neofightr

How on god's green earth do you know this? How can anyone here be so quick to attack him and know any better than him? Have you designed aircraft platforms in real-life like he did? Did you spend an entire career in designing and engineering complex systems like he did? You are however entitled to your negative uninformed opinions.

I clearly read the statement as external which would be silly. So if it's internal then yeah not an impact to stealth. Interesting to see if this shoe-horning will happen. I doubt it will and we won't know for at least a decade. Clearly Spey got it wrong with the F15. Obviously the F15 is a resounding success with all it's mig and Su tallies over the past 40 years.

Like I said, we are all entitled to opinions no matter how informed or uninformed, my time at the Naval Academy, Naval post graduate school and the Naval War college have informed my opinions and I still stand by my original statement, if orders are questioned during the heat of battle then that unit will not be as successful as it should be and may be eliminated depending on the situation.. There will be time enough to hold the commander accountable after the battle. You assume I am talking about blindly following orders and that is not the case. Everyone has the option to say no but it better make sense (i.e. ordered to attack innocent civilians, clearly an attack on blue forces etc etc). Both human and drone(with the right sensors) will know this. So logically no one is expected to execute unlawful orders like genocide(nazi examples) or burning down an innocent village (the officers and NCOs were held accountable in Vietnam). This is clearly the purpose of UCMJ and the process of law. I truly didn't appreciate this mindset until I became a leader of many. It was always fascinating to see the impact when one of my subordinates decided to question a lawful decision only to find out how wrong he was when he finally got all the facts at a later time. Thankfully this was never during combat only in training.

Exactly and the reason they were not trained properly is because there were bad assumptions being made about BVR-only missions. And again history is repeating itself with the F35. You are welcome to your assumptions as well.

Uh, the usual suspects. If you think we have seen any real challenge to our air forces in the past 30 years of actual combat you are sadly mistaken.

Probably none, the last thing that today's vendor like Lockheed Martin wants is a critical thinker determined to make a really good product with no compromises. Sprey is part of the old-school of engineers that prided themselves on quality work and had the mindset of keeping it simple for efficiency/cost sake. That mindset is gone in today's aircraft maker. All they want to do is cram as much as they technically can to make their product stand out and look sexy during competition (if there is any) then after getting the contract start charging exorbitant amounts of money due to the complexity and the issues that will occur. The F16 is one of the best planes ever built, not because of it's terrific performance and profile but because it was insanely cheap to produce both in yesterday's and today's dollars. Why do you think the A10 continued to stay in service will past it's due date? It was a cost effective solution that met mission requirements, it's as simple as that. And we all know about the F15 and it's reputation don't we. He and the people that worked alongside him have a lot to be proud of.

The situation they were afraid of was getting into a subsonic dogfight with a plane that had mediocre at best turn rates. The assumption was the Phantom would do all it's engagements in BVR and at supersonic speeds so there was no need to train for slow dog fights. Then they found out the hard way in Vietnam that BVR-only scenario they trained to was a pipe dream. The rest is history (startup of top gun, gun pods, etc etc) History repeats itself with the F35. The F35 pilots are super confident that they will always win in BVR so there is no need to worry about slow dog fights after the winders are spent after that first turn at the merge. So it's a safe bet that LM didn't bother to push the envelope with regard to turn-rate performance. No need, Aim9x is all that is required. This is folly, murphy's law and the gremlins will be in full force when a real engagement happens.

<Jaw hits the ground>, not only does RCS jump and negates stealth but the price will skyrocket when that "engineering work" is factored in. This is not going to happen. I will say that having 4 internal amraam is pretty respectable and should negate any need for pylons with missiles. But if you have to slap on the winders on the wingtips then I question the stealth assumptions. But let's not forget the typical adversary will have at least a 2 to 1 ratio in engagement numbers so yeah the F35 better better have as many missiles as it can have. And god help you if the adversary have developed advanced A-A drones. :music_whistling:

Great find. Keep in mind this mission based gun pod implies air-to-ground missions because trying to use a gun pod in a dogfight ain't going to happen. What everyone assumes here is that this gun pod is what the Navy really wanted, I can assure you it was not, this was a compromise early on when they were designing (shoe-horning ) the established/finalized air force design into meeting the Navy's unique requirements (i.e. dramatically stronger and heavier landing gear, matching FA18 requirements, twin engines, etc etc). Again this is what Spey's point was when he said it was a bad idea to have one a/c meet 3 branches needs. It was a recipe for disaster he and others like him called it years ago. You guys keep trying to dismiss him but he knew what he was talking about from his extensive background with the F15 and F16 programs.

This info are good examples of what went wrong with the F35 program early on. This is what Spey has been banging the drum about and for me it just confirms what I have known and seen over the years. Another aspect that will be studied as a failure was the initial requirement for a two engine design for reliability and survivability, that went out the window early on as well. These along with massive cost overruns got the program director fired back in 2010. Spey's point was back in his day, you had specific mission designs for the F18/F14 and the F15/F16 and all aircraft that preceded it. I am not sure what compromises occurred for the F15 but for the F14 and F18 there were little in compromises that occurred from design to production with possibly range being one for the F18 and engine performance for the F14 being the other. This is a far cry to the massive amount of compromises that have occurred to the F35. When you compare overall costs of the program there are two a/c that stand out as fiascos (F35/F22) and a third would have happened if the A12 had been allowed to go forward.

That was a great collection of data but all I will say is we don't know the actual picture because that is classified. What I will tell you from my experience is public perception is always waaaay off from the actual picture both in positive and negative directions. I thought the video I cited was a reasonable guess. But anyone can take numbers in hardware and paint any picture they want. So time will tell. BTW my head explodes just thinking of where they will cram six AA missiles inside that airframe. Maybe these are cutting edge mini-missiles no one has seen before in that case we will be one step closer to arming drones with formidable capabilities. If they are not some radical new mini-missile designs, then the airframe will have to be changed in which case, just watch that price tag fly to the moon.

My point exactly, let's see what we will see in a few years when the planes stand up in squadrons.

Everybody is entitled to their opinions but no, mine are not based on click-bait articles. They are based on being in the know, working at commander operational and test evaluation force, being on the USS Wasp when the first marine variant F35 successfully landed onboard years ago, chatting with the test pilot who I use to fly with back in my flying days. Going through an extensive master's degree curriculum in systems engineering and acquisitions at one of the most prestigious schools in the country. I know all about major contractors and their methods to promote their products thanks to my time in acquisitions. The F14 which was the direct successor to the Navy's gunless F4 and was designed based on lessons learned from the F4's shortcomings. Guess what was requested by the Navy (based on pilot's feedback of course) and implemented from the start for that aircraft, yeah that's right a gun. A gun was requested along with cutting-edge, long (phoenix), medium(newest sparrow) and close range (latest aim9) missiles. Those F4 pilots that stated they didn't have need for a gun because the superior missiles are all they would ever need had the same mindset of today's F35 pilots saying that this plane is so advanced that there is no need for a gun. It was this every same overconfidence/bias that proved to be wrong over time. Now LM is playing catch-up with trying to make the internal gun work and have a band-aid in place called the gun-pod for the Navy's variant. History once again repeats itself. You need to ask yourself why LM did not by default have the internal cannon full up and ready in it's initial design. There is a clear reason for that that has already been stated in many articles that are out there. And as I clearly stated in my earlier posts, I am confident the F35 will hold it's own against the existing inventory of 4th gen aircraft that were designed back in the 70-90s timeframe. How it will do against any aircraft designed after 2000 is anyone's guess. Now how about setting realistic expectations, look at this video starting at 1:25. ( ) Notice those pylons? Sure they are testing the plane to make sure it can launch/land with pylons but how much do you want to bet that will be the standard configuration just like it is with the hornets? Recall Berke's response to Sprey's remarks on performance, Berke was adamant that the F35 would have a radically different internal configuration that will make it do circles around the competition in combat. Now let's just see what happens in a few short years when we see fleet standard F35Cs launching during ops. Will they or won't they have pylons, that will be the question. And if they have pylons carrying missiles, well then, need I go on? And sure in the attack role, pylons with bombs are expected, just like they are with Hornets but the question remains, what will be the standard missile configuration for the fleet. This is why I jumped on this thread when everyone decided to attack Sprey's reputation because of his critical remarks on the F35. The man has been around long enough and in enough circles in the industry to know what he is talking about. And finally here is a great click-bait video that will give you a good idea at a realistic picture.

I am glad to see you agree on some points. I am no expert on metal fatigue but I know how it affects fighter planes pulling constant g's over the lifetime of the aircraft because I flew them. The F15s have been in constant production so those planes you cite in '75 are not the ones of today. Another example are F18As made in the eighties, no longer used by the Navy. Reason for both cases: metal fatigue. F14s retired due to metal fatigue and upkeep cost. B52s are truly an amazing story but you need to research it to understand how they are flying today. First off, they don't pull serious Gs so metal fatigue takes longer. Second the B52s keep flying because some forward thinking people preserved the bulk of the fleet a long time ago and placed them in the boneyard and now selectively use them for parts and use. This method can't be as easily done with fighters. The ratio I state is simply a blind guess to illustrate there is an order of magnitude difference in cost between an F35 and a modularized/miniaturized drone. I have no idea what the cost difference would actually be but I guarantee it would be eye popping when compared to capabilities. Ask yourself did you think just 10 years ago that a full-sized 4500 pound car would be traveling on our highways with no need for a driver? It happened and it's already 2 yr old news. Still needs refinement of course but our government along with others are buying off on it and are allowing it. And already there is talk about full-size autonmous 18-wheelers. One more thing about drones and cost, the smaller the unit the lesser the cost in the long run. If you can make a mini-hornet then why not a mini-xb47 And no, the ordnance of today will not be the ordnance of tomorrow when it comes to drones. Think smaller and more powerful :smilewink: We have soo many AI efforts going on in the world it's not even funny, remember AI is not a physical property and yes it will cost money but not at the level you think it will be. I never said complete take-over, it will be gradually phased-in over the decades with a small cadre of elite human pilots remaining.

The video below shows even more drone capability (mid-air refueling, night ops etc) In the video you can see the maintenance crews on the ship cheering on the drones because they know the drones don't carry egos with them. :D All the jets you mentioned can easily be stored at the boneyard for backup once the drones come online. If you seriously think we will have several hundred F35s required to meet defense readiness posture at their given grossly overpriced cost, you are sorely mistaken. Just look at how many F22s we have and study history to find out how many was initially planned for. "The U.S. Air Force has as a tiny fleet of 186 Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor stealth fighters. That’s all that survived out of 187 production aircraft (195 jets if developmental airframes are included) that were built out of the 750 that were originally planned. Of those 186 remaining Raptors, only 123 are “combat-coded” aircraft with another twenty that are classified as backup aircraft inventory machines. The rest are test and training assets." http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-f-22-raptor-stealth-fighter-killer-it-can-be-14088 BTW you need to go research metal fatigue, that should get you to revise your predicted date numbers. Oh and here is your wake-up call article in case you still can't believe it. http://www.defenceaviation.com/2016/05/why-did-the-united-states-stop-f-22-production-could-lockheed-martin-restart-the-production-line.html " Congress has expressed keen interest throughout this year’s budget season in restarting the line. Air Force officials, on the other hand, have consistently dubbed reviving the Raptor line as a nonstarter, citing the enormous cost of the project." Drone Video: Published on Apr 17, 2016 The US military X-47B UAV will serve the US navy well and will be the worst nightmare for the Russian military. The Northrop Grumman X-47B is a demonstration unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) designed for carrier-based operations. The US Navy has successfully catapulted a prototype drone from an aircraft carrier on Tuesday, which is the first step in a program designed to begin fielding drones on all Navy carriers between 2017 and 2020. The flight serves as a milestone for the future of drone aviation, and US Navy officers have celebrated the success of its launch. But the flight of the unmanned aircraft, which is the size of a fighter jet, is likely to become the subject of criticism from those who believe drone usage hurts the US image – especially since drones are behind many civilian deaths on foreign grounds. Critics have already condemned the Navy’s $1.4 billion drone prototype program, relaying their concerns over the development of weaponized systems in which humans will have even less control over when it comes to launching attacks. Human Rights Watch has particularly protested the development of drones that carry weapons and are fully autonomous, like the X-47B unmanned aircraft that the Navy launched from the USS George H.W. Bush on Tuesday. This unmanned aircraft can reach an altitude of more than 40,000 feet and has a range of more than 2,100 nautical miles, the Associated Press reports. This model is particularly valuable because it has the capability to take off and land on an aircraft carrier. Developing such drones would allow the US to launch strikes from anywhere in the world, regardless of whether or not a foreign country allows the US on its grounds. The drone is fully autonomous in flight, and relies on computer programs to direct it – unless an operator programs it to operate otherwise. Most drones currently employed by the military fully rely on operators to control it from a remote location. While the X-47B is only intended for testing purposes rather than operational use, the Navy will use it for research purposes to develop advanced unmanned aircraft for use in future conflicts. When it comes to using lethal force, the X-47B still requires human approval. But Human Rights Watch believes the prototype research will lead to the development of drones that conduct deadly attacks with no human intervention. Steve Goose, director of the arms division at Human Rights Watch, expressed some of his fears with AP. “For us, the question is where do you draw lines?” he said. “We’re saying you need to draw the line when you have a fully autonomous system that is weaponized. We’re saying you must have meaningful human control over key battlefield decisions of who lives and who dies. That should not be left up to the weapons system itself.” But despite fears over the future of fully autonomous drones that can launch deadly attacks from aircraft carriers, the Navy is hailing the flight of its prototype as a success it has long sought. “US Navy history is made!” the Navy wrote from its official Twitter account. “Was airborne at 11:18A. More to come.” The Navy plans to release videos and photographs of the event, which Read Adm. Mat Winter wrote marks “an inflection point in history on how we will integrate manned and unmanned aircraft on carrier flight decks in the future.” Video Description Credit: Russia Today Video Credits: Navy Media Content Services,Terry Turner, DoD News,Dustin Good, Defense Imagery Management Operations Center, Gregory WilhelmiSmall, Seaman Apprentice Travis Litke, 3rd Class Sade Lucas, 2nd Class Gregory Wilhelmi, Petty Officer 3rd Class Donald White, MC2 Chris Brown, Andrew Johnson, NAVAIR, 2nd Class Kristin Rojas and Northrop Grumman. Thumbnail Credit: US Navy

First off, the bad vibes were already here when people decided to attack Sprey's reputation. Second, I don't bring vibes, I bring facts, observations and educated guesses. Third, how would it please me either way since I have been retired from flying for decades? I am not slagging on the F35 as a pilot, I am doing it as a fully-retired mil officer now civilian who isn't eyeing a contracting job with the big 3 so no back-pedaling here. Fourth, while drones will have its challenges just like all development programs the governments of the world take on, there is a massive difference between drones and tactical aircraft programs. Right now you can count on one hand the number of companies working on tactical aircraft designs and implementations. There is so little competition it is disturbing and disappointing. With drones, there are literally dozens upon dozens of companies working on all kinds of drones and drone related tech. AI is being worked on and refined on a daily basis by massive corporations(Intel,MS, Apple, Nvidia, etc etc) and world-renown universities and institutes. This competition is good real good for innovation, performance, quality and value reasons. And don't think for a second these innovations can't be converted to military applications. It is this very lack of competition for military jet development that has led to F35s debacle of a program. I am not talking about it's performance since I am sure it can hold it's own against the 20-35 year old designed craft it's flying with and going against. It's the price and quality that is the issue. That is what Sprey is getting at in the interview. Apparently the lessons were not learned with the F22 cost overruns. Oh don't get me wrong, the F22 is a dream to fly and probably the best fighter out there but it better be for that absolutely absurd price point. Both the F22 and F35 should have been stopped in it's tracks like the A12 avenger was back in the late eighties and early nineties. Probably the last time we had honest politicians looking out for the taxpayer's money. And let me make it clear, issues have always happen in the design and acquisition of complex aircraft, heck there was serious doubts about the hornet back in 1980, I just finished watching the documentary on it but back then they got it under control in a very short period of time delivered on their promises aside from the Hornet's range. And they have delivered on their numbers in the long run. The F22 and F35 have been runaway disasters in terms of cost and readiness. Unless the big 3 (LM,Boeing,Grumman) decide to buy up all the drone companies, it's going to be a whole new ball park when it comes to designing and procuring advanced drones from the governments perspective. And it's clear to me that Grumman is out the gate with their impressive first attempt with the Xb-47. It would not have been possible for Gumman to do what they did with out the exponentially growing drone industry that's been in place for the last 15 years at least. "Funny that because the F-35 looks far superior to the FA-18EF in the slow speed high Alpha regime - hate to think you were eyeballing Aerodynamics! ;)" So this one of many articles out there citing the initial reason for a lack of gun software was because the F35 is not expected to dogfight and does not have a priority for CAS gun support is somehow some made up lie from loser pilots? Is this suppose to be some fake news article? "The lack of a gun is not likely to be a major problem for close-in air-to-air dogfights against other jets. Part of the problem is that the F-35—which is less maneuverable than contemporary enemy fighters like the Russian Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker—is not likely to survive such a close-in skirmish. “The jet can’t really turn anyway, so that is a bit of a moot point,” said one Air Force fighter pilot." I did a search and did not see any lawsuits suing this website for the fake news article. Sure sure, it's superior missile loadout of aim9x and amraams negate any need for dogfights, riiiiiight. :lol: History repeats itself yet again (see initial phantom designs circa 1960s).

And I have no idea how you come up with this notion of a bubble. I already stated in an earlier post that I am clearly talking about in the battlespace when it's in emcon mode that a drone would be not be hackable. Your examples highlight the reason why a full spectrum of sensors would be used in a drone to avoid such trickery. It is extremely hard to spoof the whole spectrum, damn near impossible. And I don't care what glasses an enemy pilot puts on, it ain't fooling a drone :) And like I said at the beginning of this subthread, a person is still pushing the button that closes the circuit, that hasn't changed when using autonomous drones.

Again, I refer to my statement that *I know* what I am talking about and I will reiterate what is already common knowledge, if you can see the missile you can defeat the missile. The question of how successful you are depends at how early you can see the missile and that's where the drone is superior to the pilot (both in Gs, detection, sustained speeds and maneuverability) and will be every time. This is why drones are the future and pilots will be the past (eventually). And like I said earlier, I expect we will see a small cadre of Fighter/Attack pilots remain, kind of like a SEAL team for the air and for those high profile and delicate missions. Because drones don't make good subjects for a ticker tape parade or a medal ceremony.

Did you even look at this video? Here is a fully automated drone landing on an aircraft carrier. This is one of the hardest most dynamic environments with literally hundreds of variables involving complex fluid dynamics and not to mention the required precise flight inputs that can cause pilots to panic depending on sea state (I know I have lived it and seen it). And yet this drone makes it look all too easy. And this was done 4 friggin years ago! Before SpaceX's autonomous rockets were landing back on the pad easily. I don't think we need to get into that rocket science when it comes to parameters. And yet with all this proof of AI handling an insane amount of data input variables in real-time (under very dynamic and constantly changing environments) for the past what 4 years you still think, we are decades away with autonomous drone technology in the battlefield, really??

How on earth is my statement not true, I clearly stated what fuel stores meant and what kinetic energy meant. The way you worded your statement was incorrect because you meant huge kinetic energy stored after launch but you stated "Huge energy stores" which implied fuel remaining onboard the missile. In the end I see your followup post is agreeing with me so let's leave it at that.

No, the example I gave was on engine failure which is almost identical parameter-wise to your example for the rocket. I never stated it would self destruct because of information overload, unable to id a target, accidentally killing an innocent but only on engine failure to avoid falling into enemy hands intact. Your error statement still stands as flawed. And if a virus or worm successfully tricks the drone into thinking it has an engine failure and destroys the drone then kudos to the enemy and their successful information warfare missile attack. No need for a worm, there are easier options to take out drones and aircraft too.

You know as a computer enthusiasts who has built his own PCS since the mid-90s, I can tell you these anti-virus flaws you speak of have been known for decades. I am surprise you are just hearing about them now. My advice to my friends and family for nearly 20 years has been to avoid anti-virus software because it's a waste of money. I know all about root kits since the big Sony expose last decade. Anything can be exploitable and at no point did I say otherwise. We have seen power plants go haywire thanks to viruses and lord knows what other backdoor viruses lurk in hiding amongst all the developed nations infrastructure on this earth. But should that prevent us from designing an advance drone with the pros and cons I have clearly stated. If you can't see this than I am truly at a loss for words and wonder what bubble you are in. My point was once the drone is in the battlespace it would not be hackable. Can it be hackable back at home base? Sure. And where is all this well thought out hacking critique for the F35? http://lockheedmartin.com/us/news/features/2015/072015-f35-supercomputer.html Surely with that much software onboard, the F35 could be hacked into, viruses planted and the plane turned into a flying rock (that the pilot can do nothing about) in a mili-second during combat right? And yet LM and the government want all the software they can cram into it at a premium price too. These hollywood notions of planes/drones being taken over with a press of a button is just plain silly. Why waste all those resources and low probabilities of success when a simple localised EMP detonation can do the trick.

Seriously, you trying to change the topic to avoid facing your original statement of "Furthermore, the simple "Error Detected, kill self" idea is hogwash." By throwing out terms like "worms" and "trashing of protocols" :music_whistling: I...don't know what to say.

I am going to stop you right there, take it for what it's worth but you don't know what you are talking about. It is your opinion based on what you have read and surmised. I am saying this because I KNOW, I had access to the real info and know what missiles are capable of vs. aircraft. So I am just letting you know, what you are saying on this topic is not correct and frankly backwards. This is not a personal attack I am just letting you know you have it backwards. Generically speaking: The missile would not have huge energy stores, it's the opposite it actually expends it all after launch. So if a missile is forced to make a hard turn when it reaches the target, it's done because its kinetic energy is spent. The drone on the other hand has huge energy stores in the form of fuel, so once it's done with it's evasive maneuver it kicks in the afterburner and gains kinetic energy back. Interception and angles, all I can say on this sensitive topic is you need to hit the ol' DCS sim and experiment, I think you will find over time how an a/c can easily defeat a missile. And I am not talking about chaff and flares. The key here is seeing the missile, if you can see the missile you can defeat the missile. So who/what do you think will see a missile more often and much earlier, a pilot with his mk1 eyeball or a drone with it's full spectrum of sensors?

Hogwash eh? http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2017/03/11/spacex-autonomous-flight-safety-system-afss-kennedy-space-center-florida-falcon9-rocket-air-force-military/98539952/ "It could be the most critical position during a launch: the military officer ready to push a button to blow up a rocket if it veers off course and endangers the public. But when a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket blasted off Feb. 19, the seat at the Mission Flight Control Officer’s console at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station was empty — on purpose. For the first time in decades of launches from the Cape, responsibility for commanding the rocket to self-destruct, if necessary, lay with computers on board the Falcon, not a “human in the loop.” Brig. Gen. Wayne Monteith, commander of the Air Force’s 45th Space Wing, said the successful launch with an Automated Flight Safety System, or AFSS, was a historic “game-changer,” demonstrating technology that will improve safety, lower costs and enable more launches from the Eastern Range. “It was tested extensively, and is actually safer than having an individual in the loop,” Monteith said in a recent interview. “It fundamentally changes the way we are doing business.”