The F-35 Thread

[GGTharos]

You do realize that drone control is not truly real-time, right? Further, most of the actual valuable data goes over an unencrypted channel, consuming plenty of bandwidth while at it. Lastly, where have you seen UAV's doing anything but dropping a bomb or two on people who cannot possibly defend themselves against it, as an alternative to doing so with a more expensive aircraft deployment?

 

You aren't going to see unmanned fighters any time soon.

[tflash]

- the biggest paradox will indeed reside in the information/bandwidth equation. I suppose a lot of the development will have to do with automation and in-aircraft scripted responses. That this is far easier to do in a ISR aircraft like Global Hawk than in a real fighter aircraft meant for air defense / OCA / sweep is clear. So no, not anytime soon. But in-service date of F-35 is not really soon either. If you know what advances can be made in IT control systems in a timespan of say 7 to 10 years, my feeling is F-35 risks to be obsolete sooner than imagined.

[Wilde]

For once I agree with GG completely. Unmanned fighters are not going to be really useful unless some insanely effective AI is employed for it.

 

With the current systems you either need control posts near the battle space, which will be top priority for IRBMs, cruise missiles and so on. Or you need a satellite system, that allows you to do it from Virginia. Then again this system would be blown out of the sky faster than you can say "missile shield" once fighting starts. Even if you'd create a distributed system similar to for example the internet, maybe even incorporating the internet, than massive hacking attacks would make it mostly useless quite quickly.

 

One way or another, you'd be out of air superiority, SEAD, tactical and strategical bombing, aerial supplies and so on immediately when the command system is crippled. The only thing you could do then would be to simply launch any missile you have in some missile bunker. Not particularly subtile.

[tflash]

Mmmm ... you must look at it from a technological point of view: where fightrer development becomes ever more protracted, which is only natural since we are building fighters for over a century, development of UAS/UCAS systems is going at an accelerating pace. Just because it is a new setting that is only in its infancy. No one had expected the ease with which now several dozens of UAV's are seamlessly filling the combat airspace with indeed a quite small error margin compared with the "Rise of Flight". Unsurmountable bandwidth and telecom problems have been overcome relatively easy. Flight flexibility of RQ-4 Global Hawk is proving incredible if you consider how complex it is. UCAS-D is going very, very smoothly and opens the possiblity for tandem strike packages with F-35/UCAS mixes, in which it is expected there will be more UCAS than manned fighters in such a package.

 

I think we will see advances in unmanned ISR / STRIKE / SEAD at an ever accelerating pace.

 

A good example of the narrowing margins in the classic fighter design is the JHMCS / SRAAM combo.

 

The whole idea was that a fighter pilot would be able to look at its A2A target at high angles and fire an advanced IR missile in close-in self-defense. The reality is JHMCS is a true force multiplier in A2G situations. For A2A, stealth-on-stealth engagement or supermanoevrable-to-supermanoevrable engagements make that a pilot looking at its A2A target with such a system before it is too late is HIGHLY unlikely. Instead, many efforts are made to integrate the fire control of these missiles with the DAS subsystem that will automatically track *and engage* threats in self-defense. The pilot is the slowest link in all this. (These systems already are deployed in ground combat vehicles to automatically respond to fire).

 

Instead of building complex machine-to-human interfaces into the F-35 cockpit for the Battle of Britain revisited as is done now, we will soon see UCAS control systems emerging into the F-35 cockpit, so that the pilot can do something really useful, matching his psychological abilities and making him a true airborne force multiplier.

[MBot]

tflash makes a lot of good points. The technology to "outsource" the pilot from the airplane are all here today, with a myrad of advantages. I too see manned combat aircraft being replaced sooner or later.

[GGTharos]

Look at it from the technological point of view, the technology simply isn't anywhere near 'here'. There's no useful AI, the links are jammable, and there's no backup if someone lasers your satellites.

 

Currently the F-22 uses 486 level technology, and the F-35 is a bit ahead of that. It'll be another 30 years before they're up to C2D's ;)

[MBot]

But these factors already heavily affect the current military (except AI). Jamm the radio and kills the satelites and your present hight-tech military falls appart. What are those F-22 going to do if they can't get their tasking from command and how will the Patriots defend the vital assets from TBMs and CMs without a datalink to their missiles?

 

Obviously for unmaned vehicles this would be an instant knockout (or an robotic RTB). But considering how confident the militaries already are on secure links, I have little doubt they will eventualy go one step further (with advance of technology).

Edited January 7, 2010 by MBot

[GGTharos]

No, your high-tech military does not fall apart, because you have people manning those aircraft, tanks, etc, who have been trained from the ground up on how to fight WITHOUT these aids, and THEN with them.

 

Jamming a drone's connection isn't the same as trying to jam a SAM's missile datalink. One is much easier than the other. You jam a single sattelite, you can potentially take out all drones in a given area. You jam a single SAM, the rest in the deployment take over.

 

No one is confident about 'secure links'. They put in ECCM and hope it'll work. All datalinks have some built in ECCM capablity, but they're also well distributed. Drones do not necessarily have such a luxury, and the bandwidth they must use is quite attrocious. Nothing else, AFAIK, uses as much bandwidth.

[Wilde]

But these factors already heavily affect the current military (except AI). Jamm the radio and kills the satelites and your present hight-tech military falls appart. What are those F-22 going to do if they can't get their tasking from command and how will

 

No, it will only drop back to a level where they have to do without it. A F-22 without satellite link can still defend an airspace or take down it's mission goal AWACS or whatever. Sure it would be much more difficult and dangerous, but still possible. A jammed drone OTOH would be lost outright. It would simply follow it's last order without suitable AI, i.e. course 316 or fly back home.

 

UAVs might be the future. But with current technology they're not capable of replacing manned fighters.

[tflash]

We need way more specific arguments. No one doubts a human operator is resourcefull and flexible, yet we have to determine if this brings enough real added tactical value compared to the risks. A striking example is in the CAS domain, where a pair of human eyes in the cockpit always has been deemed extremely important. Yet we see that in more and more occasions an ISR aircraft is taking an active part in an emerging CAS situation, often by preparing the ground for the real CAS aircraft and being a JTAC/FAC hub BUT more and more also by taking part in taking out enemy fighters with a missile or GBU-12; its main advantage being that it is in the air already.

 

We find this so ubiquitous now that no-one even reconsiders it. If I were to have posted something along these lines 5 years ago I would have been dismissed with the same vigour with which people are now claiming no one will ever replace the manned fighter. But then agian 5 years ago I wouldn't have imagined this would become such a reality.

[topol-m]

Eventually the moment when UCAV will replace manned aircraft will come for the reasons mentioned: high G maneuvering, no need for cockpit = more payload, cost, no pilot`s life risking, etc. etc. That moment has not yet come. We are talking some 20-30 years maybe. Today`s UCAVs are just some toys far less capable compared to the manned fighters/bombers. Yes they have their role and yes they are useful in some occasions but they are nowhere near replacing completely the manned aircraft in a conflict where you are not fighting against indians.

[maobingyishen]

Well.....I think when the day that AI can complete any mission with UAV, we were already been killed by nuke since SKYNET is gonna wipe us out, even you survie after nuke. T800 is still unbeatable.

[Wilde]

SKYNET is gonna wipe us out

 

;)

 

But seriously, weapons will never stay as they are. They will improve even without being used. In Terminator Skynet obviously was a mistake. But in reality a sophisticated AI will eventually be reality in every top tier military. It's only a matter of time. It's faster, it's deadlier, it's cheaper - all in all it is more efficient by magnitudes.

[Kusch]

Lockheed Martin video of the Jan. 7 2010 first flight of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter with the STOVL propulsion system engaged. The shaft-driven lift fan, just behind the cockpit, was engaged for 14 minutes during the flight from NAS Patuxent River. The video shows the STOVL doors opening and the three-bearing aft nozzle swivelling downwards slightly as the F-35B lead pilot Graham Tomlinson transitions aircraft BF-1 from conventional to STOVL mode.

 

 

[SuperKungFu]

A good shot of the F-35B on Lockheed's flickr account

 

[LonesomeCowboyBert]

where have you seen UAV's doing anything but dropping a bomb or two on people who cannot possibly defend themselves against it

 

When was the last time you saw a "manned" warplane doing anything but dropping a bomb or two on people that couldnt possibly defend themselves against it?

 

its more or less all any western airforce does combat wise, these days

[topol-m]

You are right, but the manned CAN do more. In case an armed conflict starts with someone who can defend himself you`d better have manned and unmanned aircraft and each will do their job. If you count only on the UCAVs of today you`re doomed. The point is that they can`t completely replace the manned aircraft yet, well... they can... in dropping bombs on people who can`t defend themselves. :)

[GGTharos]

You are all totally doomed ...

 

http://ardrone.parrot.com/parrot-ar-drone/en/intuitive-piloting#start

[topol-m]

^^^ ROFL :lol: Run for your lives!!!

[EtherealN]

Hey, that thing can do some serious damage. I'm already out looking for sufficiently miniaturized soft-air guns to let me weaponize that thing. :D

[LaRata]

Saludos :

 

More On F-35 Cost ...

 

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/01/12/navair-offers-f-18-ammo-amid-jsf-woes/

 

Congressional aides are beginning to wonder if the Navy should buy the carrier version of the Joint Strike Fighter, in light of the program’s rising price tag and its higher flight costs.

 

“I’m growing more and more convinced that the Navy variant of the F-​​35 might not be worth buying. The program is sliding further and further to the right, as costs increase. When we have an 80 percent solution in active production, and significantly cheaper, the F-​​35C looks like a great candidate for cancellation,” said one congressional aide. “Gates has talked about choosing 75 percent solutions over expensive ‘exquisite’ systems and this is a perfect candidate.”

 

LaRata

[Zulu]

You are right, but the manned CAN do more. In case an armed conflict starts with someone who can defend himself you`d better have manned and unmanned aircraft and each will do their job. If you count only on the UCAVs of today you`re doomed. The point is that they can`t completely replace the manned aircraft yet, well... they can... in dropping bombs on people who can`t defend themselves. :)

 

I think the real problem is a social & moral one. Because if eventually UAVs completly replace manned aircraft war will become more of a game with people sitting thousands of miles away blowing up their respective machines. Then it would be without consequances etc. therefore making it morew likely for countries to go to war against each other making war a trivial game.

[sobek]

I think the real problem is a social & moral one. Because if eventually UAVs completly replace manned aircraft war will become more of a game with people sitting thousands of miles away blowing up their respective machines. Then it would be without consequances etc. therefore making it morew likely for countries to go to war against each other making war a trivial game.

 

No thing is without consequence. Someone has to build and, more importantly, finance these machines. No sane army would lighthandedly waste such cost intensive machinery.

 

Also, wars often lead to a loss of face of the agressor in the eyes of the international community and may be sanctioned with embargos and whatnot (if the agressor is not a political heavyweight, that is, those seem to get away with everything :)).

 

You see, IMHO you are overly simplifying things.

 

Anyway, back OT :)

[LaRata]

Hi :

 

More News from UK F-35 . . .

 

" The JSF, or F35 as it is now called, has been subject to costly delays and the estimated price has soared from £37m each four years ago to more than £62m today.

 

One compromise would be for the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to halve its order from 140 planes to 70. "

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/12/defence-aircraft-jet-fighters-budget

 

LaRata

[tflash]

BF-2; it's now in full paint, but I didn't find a photo online yet, there is on epublished in Combat Aircraft though.