F-45?

[GScholz]

Gscholz, you're back!  Glad you returned after that ridiculous moderating.

Mace specifically has said that IRST are a complete crap shoot as the "magic" solution to stealth detection - like looking through a short range toilet paper tube IIRC is what he alluded modern airborne a2a IRST sensors being like, and they give no range value either, so weapon intercepts even if a hostile is detected are a complete and total roll of the dice, usually resulting in wasted missiles.

The F35 had and has its problems, but unless every pilot at Red Flag is lying and following the "party line", it's running rampant on exercises where the former F16/F15E/Hornets/ETC were losing large numbers to red air and red SAM/AAA.   Pretty high availability too.  I hope it's working as well as they're saying, certainly sounds much better than the doom and gloom of the past 5 years or so.

Hi Gman Yes i stalk these forums occasionally looking for interesting threads. Like this one. IRST and other non-radar sensors certainly do have their limitations, but they're also not nearly as developed as radar is now. They have a lot of development potential and with stealth tech proliferation I'm sure they will get a lot more development funding and priority by everyone. Still their inherent limitations in Earth's atmosphere there's no way to engineer around. The F-35 is really developing into the plane I was hoping it would become. Still some hurdles to overcome, but it has already proved itself at Red Flag.

Honestly, it is time to start working on getting the meat out of the plane.  Having a pilot is a significant cost driver and performance penalty.  And that completely ignores the moral aspect of pilots being killed that don't have to even be in the front lines.

That work started many years ago. Like I said earlier the F-35 is a traditional design; it has many of the technologies that are needed for an autonomous flying terminator. The sensor fusion with complete spherical coverage with optical sensors, automatic target identification and threat evaluation systems, advanced flight control and navigation systems. Really the only thing missing is an AI to make the high-level decisions. We probably already have the computing power needed for a rudimentary AI, or VI at least, but it is going to take many years to develop the software to a level that it can replace a human pilot. Prototypes are probably running right now, but you really want these AIs to be stable before you give them control over multi-million Dollar killing-machines. So for the foreseeable future the F-35 still needs that monkey in the cockpit pulling levers and pushing buttons to make it go. Serenity isn't out of a job just yet.

GScholz, let the record show that you have my sincere apology. I have no intention of baiting you and, as stated, value your input, more of which I'd like to get on a couple of specific issues, if you'd be so kind.

To be honest, we disagree on a single matter, but your arguments are plausible and well-constructed and I understand why you take the position you do. I'd argue, in an evolving countermeasure environment, diversification is a wise move. In any case, I play the ball, not the man, and wasn't trying to slag you personally.

No need for an apology. No offense taken.   I'm not sure what exactly it is we disagree on?

Nope. No thanks. Thanks for playing.

The lamentations of a future drone pilot.    J/K

[DaveBB]

There is a significant delay time for drones.  Unless it's flown completely by AI, ground communications with the drone can take up to a second or more. 

[PJ_Godzilla]

GScholz, I think we disagree on the design brief that drove the F-35 (and my disagreement is qualified as below), but, as I state, I get your rationale and have some additional questions for you. The only thing I was apologizing for was any impression that I was flamebaiting you. I am trying to provoke your thoughts and reasoned responses, not flames. 

Regarding my additional questions...
1. what do you make of the low-freq networked radar issue? What of "quantum" radar (looks pretty far away from reality to me right now)?
2. If external ords/fuel drive signature up, surely, revised material usage and geometry (stealth ords, thus) could surely mitigate, such that the package size of the final design could be reduced... clearly, there would be a cost tradeoff in the external stores designs, but, in peacetime, most of that stuff gets a lot of re-use anyway.
3. As for the AI required to truly remove the man from the loop: I'd think remote piloting could bridge that gap, but can also envision problems associated with same - for example, the detached remote pilot has little sensory input, never mind the widely varying quality of any individual pilot's evaluation of that sensory input. The man in the loop is thus likely suboptimal, given that he's not fully integrated. (also, the latency is noted below... - same reason you can't play AH by satellite).

My other point: a robust approach, imj, is multi-tiered/portfolio. Indeed, I think USAF planning has misapprehended the current situation as stealth-rules-all as opposed to what I would characterize as; rapidly evolving technologically.  I'd argue our current mix of high-signature turn-and-burn with a small contingent of ultra-costly but stealthy bleeding-edge designs is actually a pretty sound mix in that it mitigates the risk of stealth obsoletion- but what will replace the former?

as for F-22, the Typhoon pilots claimed advantage post-merge, I'd suspect based on the old stick and rudder virtue of advantageous wingloading and control authority.

Just enjoying some mental excursion...

[pembquist]

There is a significant delay time for drones.  Unless it's flown completely by AI, ground communications with the drone can take up to a second or more.

Yes but with twinned particle networking there will be no latency nor signal jamming!

[PJ_Godzilla]

That's quantum stuff, yes? Supposedly, quantum radars will also defeat stealth... but, yes, the particle response is supposed to be instantaneous. I'm not holding my breath... yet.

[icepac]

Just dropping this here.

Mach 2 in 1957.

76,000 feet in 1958

Outperformed the F104, mirageIII, and saab draken in a fly off.

Germany picked the F104 and the lockeed bribery scandals were involved.

[GScholz]

There is a significant delay time for drones.  Unless it's flown completely by AI, ground communications with the drone can take up to a second or more.

"Autonomous" is the key word.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frNsu7g7r94

1. what do you make of the low-freq networked radar issue? What of "quantum" radar (looks pretty far away from reality to me right now)?
2. If external ords/fuel drive signature up, surely, revised material usage and geometry (stealth ords, thus) could surely mitigate, such that the package size of the final design could be reduced... clearly, there would be a cost tradeoff in the external stores designs, but, in peacetime, most of that stuff gets a lot of re-use anyway.
3. As for the AI required to truly remove the man from the loop: I'd think remote piloting could bridge that gap, but can also envision problems associated with same - for example, the detached remote pilot has little sensory input, never mind the widely varying quality of any individual pilot's evaluation of that sensory input. The man in the loop is thus likely suboptimal, given that he's not fully integrated. (also, the latency is noted below... - same reason you can't play AH by satellite).

1. The low frequency "radar issue" is a non issue. This is a wizards-war and LF is the last refuge of the radar people. At some point the stealth coating will deflect or absorb every single frequency in the RF band and then the game will be over. For each generation of stealth the coating has become vastly better. Even between the F-22 and F-35 the coating is a generation apart technology wise. I wouldn't worry about it.

2. No. Geometry is too important and there is no way to make external loads practical on a stealth. Only specially designed pods like the gun pod on the F-35B are viable.

3. Like with stealth planes the first autonomous combat jet will be a light bomber like the F-117. The AI required to fly a fighter is perhaps 30-50 years away. It's the software that takes the most time and effort, and we see that with the F-35 as well. We'll see the first autonomous bombers maybe in the 2030s.

My other point: a robust approach, imj, is multi-tiered/portfolio. Indeed, I think USAF planning has misapprehended the current situation as stealth-rules-all as opposed to what I would characterize as; rapidly evolving technologically.  I'd argue our current mix of high-signature turn-and-burn with a small contingent of ultra-costly but stealthy bleeding-edge designs is actually a pretty sound mix in that it mitigates the risk of stealth obsoletion- but what will replace the former?

I don't like the "all the eggs in one basket" analogy at all. The USAF's approach is pretty much the same as it was in the 1970s when they when for a Hi-Lo mix with a small number of super jets (F-15) and a large number of cheap jets (F-16). They're doing the same thing now with the F-22 and the F-35. The Navy will operate a mixed force of F-35 and Super Hornets. Even if you strip the stealth off an F-35 (which won't happen) it is easily a match for a Super Hornet in every performance category, if not superior.

The Europeans are skipping the 5th and 6th generation and are gambling on their 4.5 generation doing the job until the flying terminators are ready. Some of them are hedging their bet by buying F-35s and flying a mixed air force. So there is no "all the eggs in one basket" approach; for the next 30 years or so NATO will be flying F-22, F-35A/B/C, F/A-18E/F, EF2000, Rafale, F-16, F-15, Mirage 2000, Gripen and a number of other manned planes and drones. And even if America must go at it alone she will at least field three different types of fighters in the mix. The USAF will keep its F-15s flying until 2040, at least. And don't forget that your 187 F-22s still represent a force greater in number (and vastly superior in effectiveness) than the entire air force of most countries. Throw in the 2000+ F-35s that America plans on operating and any comparison to other nations become ridiculous.

as for F-22, the Typhoon pilots claimed advantage post-merge, I'd suspect based on the old stick and rudder virtue of advantageous wingloading and control authority.

The Eurofighter is very manuverable, but I think pilot skill and tactical advantage are the determining factors in a F-22 vs. EF2000 fight. With thrust-vectoring the F-22 is hard to beat even by the Euro-canards.

At 1:40 it will amaze you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyF3ZXKfRkY

That's quantum stuff, yes? Supposedly, quantum radars will also defeat stealth... but, yes, the particle response is supposed to be instantaneous. I'm not holding my breath... yet.

He was joking.

[PJ_Godzilla]

He might've been joking about quantum radar, but it is no joke... but is still in the vapor stage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_radar

[GScholz]

He wasn't talking about quantum radar.

[PJ_Godzilla]

I see, but certainly, such a thing will be the next step in the stealth vs. countermeasures war. I think back on the evolution of armor and armor-defeating technologies over the last century as an analogy.

I think this is far enough out that it cannot yet be a concern.

[GScholz]

It's wizards war. At some point a new sensor might become viable that will require a new countermeasure, but not likely in the planned lifespan of the current generation of stealth aircraft... But never say never... 

In any case, even if you strip their stealth away the F-22 and the F-35 are top performers in their assigned roles. A fully visible F-22 is still an amazing air superiority fighter, and the F-35 a superb fighter-bomber with a sensor advantage like no other aircraft.

[Mister Fork]

[rant=on]

Here's the problem with the F-35 (from a unbiased perspective)...

Forcing the F-35 to do may jobs is why it's costs ballooned to over $120M per. The problem is that the tech for each role has to be added to the airplane design.   The F-35 is a V/STOL, CTOL, CATOBAR variants that include roles of strike, CAS, patrol, intercept, escort, standoff, and HARM-strike aircraft all rolled into a helmet-HMDS, glass-cockpit, touch-screen platform with the AN/ASQ-239 system coupled to the AN/APG-81 AESA-radar. 

It's a flying AC-130, F-15, F-18, F-14, F-117 platform all into one. It does the job at hand well....veerrrrry well actually but it comes at a cost.

The question has come up with my buddies - did the military needed a hammer, and Lockheed delivered a self-loading 100lb titanium nail gun coupled to wearable hydraulic-armed balanced control arm connected to a 5000 gallon air compressor that can drive in a 400lb nail into 10' of concrete?  Is what they needed was a steel-head 5lb hammer with a composite handle capable of driving 3" zinc coated nails into wood?  Or did they need several different types of tools?  And if so, would you design that into individual tools or a multi-tool?

[PR3D4TOR]

"Bogdan pointed out that his affordability goals have changed over the past several years: instead of wanting an $85 million F-35A unit cost by 2019, Lockheed will be expected to offer an $80 million dollar A-model by 2020."

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/f-35-program-office-concludes-affordability-study