hopsalotIn any case, the recapitalization of the USAF has been a failure. Originaly the F-16 and F-15 were not supposed to remain in service that long and we know what happened. Now they are trying to avoid a catastophe with their inventory. Talk about a failure…
I wouldn’t go that far. Certainly it was a risk to postpone recapitalization as long as the USAF has, but with the F-35 production ramp now beginning the USAF is only a few years away from seeing large numbers of new fighters entering its force structure on a yearly basis. If you graphed the average age of the fleet, today would be a peak with that number falling fairly quickly from here on out.
Lockheed’s entire operation is gearing up for full-rate production in 2019, before which the number of jets is set to expand from 62 in LRIP 9 to 98 and 168 in lots 10 and 11, respectively. Production levels should continuing rising to a full-rate production of 240 jets per year.
Not all of those jets will be going to the USAF obviously, but people have to remember the sheer scale of the program. It will soon be producing as many fighters a year as Rafales have been produced to date.
hopsalotI have already explained and substantiated everything I came to explain:
1. A distant point source is not confined to one pixel, for this reason an algorithm is useful in determining the spread, since the spread is related to the actual sub-pixel position:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN-A6PWRFno
2. Accuracy is not limited to pixel resolution:
Exhibit A
http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1737844The same fundamentals are applicable to position determination in other fields. Centroid calculation is a major part of photonics.
Exhibit B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staring_arrayHere (at start of article) is an example of what happens at pixel level:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Position_sensitive_device
These are just some examples of the kinds of technologies that might be employed. You can get an X and Y-axis current, the ratio of which gives the position of the centroid on a pixel for positional accuracy purposes and the vector some of which gives the light intensity for imaging purposes.
I imagine space is the main concern internally, though obviously traditional LOBL will be an option for externally carried missiles. Obviously the main idea will be to maintain stealth and surprise though and try and avoid furballs. However HMD has been used to cue missiles into LOAL visually, so in theory, simply having a sensor sending the image to the HMD, or providing an INS reference directly, shouldn’t really make a difference.
I see you are quoting me above. Where did that quote come from?
hopsalotCould you develop please? It would be quite interesting…
Seems like a simple enough concept…
The writing is on the wall for 4th generation fighters. In the coming decade or two they will increasingly be relegated to secondary/support roles when facing capable opposition. In the case of the US, Russia, and China (or their export customers) this is of only limited concern because 5th generation fighters will be available to take on the more demanding missions. You don’t need to stop flying a 4th generation jet the minute it can’t operate on day-1 of a high-intensity war. There are still plenty of tasks available for those aircraft. (see for example the A-10) An F-15C in 2030 will be suitable for air policing, delivering MALD-Js, etc… but the US will have 1,000+ 5th generation fighters available by then.
We are looking at the end of the European fighter industry, that is unless something truly dramatic changes in the next few years. Small scale UCAV research projects without any definite procurement tied to them aren’t going to be able to maintain the industrial base.
hopsalotJemen shot down Sudanese jet and capture pilot.
Some of what they are showing looks like SA-2 parts.
From Yemen:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236343[/ATTACH]
SA-2:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236344[/ATTACH]
I hope they aren’t claiming the guy in the last photo is the pilot. It looks like they grabbed some random guy off the street who happened to be wearing a green shirt…
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236345[/ATTACH]
hopsalotLets leave the political trolling to another thread.
One Saudi F-15 lost to mechanical issues:
WASHINGTON, March 27 (UPI) — The U.S. military rescued two Saudi pilots Friday after they ejected from their fighter jet over the Gulf of Aden.
The F-15 had mechanical problems, forcing the two pilots to eject over the water, NBC News reported.
hopsalotSaudi Arabia launches heavy strikes
Source:
The Washington Post
They are obviously trying to put the former Yemeni, now rebel/Houthi controlled air force out of commission. As of a few days ago the rebels were actually launching air strikes so they had some operable planes and pilots.
(Reuters) – An unidentified warplane attacked the presidential palace in Aden on Thursday after rival forces fought the worst clashes in years in Yemen’s second city, an official and residents said, in a sharp escalation of the country’s months-long conflict.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/19/us-yemen-security-aden-idUSKBN0MF0HR20150319
Not the date of the above article, it is talking about last Thursday, not today.
hopsalotSaudi Arabia Begins Air Campaign in Yemen
No more precision so far regarding specif targets and political objectives. Yemen’s ousted president fled the country due to sec concerns.
Source:
The New York Times
The Yemeni Air Force inventory includes Mig-29SMTs, which have reportedly been captured by the Houthis. Whether they have pilots, etc is another matter…
hopsalotThe follow on is the AETP – Adaptive Engine Transition Program.
2025 is too bullish for such an engine unless there are LRS-Bomber requirements that this engine is supposed to also satisfy. 2030 may be more accurate for a combat fighter. The RFI calls for an EMD phase to begin post the AETP program around FY19.
This was reported last year as well and most likely posted by me somewhere on this forum
https://www.scribd.com/doc/259858638/pentagon-pushes-ahead-on-sixth-gen-engines
From the Jane’s article above:
It is widely expected that General Electric (GE) Aviation and Pratt and Whitney (P&W) will continue to be the two major players in the Pentagon’s propulsion technology push. GE Aviation’s projected timeline for developing its variable-cycle design to completion coincides well with the DoD’s plans. Company officials have said that their engine could be production-ready in the 2022-2024 timeframe. The have acknowledged spending upwards of USD1 billion on the effort in the decade since they offered the variable-cycle F120 to the Pentagon for the F-22 Raptor. They have claimed that variable-cycle technology alone cannot achieve the 35% fuel-burn improvement desired by the DoD. To achieve that metric, GE aviation has invested in ceramic matrix composites for the engine’s hot section, advanced aero designs in the compressor, and lightweight 3d-printed components, a list of components they claim is unique to GE Aviation’s design.
They have been working on aspects of this engine for a long time at this point. Exactly how quickly it could enter service remains to be seen but this effort is far removed from its initial stages.
hopsalot@ hopsalot
Check the sixth generation fighter thread. The AETD and previous ADVENT engine programs are to develop next gen engines. To what degree this will be incorporated into the F-35 is up in the air.
I believe it was a Conn senator made put it on the record that congress would not fund AETD if it was to be a “second engine” for the F-35.
That does not rule out the variable cycle technology being implemented into the F-135, nor the future engine to be developed from the AETD program to be fitted to a development of the F-35.
That is their official position, and it has to be because as you said that was inserted into one of their funding bills. That said, the Pentagon is developing and plans to fly (in an F-35) this new engine. Once they have demonstrated that it works there can be little doubt it will go into production. Nobody could justify passing on a 35% fuel efficiency gain.
The senator you are thinking off is Lieberman:
Sensing the longer term threat, Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), the senator most associated with the moves to counter the F136, is leading efforts to limit any possible impact of AETD on the F-35. But Lieberman, who leads the Senate Armed Services air-land subcommittee in charge of tactical aircraft, says he will not stop the Pentagon program aiming to develop engines that vastly improve fuel efficiency.
http://aviationweek.com/awin/combat-engine-demo-plan-troubles-f135-supporters
So yes, officially this is not a “new engine for the F-35.” It is a “new engine for combat aircraft that happens to be designed to fit in an F-35, which will make up the large majority of the future US combat aircraft fleet.”
hopsalotI haven’t seen this discussed here yet:
Pentagon to build new variable-cycle engine for F-35 and other aircraft
Key Points
The Pentagon’s new sixth-generation engine will be built for the F-35 and several other aircraft
The new engine would be 35% more fuel efficient than existing engines, extending the range of US aircraft significantlyThe Pentagon’s developmental sixth-generation jet engine featuring greater fuel efficiency and thrust than existing military engines is initially being built for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a senior agency official said on 17 March.
“There are a number of threshold platforms,” Alan Shaffer, the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense, research, and engineering, told IHS Jane’s at the Precision Strike Association’s annual conference in Springfield, Virginia. “[This is] the one that we’re going to build it around because we’ll have the extra orange airplanes is JSF,” he added, referring to test aircraft.
…
Shaffer said the Pentagon plans to “develop engines with two vendors, and by 2019 or maybe 2020 have the capability to enter directly into [engineering and manufacturing development]”.
…
Shaffer said the DoD is aiming for a 35% improvement in fuel consumption efficiency over the fifth-generation engines with AETP. He said that this metric is largely aimed at providing greater range to its aircraft as the US turns its attention to the vastness of the Pacific Ocean.
Comment
It is widely expected that General Electric (GE) Aviation and Pratt and Whitney (P&W) will continue to be the two major players in the Pentagon’s propulsion technology push. GE Aviation’s projected timeline for developing its variable-cycle design to completion coincides well with the DoD’s plans. Company officials have said that their engine could be production-ready in the 2022-2024 timeframe. The have acknowledged spending upwards of USD1 billion on the effort in the decade since they offered the variable-cycle F120 to the Pentagon for the F-22 Raptor. They have claimed that variable-cycle technology alone cannot achieve the 35% fuel-burn improvement desired by the DoD. To achieve that metric, GE aviation has invested in ceramic matrix composites for the engine’s hot section, advanced aero designs in the compressor, and lightweight 3d-printed components, a list of components they claim is unique to GE Aviation’s design.
The article goes on to say that PW is working on upgrades to the F135 engine toward the same end goal, which they claim will be lower cost and risk.
This article, unless just completely wrong, makes it a virtual certainty that we will see F-35s with 6th generation engines starting in the mid-2020s, relatively early in its total production run. (meaning in retrospect the original F135 is likely to appear as almost an interim engine) Obviously there still isn’t an official program to put these engines into production, but I can’t imagine the Pentagon nor anyone else passing up on the opportunity to take advantage of the improved performance such an engine would offer, especially if the engine was already flying in the F-35 in prototype form.
The Jane’s article doesn’t say this, but other sources have also gone on the record as saying in addition to the increased fuel efficiency the new engines will also increase thrust, offer increased cooling, improve transonic and supersonic performance, and reduce IR signature.
The fuel savings alone would make such an engine an almost revolutionary leap forward. Not only would the F-35 see its range/endurance increased by a full third without any drag penalty, it would also likely save operators a huge amount of money. Suddenly F-35s would burn fuel like F-16s…
hopsalotThink it could be argued that the 5th generation only briefly existed and doesn’t any more. There was a short period where you could use stealth to hide from others sensors, but it’s not there any more. Sure, it can still be a deterrent to some older missiles, pretty much like ir and flares, but is that enough to warrant the generation card being placed on the table?
I guess maybe the design teams behind the PAK FA, J-20, F-35, J-31, Neuron, X-47, ATD-X, etc, just haven’t gotten the memo yet.
hopsalotWell, yes – fewer aircraft tend to be cheaper. Of course, a small number of very expensive aircraft still costs a lot.
It isn’t just that fewer planes is less expensive than more. The LHA itself is far cheaper than a CVN and has a far smaller crew.
Let’s stipulate that there are scenarios that don’t call for a full CSG but do require fast-jet, organic air support.
How many such scenarios are there, and is it worth $40 billion in procurement and decades of monster operating costs to cover them?
The USMC and Italian navy think so and I suspect in the next few years we will see a few other forces come to the same conclusion.
hopsalotHops – It would be helpful if you would read comments before replying to them. Fanx in advance.
It will be interesting to see whether at some point you learn to bow out with class. :confused:
Efficiency comes down to costs versus benefits, what you give up for what you get. There are countless scenarios where 6-20 F-35Bs are a far more efficient solution to a problem than a full carrier battle group. It is really a simple concept to grasp for anyone who is working the problem forwards, rather than starting with “bash the F-35 and the Marines” as their conclusion.
In general carrier aviation is awfully expensive, but it is also an unusually flexible tool that many forces have found justifies the additional expense. In the context of a discussion of carrier based aviation amphibs paired with F-35Bs are a far more cost effective and efficient solution to missions that do not require the additional capabilities-at far greater cost-afforded by a full carrier battle group. Ponder it for a while and see if you can get it. :rolleyes:
hopsalot“More efficient” in that context would include land-based and CV-based air.
Sure, because a $13 billion dollar Ford class carrier and its associated air wing and battle group is cheap, right? That is what you seem to be struggling to understand.
In a large scale war there is no doubt the full CVN is the better option but most of the time it is also gross overkill. With the F-35B the US has additional options. It can act in concert with CVNs and/or land based aircraft in a full-scale war, but they can also operate independently with a comparably small but still potent fixed wing capability of between 6 and 20 F-35Bs either to provide presence/deterrence or in support of a smaller conflict like Libya.
Aegis is a capable system within its limits, one of which is that the earth is not flat. That’s why there are sea-skimmers and AEW. Yes, there is a chance that DDG/CG could successfully defend a task force on its own against a strong ASCM threat, but try explaining yourself when you try it and it does not work. In the real world I doubt that anyone would attempt it.
Obviously fighters and AEW are useful. The issue is whether and how you can sustain CAP and conduct any other missions with a handful of aircraft that have <2 hr endurance. Landbased AEW can help but the effort required increases rapidly with distance.
Whether or not there is a “strong ASCM threat” is very much in question, especially when you start talking about operations taking place well off shore. (again, consider the examples I provided in my previous post)
hopsalotA penetrating observation from Hopsalot, since obviously there are no more efficient ways of bombing targets than to put a handful of very expensive jets on 50000 ton ships full of seasick Marines.
“Efficient,” what an interesting word choice. Whether or not something is the most efficient approach would really depend, wouldn’t it? I suppose a F4U Corsair could be a very efficient way of striking a target given certain assumptions, wouldn’t you agree?
The F-35B is a very expensive jet but you pay a certain premium to get capabilities its predecessors don’t offer. I know in your wisdom you have determined that 6-20ish F-35Bs are never the right number for an operation, but oddly enough people who have real experience have concluded differently.
As for “seasick marines,” grow up.
VN – The US Navy needs to be made aware of the fact that DDGs and CGs provide impenetrable air defense and that there is consequently no need for defensive CAP, NIFC-CA and AHE. They must have forgotten how well a similar attack-over-defense philosophy worked for the IJN at Midway.
This is what is called a “strawman argument,” and a rather inept one at that.
Nobody here has ever stated nor even suggested that DDGs or CGs provide “impenetrable air defense,” only that they are designed with air defense as a primary mission and are pretty darn capable ships.
Sign In
