F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hempy and others,
Perhaps I can help here.
The link SpazSinbad posted was referring to use of the F-35's MADL link system. (Not AESA radar per se). This is, as far as I am aware, a new system that was developed as part of the F-35 programme.
MADL stands for Multifunction Advanced Data Link, and comprises a number of dedicated antennae located around the airframe to provide full spherical coverage. I'm relying on Wiki here, but it's been described as a 'fast switching narrow directional communications data link' that operates in the Ku band. If you want to see one, look at the aft end of the fairings immediately below the tail fins and you'll see a hexagonal panel. That's a MADL antenna. MADL was designed for communication between F-35s, a programme to retrofit it to F-22 was cancelled around 2010 or so I understand.
The thing that interested me about the link he posted was that the potential for using MADL on land and sea based platforms was certainly raised early on in the F-35 programme by Brits working in the Mission Systems area. (It might have also been spotted by US people, but we would not have been sighted on that). The point is that MADL offers very fast data transfer rates, with low probability of interception, and decent ranges. (I'm being vague here on grounds of security, more more importantly, it's the limit of my knowledge). In the case of integration of the aircraft with UK QEC class ships, MADL offered an excellent way to provide mission data updates to aircraft ranged on deck at a high alert state. (This was a part of UK requirements for what was then called FJCA). The only alternative around at the time was to go out and manually load a new mission plan via the data 'brick', or to try to use Link 16. MADL, as far as I remember, offered much faster and more secure data transfer than any other method we could come up with. I believe that a preliminary study was carried out.
At present, F-35 is the only aircraft fitted with MADL, again as far as I know. However, I'd expect it, or developed versions, to become a common data link system in coming years. That would apply to both air and ground platforms. Hope this helps a bit,
Best regards as ever to those building the data pipes,
Engines
Perhaps I can help here.
The link SpazSinbad posted was referring to use of the F-35's MADL link system. (Not AESA radar per se). This is, as far as I am aware, a new system that was developed as part of the F-35 programme.
MADL stands for Multifunction Advanced Data Link, and comprises a number of dedicated antennae located around the airframe to provide full spherical coverage. I'm relying on Wiki here, but it's been described as a 'fast switching narrow directional communications data link' that operates in the Ku band. If you want to see one, look at the aft end of the fairings immediately below the tail fins and you'll see a hexagonal panel. That's a MADL antenna. MADL was designed for communication between F-35s, a programme to retrofit it to F-22 was cancelled around 2010 or so I understand.
The thing that interested me about the link he posted was that the potential for using MADL on land and sea based platforms was certainly raised early on in the F-35 programme by Brits working in the Mission Systems area. (It might have also been spotted by US people, but we would not have been sighted on that). The point is that MADL offers very fast data transfer rates, with low probability of interception, and decent ranges. (I'm being vague here on grounds of security, more more importantly, it's the limit of my knowledge). In the case of integration of the aircraft with UK QEC class ships, MADL offered an excellent way to provide mission data updates to aircraft ranged on deck at a high alert state. (This was a part of UK requirements for what was then called FJCA). The only alternative around at the time was to go out and manually load a new mission plan via the data 'brick', or to try to use Link 16. MADL, as far as I remember, offered much faster and more secure data transfer than any other method we could come up with. I believe that a preliminary study was carried out.
At present, F-35 is the only aircraft fitted with MADL, again as far as I know. However, I'd expect it, or developed versions, to become a common data link system in coming years. That would apply to both air and ground platforms. Hope this helps a bit,
Best regards as ever to those building the data pipes,
Engines
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines, thank you. I take it that the advantage is that MADL has the capability to send and receive over 360 degrees, rather than AESAs 60 degree off angle limit? AESA was tested to gigabit/sec datalink at least 10 years ago.
So, a bit like JTIDS for the 21st century really?
I recall an excellent article describing how L16 3rd party targeting enabled a few F3 AIM-9 'silent kills' at Red Flag - which really upset the USAF targets!
I recall an excellent article describing how L16 3rd party targeting enabled a few F3 AIM-9 'silent kills' at Red Flag - which really upset the USAF targets!
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take it that the advantage is that MADL has the capability to send and receive over 360 degrees, rather than AESAs 60 degree off angle limit? AESA was tested to gigabit/sec datalink at least 10 years ago.
LINK
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry KenV, I get a 'page not found' 404 error on your link.
I do confess to having a little insight into AESA's datalink capabilities. It wasn't just lab tested, it was well and truly field tested.
BEagle, link-16 is omnidirectional. I'm assuming this is where Engines is coming from, as MADL seems to be (from what I can gather) full spectrum as well, but with a larger bandwidth. Other than the placement of sensors though I'm still struggling to spot the difference..
I do confess to having a little insight into AESA's datalink capabilities. It wasn't just lab tested, it was well and truly field tested.
BEagle, link-16 is omnidirectional. I'm assuming this is where Engines is coming from, as MADL seems to be (from what I can gather) full spectrum as well, but with a larger bandwidth. Other than the placement of sensors though I'm still struggling to spot the difference..
Last edited by Hempy; 14th Sep 2016 at 12:57.
The original VC10K L16 installation was to have included a CRPA, but £££ dictated the cheaper omnidirectional solution for the OP ENGADINE cheapo fit, as well as deletion of the HPA.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
As I understand it, the LM Crowsnest platform uses MADL, which will be seamless with F-35, and the Helo providing a MIDS gateway.
What happens when the F-35 gets out of Helo range around the carrier I would leave to Engines to explain.
What happens when the F-35 gets out of Helo range around the carrier I would leave to Engines to explain.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hempy,
Perhaps I can help a bit further, but I would stress that I'm not a data/comms specialist. The main differences between a system like MADL and Link 16 are to do with bandwidth and comms security.
The Link 16 systems I've experienced normally operate over the UHF part of the spectrum - MADL is at a much higher frequency (Ku band) which gives it far more bandwidth. This is going to be exploited between F-35s in a number of ways, mainly to do with sharing real time tactical information between a flight of aircraft, up to 4 or more.
The other main attribute is security - MADL uses a system of steered beams to link from aircraft to aircraft - there are multiple antenna locations on the F-35, could be 5 or 6. These are used as required to maintain the MADL link between platforms./ The steered beams reduce the probability of detection or intercept, according to those I worked with on the programme.
ORAC, sorry, I can't explain your reference to helo range and F-35, unless you're highlighting the fact that a helo based platform has less range than an F-35. There's plenty of stuff out there on F-35 comms capabilities, I do know that it has SATCOM receive capability, so I guess that might be a possible route. I'd hazard a guess that in the fleet air defence role, you'd want the Crowsnest to be able to communicate with the F-35s - sorry, can't be any more help than that.
Best regards as ever to those clever people who know about this comms stuff,
Engines
Perhaps I can help a bit further, but I would stress that I'm not a data/comms specialist. The main differences between a system like MADL and Link 16 are to do with bandwidth and comms security.
The Link 16 systems I've experienced normally operate over the UHF part of the spectrum - MADL is at a much higher frequency (Ku band) which gives it far more bandwidth. This is going to be exploited between F-35s in a number of ways, mainly to do with sharing real time tactical information between a flight of aircraft, up to 4 or more.
The other main attribute is security - MADL uses a system of steered beams to link from aircraft to aircraft - there are multiple antenna locations on the F-35, could be 5 or 6. These are used as required to maintain the MADL link between platforms./ The steered beams reduce the probability of detection or intercept, according to those I worked with on the programme.
ORAC, sorry, I can't explain your reference to helo range and F-35, unless you're highlighting the fact that a helo based platform has less range than an F-35. There's plenty of stuff out there on F-35 comms capabilities, I do know that it has SATCOM receive capability, so I guess that might be a possible route. I'd hazard a guess that in the fleet air defence role, you'd want the Crowsnest to be able to communicate with the F-35s - sorry, can't be any more help than that.
Best regards as ever to those clever people who know about this comms stuff,
Engines
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
Recently there was mention of Winders on Wings of F-35C issues according to DOT&E. The fix is on way.
F-35C will begin flight testing in November to assess design fix 14 Sep 2016 Lee Hudson
https://insidedefense.com/daily-news...ess-design-fix
F-35C will begin flight testing in November to assess design fix 14 Sep 2016 Lee Hudson
"The Joint Strike Fighter program will begin flight testing a design fix in November aimed at providing greater support for the weight of the AIM-9X air-to-air missile, an issue that was highlighted in a recent memo by the Pentagon's chief weapons tester...."
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Old Lyme, Connecticut
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Michael Gilmore's latest memo referenced in a couple of the articles mentioned above (it can be found at https://assets.documentcloud.org/doc...F-IOC-Memo.pdf there are a couple of references to problems with MADL along with many other issues of a similar type. Here's a part of it:
I recommend the whole memo. It's an eye-opener.
In addition to the
limitations listed above, Block 3i also has hundreds of other deficiencies, the most significant of
which must be fixed in Block 3F to realize the full warfighting capability required of the F-35.
These deficiencies include, but are not limited to the following:
Avionics sensor fusion performance is still unacceptable.
- Air tracks often split or multiple tracks are created when all sensors contribute to
the fusion solution. The workaround during early developmental testing was to
turn off some of the sensors to ensure multiple tracks did not form, which is
unacceptable for combat and violates the basic principle of fusing contributions
from multiple sensors into an accurate track and clear display to gain situational
awareness and to identify and engage enemy tracks.
- Similarly, multiple ground tracks often are displayed when only one emitter threat
is operating. In addition, tracks that “time out” and drop from the display cannot
be recalled, causing pilots to lose tactical battlefield awareness.
- Sharing tracks over the Multi-Aircraft Data Link (MADL) between aircraft in the
F-35 formation multiplies the problems described above.
- The Air Force IRA report also identified deficiencies with fusion in Block 3i.
Electronic Warfare (EW) capabilities, including electronic attack (EA), are inconsistent
and, in some cases, not effective against required threats.
- Although the details of the deficiencies are classified, effective EW capabilities
are vital to enable the F-35 to conduct Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air
Defenses (SEAD/DEAD) and other missions against fielded threats.
- The Air Force IRA report also identified significant EW deficiencies in Block 3i.
Datalinks do not work properly. Messages sent across the MADL are often dropped or
pass inaccurate off-board inter-flight fusion tracks based on false or split air tracks and
inaccurate ground target identification and positions.
limitations listed above, Block 3i also has hundreds of other deficiencies, the most significant of
which must be fixed in Block 3F to realize the full warfighting capability required of the F-35.
These deficiencies include, but are not limited to the following:
Avionics sensor fusion performance is still unacceptable.
- Air tracks often split or multiple tracks are created when all sensors contribute to
the fusion solution. The workaround during early developmental testing was to
turn off some of the sensors to ensure multiple tracks did not form, which is
unacceptable for combat and violates the basic principle of fusing contributions
from multiple sensors into an accurate track and clear display to gain situational
awareness and to identify and engage enemy tracks.
- Similarly, multiple ground tracks often are displayed when only one emitter threat
is operating. In addition, tracks that “time out” and drop from the display cannot
be recalled, causing pilots to lose tactical battlefield awareness.
- Sharing tracks over the Multi-Aircraft Data Link (MADL) between aircraft in the
F-35 formation multiplies the problems described above.
- The Air Force IRA report also identified deficiencies with fusion in Block 3i.
Electronic Warfare (EW) capabilities, including electronic attack (EA), are inconsistent
and, in some cases, not effective against required threats.
- Although the details of the deficiencies are classified, effective EW capabilities
are vital to enable the F-35 to conduct Suppression/Destruction of Enemy Air
Defenses (SEAD/DEAD) and other missions against fielded threats.
- The Air Force IRA report also identified significant EW deficiencies in Block 3i.
Datalinks do not work properly. Messages sent across the MADL are often dropped or
pass inaccurate off-board inter-flight fusion tracks based on false or split air tracks and
inaccurate ground target identification and positions.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
The JPO & all involved know the issues cited by Gilmore/DOT&E - the JPO provides the info cited. From the original post about the F-35B/SM-6/MADL combo is this:
"...The unmodified F-35 picked up the target with its own sensors and routed the track via the fighter’s Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL pronounced: MAHdel) to the Navy’s USS Desert Ship (LLS-1) test platform running the Baseline 9 Aegis Combat System. Lockheed and the Navy attached a MADL antenna to the combat system to receive the track information that fed the information to the SM-6.
The test is an expansion of the Navy’s Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air concept (NIFC-CA) – a scheme designed to tie together data from the ships and aircraft in a carrier strike group to create a network of sensors and shooters – a proverbial kill web....
The test is an expansion of the Navy’s Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air concept (NIFC-CA) – a scheme designed to tie together data from the ships and aircraft in a carrier strike group to create a network of sensors and shooters – a proverbial kill web....
USAF Grounds 15 x F-35A Peeling & Crumbling Fuel Tank Insulation
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ng-insulation/
Update:
Affects 57 aircraft - 13 x USAF, 2 x foreign, 42 x in production.
U.S. Air Force grounds F-35 fighters over cooling line problems | Reuters
Update:
Affects 57 aircraft - 13 x USAF, 2 x foreign, 42 x in production.
U.S. Air Force grounds F-35 fighters over cooling line problems | Reuters
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,577
Likes: 0
Received 51 Likes
on
45 Posts
FWIW LM PR Response to insulation bits in fuel tanks: https://www.f35.com/news/detail/temp...ited-number-of
_____________________________
'Lyneham Lad' asked back at post 9662 on page 484 of this thread: http://www.pprune.org/9484575-post9662.html
Just because SLOW I came across this video snippet of VFA-102 Super Hornet 'Diamondback' inside view of their catapults - note lots of jolting head movements at start of the catapult. Then note 'Engines' response to that question at post 9666. http://www.pprune.org/military-aviat...ml#post9485791
AND a different view of the 'head bob' in the F-35C.
_____________________________
'Lyneham Lad' asked back at post 9662 on page 484 of this thread: http://www.pprune.org/9484575-post9662.html
"Stray thoughts ref the video in #9653:
• The pilot's head/neck take quite a vertical and axial jolt as take-off is initiated. Future spinal/nerve problems?..."
• The pilot's head/neck take quite a vertical and axial jolt as take-off is initiated. Future spinal/nerve problems?..."
AND a different view of the 'head bob' in the F-35C.
Last edited by SpazSinbad; 17th Sep 2016 at 23:38. Reason: xtravid
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Annapolis
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Hempy: ".... [All] well and good, but all AESA equiped gen 4/4.5 aircraft have the same capability, no?"
Yes, although not with MADL - which interestingly enough, is a short-ish range datalink technology. This was more of a test of MADL-hosted waveforms working with the latest Aegis software version. Their *might* be times when a Marine F-35Bs embarked as part of an ARG/MEU could use MADL or Link-16 to provide targeting for the group's Aegis AD destroyer. CVGs would most likely link their F-35s (as well as Growlers and Super Hornets) to forward E-2Ds (or future RAQ-25s) which further exploits SM-6's beyond the Aegis radar horizon capability.
Yes, although not with MADL - which interestingly enough, is a short-ish range datalink technology. This was more of a test of MADL-hosted waveforms working with the latest Aegis software version. Their *might* be times when a Marine F-35Bs embarked as part of an ARG/MEU could use MADL or Link-16 to provide targeting for the group's Aegis AD destroyer. CVGs would most likely link their F-35s (as well as Growlers and Super Hornets) to forward E-2Ds (or future RAQ-25s) which further exploits SM-6's beyond the Aegis radar horizon capability.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe the point of the F-35B/Aegis exercise was part of USN's overall Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) initiative and sought to answer three primary questions:
1. Can a sensor equipped aircraft (like the F-35B) obtain tracking data on a target with sufficient accuracy AND precision AND update rate to provide targeting data for an Aegis/SM6 installation?
2. Can the remote sensor platform transmit the above target data at sufficient bandwidth to ensure near real time target tracking? Link 16 lacks the bandwidth.
3. Can the Aegis/SM6 installation receive and process the data in near real enough time to enable a missile launch and then guide that missile to enable the missile to intercept the target?
I suspect that a fourth consideration would be can the remote sensor platform transmit the targeting data securely and with low probability of signal intercept?
Further, I believe this test is also intended to lead to Super Hornets getting MADL so they can receive remote targeting data from stealthy F-35Cs to enable the Super Hornets to launch longer range stand off weapons. (Meteor? ERAAM? FMRAAM? Other?)
1. Can a sensor equipped aircraft (like the F-35B) obtain tracking data on a target with sufficient accuracy AND precision AND update rate to provide targeting data for an Aegis/SM6 installation?
2. Can the remote sensor platform transmit the above target data at sufficient bandwidth to ensure near real time target tracking? Link 16 lacks the bandwidth.
3. Can the Aegis/SM6 installation receive and process the data in near real enough time to enable a missile launch and then guide that missile to enable the missile to intercept the target?
I suspect that a fourth consideration would be can the remote sensor platform transmit the targeting data securely and with low probability of signal intercept?
Further, I believe this test is also intended to lead to Super Hornets getting MADL so they can receive remote targeting data from stealthy F-35Cs to enable the Super Hornets to launch longer range stand off weapons. (Meteor? ERAAM? FMRAAM? Other?)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me get this straight.
The only benefit the F-35 has is it's stealth capability, which enhances the range of targeting information to be sent back to other weapon carriers?
Nextgen UAV's could be used in that role (assuming the enemies radar technology has just stopped in its tracks)
The only benefit the F-35 has is it's stealth capability, which enhances the range of targeting information to be sent back to other weapon carriers?
Nextgen UAV's could be used in that role (assuming the enemies radar technology has just stopped in its tracks)
Let me get this straight.
The only benefit the F-35 has is it's stealth capability, which enhances the range of targeting information to be sent back to other weapon carriers?
Nextgen UAV's could be used in that role (assuming the enemies radar technology has just stopped in its tracks)
The only benefit the F-35 has is it's stealth capability, which enhances the range of targeting information to be sent back to other weapon carriers?
Nextgen UAV's could be used in that role (assuming the enemies radar technology has just stopped in its tracks)