Significance of the "Leaked" F-35 vs. F-16 Report ?
Originally Posted by glad rag
What was it you bleated on about bullying and victimisation not so very long ago bud?
Stealth is the entry ticket to the battlespace. No ticky no laundry
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?
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?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.)
Originally Posted by KenV
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV
But let's let the officials in each nation decide which is best for them...
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.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Last edited by KenV; 4th Aug 2015 at 18:22.
Something about cueing someone else to roll back the tape ... do their work for them.
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?
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?
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. )
(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. )