General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: PJ_Godzilla on March 13, 2017, 09:42:34 PM
Title: F-45?
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on March 13, 2017, 09:42:34 PM
1. mustang II is an unfortunate appellation 2. Is it really likely to be designed in accord with Boyd/fighter mafia principles? 3. Has anyone pro or con yet changed their minds about F-35?
1. mustang II is an unfortunate appellation 2. Is it really likely to be designed in accord with Boyd/fighter mafia principles? 3. Has anyone pro or con yet changed their minds about F-35?
I read that article. I was not convinced that its author had aircraft design expertise even close to what I read in our AH forums.
"The new plane will be wonderful, and cheap, and fast and maneuverable, and we can build zillions of them! And it's named the Mustang!"
- oldman
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: Karnak on March 14, 2017, 12:12:14 AM
I am skeptical that something as simple as he is describing could get production spread through nearly enough congressional districts to actually receive enough congressional support.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: bustr on March 14, 2017, 11:51:13 AM
With the current budget consciousness being imposed by the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. This article reads more like someone appealing to a businessman with a good deal versus anything else. We live in interesting times and that occupant is not your traditional type of occupant.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: Zimme83 on March 14, 2017, 12:18:04 PM
So this F-45 should be a really cheap and simple and yet very capable.. It's easy to come up with a cool concept but a bit harder to actually design that aircraft...
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on March 14, 2017, 02:19:07 PM
All points made are fair, but this is why I raised point 2. Recall that John Boyd, in "saving" the F-15 and in laying out the specs for the F-16 used a very different design brief; a specialized one.
No, the guy writing the article isn't a designer. In some ways, I'm trolling G Scholz here, for he best articulated the design brief for the F-35 using what I dubbed the logic of the horde. In it, we posit that, all other things being equal, the nation that uses its budget to build a fleet of multi role aircraft will win.
Of course, John Boyd was at the other end of that continuum of thinking. Indeed, the base assumption is flawed - all other things are not equal.
I'd add, the design brief that produced the f-16 was pretty specialized and, at least in its early production guises F-16c was reasonably priced, as far as it goes in that market.
In any case, I think we've seen the results of the f-35 design brief repeated too many times; F-111, and the whole century series were fatally compromised for a pure a2a role.
The question isn't so much one of can it be done. We know what a pure a2a brief produced in the pre-stealth generation. The real question is, what would the old lightweight fighter formula produce in THIS era, and is it likely to be worthwhile?
Thoughts, and I recognize we're all speculating, as was the author?
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on March 14, 2017, 02:24:49 PM
I am skeptical that something as simple as he is describing could get production spread through nearly enough congressional districts to actually receive enough congressional support.
A fair point, given the Northrop history. They repeatedly got screwed, doubtless because they were relatively efficient and, worst of all, self-funded a lot of development. While universities will teach that sunk costs should never affect a decision, most Congressmen never went to schools that teach this, being typically of legal bent, and vulnerable to charges of waste if the sunk costs never make good... though F-16 was loaded enough to get support -though it was not popular in the Pentagon of the time, according to my source..
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: pembquist on March 14, 2017, 02:34:37 PM
This sounds like the same old debate I first heard about when I was a kid in the 70's. The strength of this guy's argument lies in the fact that his "Mustang II" only exists as a figment of his imagination so it can have all of these superlative qualities without being constrained by the need to actually exist.
That said it does often seem like we'd have to borrow money from our opponent to pay for equipment after a week or two of actual warfare with a parity state, I imagine this will be possible as long as neither Switzerland or Singapore are nuked.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: Zimme83 on March 14, 2017, 02:44:31 PM
In a way the F-16 was a "F-45" A cheap fighter w/o a ton of expensive avionics and weapon systems. But over the years all that stuffs have been added because it was needed. Building a fleet of dedicated fighters means that you have to buy a bunch of ground attack aircrafts.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2017, 11:43:55 AM
After reading that it is clear to me the author is... Well... A moron. He's got his head in the past, like way in the past. For the last 35 years, since the F-117 first took flight, talking heads and "experts" have been predicting the death of stealth; that the Soviets, Russians, Chinese, whomever would soon develop a new radar that would defeat stealth. Thing is there is no secret stealth defeating frequency in the RF spectrum that we haven't found yet. For 35 years now people have been trying. Thirty-five years. There is no way to defeat stealth in the radar spectrum. It is here to stay. When the F-117 took to the skies it represented a paradigm shift in combat aircraft design and capabilities. During Desert Storm it flew alone and undefended over some of the most highly contested and defended airspace in the world, and it was untouchable. This tiny light bomber took out 40% of the strategic targets in Iraq.
On the sensor front he is equally behind the times. He states that "the fighter that powers up its big, powerful radar first turns itself into a great big target in the modern battlespace," which is archaic. He doesn't realize just how computer power has transformed radar, and just how advanced modern AESA radars are. Anyone who's owned an old radio or TV set knows how noisy the RF spectrum is. Back in the day the only way to get a radar signal through was the equivalent of shouting at the top of your lungs to your mate at the other side of a noisy night club full of people. A modern AESA radar is like a whisper. The radar signal is indistinguishable from the background noise and no RWR can pick up the signal.
We are transitioning from a world were everyone sees everyone else with AWACs and long range radars on fighters, to a world where no one can see anyone except at very short ranges. The future of air combat will look reminiscent of a time-lapse of submarine combat, where stealthy fighters/drones with stealthy sensors buzz around looking for each other. First to detect the enemy will get the first shot, and that shot will be 99.99% deadly, be it a missile so smart you could have a conversation with it, or a directed energy weapon that is simply point-and-click and poof you're dead.
He's also totally clueless of the realities of producing something so complex as a combat jet. There is an old adage about design that still rings true: You can make something advanced, reliable and cheap. Choose two.
Great troll. You got me hook line and sinker. :D
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: Zimme83 on March 15, 2017, 12:01:16 PM
There are plenty of ways to defeat Stealth. especially if you are fighting over your own territory. It is of course almost never a bad thing to force your enemy to develop new systems in order to detect your planes but even stealth will inevitably be "defeated".
And regarding the F-117: There was plenty of non stealth aircrafts that penetrated the same airspace as the Nighthawk and with the same tactic they also avoided to get shot down.
Stealth might be cool but it doesnt makes you invincible.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2017, 12:14:30 PM
No there is no way to defeat stealth at present. If you're talking about other sensors than radar, like IR or other optical systems you're not defeating stealth. Stealth is only designed to defeat radar. In any case you're talking largely visual range systems that detect the emissions of the aircraft.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2017, 12:17:53 PM
And yes, against a 4th-gen adversary stealth kinda does make you invincible.
F-22 or F-35 vs. any 4th-gen fighter. With the exception of flukes the F-22 or F-35 will win every... single... time.
Even with a novice in the 22/35 and an expert in the other plane.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: Zimme83 on March 15, 2017, 12:32:05 PM
Im not going to go further in this debate since it will lead nowhere but it seems like you need to do a little research on anti stealth technology.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: jskibo on March 15, 2017, 12:43:39 PM
Oh good, another F-20 Tigershark :)
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on March 15, 2017, 01:19:57 PM
Did somebody say F-20? It was a better fighter than F-16 in a pure A2A role, at least according to the accounts I read of the head to head matchup. I well recall talking to a GD recruiter at the time. I was finishing up grad school out there at SU and was looking for a job. The GD guy said, and this is a little reminiscent of Goering's read on the Spitfire (it's pretty but...),"F-16 is an integrated weapons SYSTEM. It offers a lot more than F-20". I hate to agree with Karnak, but I think his above comment applied to Tigershark - not enough "sourcing footprint", if you take my meaning.
As for you, G. Scholz, yes, thank you, it DID work. I was looking for your eval and I got it - and actually appreciated it.
I'd like to put you and John Boyd/Pierre Sprey in a room and watch the ensuing argument. It'd be entertaining.
As for your points... I accept the point about the radar, after a little cursory research. As for Stealth, and you yourself state as much, yes, it is now and probably from now going to play a critical role... but what about when the aircraft are (inevitably) in proximity? And what about the inevitable competitor in the race: alternate detection measures? 99.99% kill rates from advanced missiles? What are they achieving right now?
You're sticking by your story: advanced technology will trump the stick and rudder. I'm more agnostic. F-16s used to regularly out-dogfight F-15s, but the 15's always had to leave the radar-guided missiles at home.
As for the author, yes, yes, he's not a product development guy. We can't all be engineers, though, I'll admit to making it look good.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on March 15, 2017, 03:38:45 PM
So, Scholz, with regard to my last question in post above, wired claims that only 9 Amraams have been fired in combat and that the kill rate is unknown, since we don't know if the Amraams or the subsequent merge killed the opponent.
What we do know: after the merge, F-22 is at a disadvantage.
I'd suggest a stealth and acm-capable design brief. The question to you: we know, for example, the typical weight penalty for variable geometry. What IS the stealth tradeoff? It looks to use, as a rule, an advantageous strength-to-weight material, at least if the designer is capable of taking advantage of the properties of carbon fiber ( e.g., orthtropicity in pre-preg laminates -you can effectively tailor directional strength and weight optimize)... but the geometry... somehow never looks "optimal" to me -and you know what that guy from Supermarine once said.
I'm asking: why is there an implied tradeoff?
The other question, if the answer to above is, "there isn't one", is, which weight present on F-22 do you leave behind?
I'll cite the wired article, but there's not a lot of there there: https://www.wired.com/2012/07/f-22-germans/ (https://www.wired.com/2012/07/f-22-germans/)
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: Zimme83 on March 15, 2017, 04:19:08 PM
The downing of the 117 over Serbia shows that its possible to defeat stealth technology. The SAM was a Sa-3, a missile from the 60s and not exactly state-of-the-art but they still found a way to to it. (And have in mind that only one other fighter where lost during the campaign). They knew how to modify the system, where to locate them and how to track and fire without being detected by anti- air defense fighters.
The enemy will also learn and adapt.
All that is needed is for example that the Chinese or the Russians develops a low frequency radar with enough accuracy to allow the S-400 to lock on to stealth fighters and all of a sudden they can engage the F-22 and F-35 well before they are within range to shoot back...
There is nothing wrong with stealth but its foolish to believe that it cannot be countered.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on March 15, 2017, 04:23:56 PM
And Scholz, recall my earlier post about stealth aircraft detection. My gosh, wouldn't that be a serious problem? Indeed, it would mean that we'd foolishly put all of our eggs in one VERY expensive basket -and produced a small contingent of Vultee Vengeances and Brewies.
Careful, John Boyd might be laughing in his grave... about networked low freq radars and their burgeoning ability to produce a tracking-grade signal.
So, now, in the new world, if some airplanes are high freq radar detectable and some are detectable by low-freq radars, and all else being equal ( including the expenditure) who wins?
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on March 15, 2017, 04:29:18 PM
The downing of the 117 over Serbia shows that its possible to defeat stealth technology. The SAM was a Sa-3, a missile from the 60s and not exactly state-of-the-art but they still found a way to to it. (And have in mind that only one other fighter where lost during the campaign). They knew how to modify the system, where to locate them and how to track and fire without being detected by anti- air defense fighters.
The enemy will also learn and adapt.
All that is needed is for example that the Chinese or the Russians develops a low frequency radar with enough accuracy to allow the S-400 to lock on to stealth fighters and all of a sudden they can engage the F-22 and F-35 well before they are within range to shoot back...
There is nothing wrong with stealth but its foolish to believe that it cannot be countered.
Zimme, you must have known where I was going. Never troll if you don't have a ready riposte -which I deliver courtesy of the reputable USNI. Scholz is advocating the F-111 of its day; the f-35. It's viability is built on a house of cards and an assumption of stasis. His argument against the dedicated CAS design is, Imj, on much firmer ground. Just my read based on a quick survey... like I say, I'm not part of that world any more, being all about the Big Blue Oval most days.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: Zimme83 on March 15, 2017, 05:04:02 PM
That was pure coincident.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: Zimme83 on March 15, 2017, 05:24:47 PM
But I see no reason to beat the dead horse even more, we have had enough threads about the F-35. But it can be fun to discuss the concept of the "F-45" vs a high tech Stealth fighter and stealth vs its counter measures.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: GScholz on March 15, 2017, 05:57:45 PM
... but what about when the aircraft are (inevitably) in proximity? And what about the inevitable competitor in the race: alternate detection measures? 99.99% kill rates from advanced missiles? What are they achieving right now?
When aircraft get close then the first to detect the adversary will kill the adversary. If they both detect each other at the same time in all likelihood they'll both die; both getting their missiles off the rails.
As for other sensor systems the thing about radar is that it operates in a wavelength range of the EM spectrum that is very advantageous. RF energy can penetrate the atmosphere to a far greater extent than any other EM wavelength like for instance visible light or IR. And other sensors are for the most part unable to penetrate clouds and weather. An aircraft flying above clouds or in rain is all but invisible to any sensor other than radar. However since radar has been defeated by stealth technology other sensors may become more important in the future, at least on clear days.
When fired within the proper launch parameters current missiles like the AIM-120D and AIM-9X have a PK in the high 90s. Mind you I was talking about where we are going, not where we are now. Right now we are in a transitional period between the old and new paradigm. The F-22 and F-35 are probably the last manned fighters to be built in the west. The future of air combat belongs to the autonomous flying killing-machine.
What we do know: after the merge, F-22 is at a disadvantage.
The F-22 is a supremely capable dogfighter, so I don't see how it would be at a disadvantage against any opponent. However the chance that both aircraft make it to the merge alive is minimal considering the lethality of today's dogfight missiles like the AIM-9X. In fact it is becoming more and more likely that neither aircraft will survive such an encounter today. I'll just remind you all that the Gulf War was 25 years ago.
I'd suggest a stealth and acm-capable design brief. The question to you: we know, for example, the typical weight penalty for variable geometry. What IS the stealth tradeoff? It looks to use, as a rule, an advantageous strength-to-weight material, at least if the designer is capable of taking advantage of the properties of carbon fiber ( e.g., orthtropicity in pre-preg laminates -you can effectively tailor directional strength and weight optimize)... but the geometry... somehow never looks "optimal" to me -and you know what that guy from Supermarine once said.
I'm asking: why is there an implied tradeoff?
The other question, if the answer to above is, "there isn't one", is, which weight present on F-22 do you leave behind?
The main trade off with stealth is that you have to carry everything inside the structure to remain stealthy. That means an internal weapons bay and massive fuel tanks. That why the F-35 is so fat that it cannot outrun a clean F-18 despite having much more power. The F-22 gets away with it because it is so much bigger that it can better aerodynamically accommodate the weapons bay and fuel.
The downing of the 117 over Serbia shows that its possible to defeat stealth technology.
No. I've read an interview with the Serbian SAM battery commander explaining how they managed to shoot the F-117 down. Either because of sloppiness or operational restrictions the F-117 flew the same flight plan to the target area several days in a row. This allowed the Serbian battery commander to place his missiles directly in the F-117's flight path. The SA-3 is a command guided missile and it has a backup optical tracking system where the crew literally aims and tracks the target manually. The SAM crew got lucky and managed to track the F-117 optically for long enough and manually detonate the missile close enough to fatally damage the F-117. It was a Hail Mary shot.
PJ Godzilla, the rest of your posts I'll just ignore, since they're nothing but flamebait.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: Gman on March 15, 2017, 07:47:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: icepac on March 15, 2017, 07:49:05 PM
722 missions 3000 hours Fired 152 HARM missiles at radars. Dropped 1033 tons of bombs. Delivered 20% of all rockeye cluster munitions. Mark 82, 83, and 84 bombs. AGM "walleye" tv bombs Most loadouts included 2x sidewinders.....just in case. 99.7% mission completion rate No losses while performing missions deeper into iraq than F18s.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: Karnak on March 15, 2017, 08:05:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on March 15, 2017, 08:57:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: Randall172 on March 16, 2017, 01:40:10 PM
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.
Nope. No thanks. Thanks for playing.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on March 16, 2017, 06:38:45 PM
Less fun, but he's right. It's inevitable. Machines have higher g limits and don't bleed.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: GScholz on March 16, 2017, 06:44:49 PM
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?
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: DaveBB on March 16, 2017, 07:16:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on March 16, 2017, 08:17:25 PM
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...
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: pembquist on March 16, 2017, 09:10:59 PM
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!
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on March 16, 2017, 09:14:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: icepac on March 19, 2017, 10:18:56 PM
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.
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.
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.
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.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on March 20, 2017, 12:55:34 PM
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
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: GScholz on March 20, 2017, 12:56:45 PM
He wasn't talking about quantum radar.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: PJ_Godzilla on March 20, 2017, 01:40:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: GScholz on March 20, 2017, 01:55:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: Mister Fork on March 21, 2017, 01:50:28 PM
[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?
:airplane:
Title: Re: F-45?
Post by: PR3D4TOR on March 24, 2017, 09:21:07 AM
"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."