Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Saxman on February 05, 2015, 06:50:06 AM
-
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-6th-generation-fighter-jets-will-be-slow-unstealthy-12193
The Navy's next fighter will be abandoning pretty much the ENTIRE HISTORY of fighter design in its proposed 6th Generation fighter. Not only will it NOT be particularly stealthy, and it won't be fast, either.
So you know, two of the BIGGEST flaws of the F-35.
While I can see where they're coming from with stealth -- radar technology has frankly evolved to the point where it's not the tremendous advantage it used to be, and it raises questions of how much its worth it -- abandoning the old addage "Speed is Life" comes as a surprise.
Yes, a fighter can't outrun a missile. But on the other hand, it CAN outrun the aircraft firing it. The trend has been for faster fighters throughout history for a REASON.
-
what is the expected service life of the F-35?
-
50 years.
-
50 years.
That kinda makes me sad...
-
In the mid 90:s all present fighters like EF, Rafale and F-22 were 4th gen fighters, 5th gen were something like cuav. So that would at best be a 5th gen fighter.
4th gen were fly-by-wire and all digital systems) "stealth" was not a criterium at all. (hard to define what stealth really is) Mosqito was for ex a stealth bomber....
-
The Mosquito was a fast bomber that evaded interception using speed, similar to a B-1 or Tu-122 today. It was perfectly visible on German radars.
-
It was still built with advanced material invicible to radar, except for the engines. :lol Not to speak of the Po-2...
And even the F-22 is visible to radar.
-
Isn't that exactly it? What good is radar when you cannot catch them in the first place? What is the top speed of any Allied nation fighter with ordinance? Or even our mighty bombers that can maintain incredible speeds at insanely high alts...
Wouldn't the Eurofighter Typhoon be a decent example of a jet that says "Hey I'm coming let's see you stop me!"?
I just don't understand why we are so hard-pressed for the F-35 or any plane like it? Who are we looking to piss off now with such a alleged stealth fighter...
-
It was still built with advanced material invicible to radar, except for the engines. :lol Not to speak of the Po-2...
And even the F-22 is visible to radar.
Radar controller used to call out the skydivers I dropped after they opened….he could see them on an ATC radar. I'm thinking if radar can see the nylon, bone and flesh of a skydiver it can probably see a Mossie.
-
Radar controller used to call out the skydivers I dropped after they opened….he could see them on an ATC radar. I'm thinking if radar can see the nylon, bone and flesh of a skydiver it can probably see a Mossie.
Radar technology in ww2 was not the same thing as it now.
-
The Mosquito's wings and fuselage was made from wood composites, but it still had a lot of metal structure and supports. More than enough for even primitive radar to pick up with ease.
-
Framework, hatches, wires, tubing, fasteners, engines. Just about everything underneath the wooden skin was metal.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/26232318/AH/e000762778.jpg)
-
I'd say speed issues are just one of many problems with the F-35. I'm no engineer but it seems that the designers conceived the plane as a land based aircraft first and then tried to cut it down to fit it's VTOL and CATOBAR roles. This strikes me as ass-backwards. Historically, it's been a lot easier to take a carrier aircraft and turn it into a land based aircraft rather than the other way around. The F4U and CF 18 Hornet are examples of that. Both are Navy birds that are easily competitive with their land based opposition. The STOL/VTOL capabilities are in my opinion asking a bit too much.
-
The mosquito was invisible to radar when it was flying at 20 feet AGL hedge hopping across Europe. Otherwise, it may have a slightly smaller radar signature than other planes of its size, but still enough to see on radar.
-
Robert Farley is an assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce.
Another obvious expert.
-
...the designers conceived the plane as a land based aircraft first and then tried to cut it down to fit it's VTOL and CATOBAR roles. This strikes me as ass-backwards.
I do not remember clearly, but wasn't the original spec that it be sort of a Swiss army knife of jets and is that not why they beat Northrop in the selection process? i.e. that they had already proven the multi role capability and Northrop had not?
-
The VTOL requirement was stupid; meanwhile Kelly Johnson is doing barrel rolls in his grave.
-
The VTOL requirement was stupid...
Words spoken as a ...?
-
I do not remember clearly, but wasn't the original spec that it be sort of a Swiss army knife of jets and is that not why they beat Northrop in the selection process? i.e. that they had already proven the multi role capability and Northrop had not?
It could be. I admit I'm not familiar with the design process other than they appear to have gotten the land-based version out first, before modifying the design to fit the carrier and VTOL versions.
-
50 years.
It will be 50 years before it goes into service at the current rate
-
:lol
-
So 100 years then before this 6th gen fighter becomes a reality. :)
-
The F-35 is a piece of crap that should have never even left the drawing board. Seems like everyone except those that make the decision to keep it knows that. Someone has some VERY good lobbyists. We will pay for it one day when we have to use that junk when it's most needed, instead of all the updated F-15s & F/A-18s (waayyy more) we could have had for the same price.
-
I think I posted this before, maybe six months ago or so. I was surprised that it went down with a bit of a thud.
I think that it is assuming. It is a few years old. The facts cited were accurate at the time. It starts out about the English Navy and around the 3 min mark gets into the F-35.
Hope that some of you enjoy it:
Bird & Fortune - Admiral Sir George Parr
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0jgZKV4N_A
:bolt:
-
Like people have said, no such thing as stealth anymore. Anything can be hit with triangulation. Not to mention rail guns & lasers coming online all around the world. Drone's its all about the drones now.
-
Like people have said, no such thing as stealth anymore. Anything can be hit with triangulation. Not to mention rail guns & lasers coming online all around the world. Drone's its all about the drones now.
What do rail guns and lasers have to do with stealth? Want to beat stealth? Just shoot at the stealth plane you can see during the day.
Of course at night things become different. Most of all when facing an enemy that owns the electromagnetic spectrum. Even the drones of the future will be LO too. Maybe the Chinese and Russians are spending zillions on stealth just for air shows and plan to fight all future war's with 4'th Gen. Its an idea.
Yaknow we terrified them during Gulf-1 with a glimpse of the future. Up until then they figured they could win just by making more stuff then we could make bullets to shoot them with. They never figured the invisible airplanes and smart weapons that hit the crack when the bent over would actually work.
-
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-6th-generation-fighter-jets-will-be-slow-unstealthy-12193
The Navy's next fighter will be abandoning pretty much the ENTIRE HISTORY of fighter design in its proposed 6th Generation fighter. Not only will it NOT be particularly stealthy, and it won't be fast, either.
So you know, two of the BIGGEST flaws of the F-35.
While I can see where they're coming from with stealth -- radar technology has frankly evolved to the point where it's not the tremendous advantage it used to be, and it raises questions of how much its worth it -- abandoning the old addage "Speed is Life" comes as a surprise.
Yes, a fighter can't outrun a missile. But on the other hand, it CAN outrun the aircraft firing it. The trend has been for faster fighters throughout history for a REASON.
I thought missiles could be fired when you dont even see the enemy con.
semp
-
What do rail guns and lasers have to do with stealth? Want to beat stealth? Just shoot at the stealth plane you can see during the day.
Of course at night things become different. Most of all when facing an enemy that owns the electromagnetic spectrum. Even the drones of the future will be LO too. Maybe the Chinese and Russians are spending zillions on stealth just for air shows and plan to fight all future war's with 4'th Gen. Its an idea.
Yaknow we terrified them during Gulf-1 with a glimpse of the future. Up until then they figured they could win just by making more stuff then we could make bullets to shoot them with. They never figured the invisible airplanes and smart weapons that hit the crack when the bent over would actually work.
I just recently read an article that noted that current radar technology has evolved to counter stealth technology. Stealth works only on modern radars, the crude early radars still see them due to the longer wavelengths used. So now they're starting to build radars that combine many wavelengths and polarity and the stealth stops working.
But stealth is still a great weapon for pounding a technologically inferior enemy. It may not work so well super power vs super power.
-
I thought missiles could be fired when you dont even see the enemy con.
semp
And the military has handcuffed BVR by requiring positive ID since BVR was a thing.
But stealth is still a great weapon for pounding a technologically inferior enemy. It may not work so well super power vs super power.
Neither would drones. It kills me every time I see people insisting that UAVs are the future of air combat even though simulations have repeatedly demonstrated that drones are only effective if you have a technological advantage over your opponent. In conventional warfare between two technologically equal powers they'd be almost useless.
-
Autonomous UCAVs are the future of air warfare. Unmanned aircraft the size of today's fighter-bombers. The remote controlled toys of today can't be compared.
(http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/76260000/jpg/_76260759__str6215.jpg)
-
How does the Lightning fare against 4th generation fighters?
-
A Really good read on a guy that flew the F-15, F-16, F-5 and the MiG-29…with some pointed commentary on the F-35. (I happen to agree with him.)
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379
...Will the F-35's sensor fusion and low observability (stealth) allow it to overcome its lackluster maneuverability and kinetic performance against future enemies?
I can't answer this one. I can ask, "Why did they make it such a pig?"…
...If it was up to me I'd cancel the F-35 and start building more Raptors. A common counter to that is the cost to restart the F-22 assembly line. How much does one pig cost? Another is that the F-35 program is too far along. Yep, let's just keep paying for a poorly-managed, overly expensive fighter that has three versions that make any one version less than it could be. Can you say F-111? That the F-35's avionics are better than the F-22's; how about a Raptor upgrade? I'd also build more advanced versions of the F-15 and F-16...
-
I can't answer this one. I can ask, "Why did they make it such a pig?"…
Maybe ask the family of the Jordanian Pilot who was just cooked.
...If it was up to me I'd cancel the F-35 and start building more Raptors.
Im glad it isnt up to you then. That is the absolute worth thing to do is to build more of a 40yo design that is easily detected on radar, has far less range, is no more faster unless clean, and is far less mission capable in the modern air war.
The problem with the F35 is the same thing that plagued many combat aircraft in WW2. That of concurrency. Which means design flaws have to be fixed even as production aircraft are coming off the line. This was caused by program mismanagement and the revolutionary design and mission parameters, not by WW2's demand to get new designs in the air no matter what. There has never been an A-B-C built before.
The F16 had a lot of teething problems too. You might not remember but I do. People thought we were nuts to build such a fighter with one engine, and such a problematic one at that. The F35 will achieve its potential. Its just going to take a bigger bite out of the taxpayers arse then we thought.
-
I appreciate that there are bugs to be worked out, but the question I have to ask is once the teething troubles are done, will the plane have the handling, speed, and maneuvering capabilities that it needs to compete? Are any of these qualities even fixable?
The thing is, we're all just armchair quarterbacks, and until we hear from someone who's flown this bird, we can't really know the truth. We do know it's slow, we know it has good avionics, but we don't know how it flies and fights, and in the end, those are the biggest questions.
-
Good point, I agree with you. What would a guy like
Lt. Col. Fred "Spanky" Clifton is one of the most experienced aggressor pilots ever, having flown the F-15, F-5, F-16 and the notorious MiG-29. He's been in dogfights with pretty much every fighter out there and is a graduate of the prestigious Fighter Weapons School.
know about fighter air combat and the things need to be successful at it? They guy is clearly not a reliable source.
..and you know there is controversy over the shoot down with the US and Jordan saying the F-16 wasn't shot down and IS saying they used a heat seeker and shot it down. Man…imagine…what if the single-engine F-16 had a straight up engine failure?
-
But he's never been in an F35 has he?
I remember the 'nam Vet F4 Phantom pilots badmouthing the F16 and its single engine and simple avionics back when I was in and would talk to them. They'd say, "build more Phantoms".
-
Exactly. Unless you are currently an F-35 test pilot, there's no way you can evaluate how it will eventually perform someday far into the future when it actually goes in service and it's 120 round cannon has the programming to actually allow it to fire.
Having a ton of experience in multiple fighters, in including one of the potential adversary fighters certainly does not qualify you to make observations about what is needed for fighter air combat.
-
So what do F-35 pilots say about it? I'm assuming those pilots are transitioning from other fighters, so they would have the most informed opinion.
-
Some people in this thread talk like the F-35 is completely invisible or something.
-
At current date i believe its safe to say that almost any other modern fighter will beat the F-35. But its not even near to be operational regardless of what they say so its pretty pointless to compare F-35 with other fighters at this moment.
Biggest problem IMO with F-35 (and F-22) is that the maintenance of the stealth skin would have a negative impact on the ability to keep them in the air during combat. In case of a big conflict it can be very costly to have a lot of plane on ground for maintenance. Quantity is also a form of quality. Maybe not a problem for the US but smaller countries cannot afford it.
F-35, unlike F-22, feels a little too dependant on stealth, F-22 should be able to stand up for itself but I'm not convinced that the F-35 can compete with other modern fighters if/when it get detected and engaged in A2A-combat.
-
Hey, at least we got rid of that worthless A-10 to help cover the cost. :rolleyes:
-
No. The A-10 is not getting retired yet.
-
But soon. Too soon. The A-10 should be kept until a replacement is designed and put into production imo.
-
No. The A-10 is not getting retired yet.
How long has the A-10 been in service anyways? 10, 20 years now? :headscratch:
Sure seemed the girl to do the job of ground busting enemy tanks and buildings and such, gonna miss her in a way. :(
-
How long has the A-10 been in service anyways? 10, 20 years now? :headscratch:
Almost 40 years.... First units got it in 1976.
-
Almost 40 years.... First units got it in 1976.
we using rifles that were designed back in the 60's, mines that were from ww2 and bullets that are from way back then. all have been updated but it is still the same basic design. think ak47. dont even mention mortars and artillery.
semp
-
If you are interested how the F-16 came to be, I recommend the book "Boyd," by Coram. It's a very interesting book on a lot of levels.
-
Came across this video of new (and old) Russian stuff. It's the first time I've seen video of the Russian stealth fighter, the Pak Fa. I've seen pictures, but not video like this. Also has some of their newest tanks and vehicle systems in it. These are some of the threats the F-35 will face in any future conflict.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0ad_1423479820
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pb_kTd2CQWk
Better version.
-
Some people in this thread talk like the F-35 is completely invisible or something.
Ever seen one fly? See! Invisible! :)
-
:lol
-
Ever seen one fly? See! Invisible! :)
Actually, I just saw two this morning land at NAS Pensacola on the way in to work out.
-
So..is the plan to wait untill every other fighter in current service can no longer fly? (including whatever enemy plane it might face before 2020)
Could stealth be the tech that brakes the backs of every nation that is trying to make a 6th gen fight? :D
"News reporter:Why haven't we won the air war yet?" (General) Because there is no one to see, and everything costs too much to risk being shot down by something we cant see!!!"
And there you have it folks.
-
Came across this video of new (and old) Russian stuff. It's the first time I've seen video of the Russian stealth fighter, the Pak Fa. I've seen pictures, but not video like this. Also has some of their newest tanks and vehicle systems in it. These are some of the threats the F-35 will face in any future conflict.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0ad_1423479820
Well...If war's can be won with video's then I give the Ruskies the edge.
-
I wouldn't. The first half was OK'ish, but the rest was ruined by the music.
-
I wouldn't. The first half was OK'ish, but the rest was ruined by the music.
Yeah but they make the best weapons. Just ask 'em.
Most of all highly advanced aircraft, engines, and avionics. Just ask 'em. Of course there is no free press in Russia and no way to independently verify their claims, "which almost always turns out to be malarky".
Besides the price of oil is playing havoc with their economy. Its not like they build anything anyone actually wants to buy, other then a few military customers who want cash and carry with no strings attached.
-
I have yet to hear a weapons manufacturer claim that their product is crap. I've also not heard of a people who's not proud of their military, regardless of how outmoded or impotent it may be.
-
Yeah but they make the best weapons. Just ask 'em.
Most of all highly advanced aircraft, engines, and avionics. Just ask 'em. Of course there is no free press in Russia and no way to independently verify their claims, "which almost always turns out to be malarky".
Besides the price of oil is playing havoc with their economy. Its not like they build anything anyone actually wants to buy, other then a few military customers who want cash and carry with no strings attached.
Much of this is true, but there are exceptions. When western folks got a hold of the AA11/R73 Archer from the German Mig29s after the reunification, it was a huge, huge shock to analysts and Air Forces in NATO how much more capable it was than the Aim9L/m. We had been thinking the entire time in the 80s during the height of the cold war we had by far the best IR missile in the world, the weapon responsible for most of the a2a kills in jet aircraft. Well, we didn't, the Archer was a far, far better missile, faster, more maneuverable, better seeker head, far longer range, off axis shooting ability, all of it. We didn't catch up until the Aim9x and other newer IR missiles came on line.
Now, I realize one example doesn't make all their stuff "superman weapons", as they tried to play off in the 80s in the Cold War, but there was some things they built, like the Su27 at the time, the Archer, and other systems, that were as good or even better than Western weapons of the time. Underestimating them, and declaring all of their data lies and media friendly fabrications is dangerous, had there been war in the 80s, a lot of our fighter pilots might have eaten Archers far outside of the parameters we though it was capable of in the opening days of war, because the consensus was that their data and selling points we discovered were lies and exaggerations when they tried selling the Archer to Soviet allies. It was declared inferior at the time, when it was in fact the best IR missile by leaps and bounds in the world at the time.
-
I find it comforting that Lockeed, beneficiary of billions of taxpayer dollars, assures us that the F-35 is an amazing world-beating aircraft.
We can take solace in the fact that Lockheed, unlike all other defense contractors, always tells the absolutely truth about its products, warts and all.
-
Except that nobody really argues that western engines and avionics are far better then anyone elses.
Nor does an ATA missile operate in a vacuum. Its only as good as the aircraft, the avionics, and the support components of the air force flying it. And no Air Force, or military Industrial complex, can be expected to have the "absolute best" weapons systems ever, all the time. Because thats not how systems are designed or procured. The mission dictates that.
And the aircraft itself is only one component of a networked strike package, as is its missiles and other weapons. Do correct me if Im wrong but the Archer isnt even designed for digital data link. In fact the Russian Air Force itself is far, far behind us in data links, data processing power and speed, battle space management, software development, avionics, multi mission capability.
Hell the best AMRAMM is probably built by the Euro's in the meteor. Hell-2 the Norwegians make some very good missiles as well.
But in the end they are only as good as the fusion of systems they have been built to operate with and in. And their support elements. And doctrine.
-
But in the end they are only as good as the fusion of systems they have been built to operate with and in. And their support elements. And doctrine.
That system has really never been put to the test. I have a massive distrust of any system that puts so much reliance on its fusion of systems - if your adversary manages to take that system down or compromise it where does that leave you? Don't forget that the Chinese got the keys to the Lockheed IT system a few years back.
-
Number of modern war's fought by the Chinese - 0.
-
And the aircraft itself is only one component of a networked strike package, as is its missiles and other weapons. Do correct me if Im wrong but the Archer isnt even designed for digital data link. In fact the Russian Air Force itself is far, far behind us in data links, data processing power and speed, battle space management, software development, avionics, multi mission capability.
All true, IMO anyway, but I was using the past Archer in the 80s vs Western missiles from the 80s, not Russian 80s vs future Western tech. The West at the time was far behind in terms of their best short range IR missiles as compared to the Soviet AA11 at the time, and had no idea, in fact the West thought the exact opposite, that the Aim9 was leaps ahead, when it was in fact leaps behind. Comparing the AA11 from THEN to Norwegian and other missiles NOW is apples and oranges. The point being that there IS exceptions to the "all Russian stuff is inferior and behind us", as the AA11 in the 80s is a perfect example, and shows that it's just as likely the case with certain exceptions currently as well. If the Russians had a huge advantage in the primary air to air weapons system used then in the 80s, it's certainly possible, even likely, they have systems in some arena that are far more effective than what the West is using overall right now. Also, speaking to the data link example you gave, the Mig 31 in fact had the first data link and airborne network back in the 80s, and it worked very well according to Western intel assessments.
A2A missiles may not operate in a "vacuum", but the bottom line is in the 80s active seeker radar guided missiles weren't fielded yet, and the semi active radar missiles were used at least as often as a means to force the enemy to maneuver to a place of disadvantage as they were to actually go for a kill - point being that the IR guided missile was the weapon most likely to be used to kill. Both sides operating in this fashion meant visual range/IR fights would have been happening all across the board, and HAD that war even happened, the Soviets had a huge, HUGE advantage with Archer, and the initial F16/F18 drills vs the German Mig29/ARcher combination proved this.
Sure, western tactics and strategy, employment of airborne control systems like AWACS and other types of EW aircraft, and all that, were far superior to the Soviets at that time, but there WOULD have been visual range fights still, a lot of them, since Soviet fighters outnumbered NATO by a large factor, and the primary weapon used by both sides would have been far more effective on the Russians side. My point is that the Archer advantage in the 80s was unknown, and by that, right now, there is likely other things we don't know about Russian (and Chinese now) hardware capabilities, places where the West thinks there is a huge advantage in capability, but there isn't, and maybe even the reverse.
I don't think anyone here will argue with you Rich that overall Western technology, and the fashion in which it is employed, is still ahead of all potential adversaries. The gap is closing though, and quickly. The RAND report just came out on Chinese military power. It trashes Chinese military capability, it's sure to get a response from the Chinese, should be a funny press release when it comes. Overall, interesting stuff.
Look at the picture Breaking Defense used at the head of the article they wrote covering the report, and try not to laugh, I dare you.
http://breakingdefense.com/category/intel-and-cyber/
(http://breakingdefense.sites.breakingmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2011/08/76791304.jpg)
-
Rich & gman. :salute :rock
-
(http://breakingdefense.sites.breakingmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2011/08/76791304.jpg)
Looks like the chinese are needing fiber in their diet