20 and T-50 that tell me they are reduced signature compared to Mig X and Su-Y, but perhaps not true LO or VLO. Whether that reduced signature can be maintained, relatively cheaply in-Service ("supportable"), is also another consideration of importance.
Beyond this, we seem to have little debate on the tactics and training either "side" employs for these latest capabilities. The USA are THE global experience in the 'operationalising' stealth in combat aircraft.