As pointed out by Belethor:
http://www.is.northropgrumman.com/products/cni/assets/F35-CNI_datasht.pdf

IFF and all that won’t help much when you’re in a dogfight where allied aircraft without IFF’s are present, or that IFF fails, that’s why only F-15s with the most advanced sensors where allowed to fire beyond visual range over Iraq, which becomes a whole lot more difficult in a complex dogfight
not to mention the problems a dedicated enemy ECM will do to IFFs. or the Russian idea of using IFFs as targetting beacons.
electronic sensors also help little against enemy targets, who certainly won’t give you their electronic signature codes in advance
so with both blue and red forces, (IR) visual detection is something the F-35 relies on heavily

here are images from the optical seeker on the Python 5, you’ll see that the aircraft are easily recognisable even to human eyes:

…but with what field of view. As stated the Ikonos image was an 11km strip…this allowing for some semblance of area search…even then its not great. The point I’m making is that the stealth aircraft needs to search for the ship and it wont do so with the field of view even in the, relatively low res, ATFLIR image posted by moonlight.

the ability I mentioned is over 10 years old

here’s an example from ARGUS-IS:

also we’re talking here about something like an F-35 flying in at maximum range
but what is to keep something like an RQ-170 to close in guided by long range radar scans, sitting almost on top of the ship to get the best images, and uploading the high quality images via undetectable satellite link to a Pentagon supercomputer who’ll have very little trouble identifying the images correctly. that gives you excellent undetectable, on site targetting information, at a fraction of the cost of an F-35, like your personal miniature satellite

We are presumably talking about today though.

yet most of this discussion centers on technology that is over a decade old (like LITENING) or won’t be fielded until for at least 5 years (F-35, and no one’s holding their breath on that one, except maybe the Marines with their 2014 IOC :rolleyes: )

3 words. False. Alarm. Rate.

well maybe they should use those images as CAPTCHA tests?
“before you can access this top secret data, please link the image on the left to one of the ship blueprints on the right” 🙂

I was thinking of the Gulf scenario specifically

on a larger scale, seeing the level of image quality google maps offers, I find it doubtful that military grade opticals would be unable to do better, every picture showing a large area with a level of quality high enough to recognise a ship

I imagine detecting the ship specifications optically from above isn’t that hard: every vessel has very specific dimensions, which are easy enough for a computer to recognise, kind of like the OCR tech used in CAPTCHA. if it has length A and the nose is at angle B, than it can only be ship type 96876513.48 or something along those lines

this would work even in a crowded image or to spot a single ship in an otherwise empty sea, it’s not that hard for a computer to do, you just load up a virtual image of every ship type (also not that hard to do) and the computer does the rest. if the computer finds something it can’t explain (for example a piece of a broken ship), then it’ll bring this to the attention of its human slav… I mean, overlords

optical technology certainly has limits, mainly in regard to weather conditions, which is why aircraft like the Global Hawk uses advanced radar tech, which I expect can map the exact dimensions of something as big as a ship, or atleast well enough for automated classification. but considering the current level of technological advances I would not be surprised if a passive sensor that can see through bad weather already existed, or will in the next few years

either way, this type of large capacity passive optical detection would still be extremely useful in something like the Persian Gulf (which is probably too cluttered for safe radar target detection anyway)

Well, the A-400M and NH-90 are a lock in, being European projects, urgently needed and fitting in well with the peace keeping direction the Belgian military is taking.

The F-16 will be source for a hot debate, the bottom line is that there probably won’t be much or even any money available for replacements. A sharing program with the Dutch and/or Danish or even France or Germany would certainly be on the table and politcally desireable, maybe within a larger European integrated air defence network.

But as I said cost will be a big issue, the Dutch are going for the F-35 but that’s likely to be much too costly. The Gripen NG would be a more realistic choice for most of Northern Europe, being very capable yet cost effective and user friendly, as well as being European made.

I’d strongly suggest moving to UAVs: the BAF has operated the Israeli Hunter with succes since 2001. A medium sized UAV like the MQ-9 Reaper costs only a fraction of a jet fighter, and would be extremely useful in every mission the BAF has been deployed in the last decades. Complemented with a handful of cost-effective Gripens, for specific missions like air superiority, this would greatly increase the effectiveness of the BAF at a reduced cost. Also the comming years are likely to see an explosion in both available models and capabilities, as UAVs mature and Europe develops its own designs.

Europe won’t be buying a lot

Italy and Spain are on the verge of bankruptcy, they simply won’t have the billions needed to buy unproven gold plated jets

Netherlands is strongly devided on the subject, and Belgium doesn’t have the money or the political will, not to mention a strong focus on peace keeping missions

and then there’s the whole UAV debate, as these become more capable each passing year, while being extremely competitively priced. why buy an extra F-35 when you can have 10 UAVs instead? not to mention the rise of the UCAV, the X-47B for one is sure to kill the F-35. I don’t think the USN is all too eager to buy short ranged, unproven super-expensive jets that can’t even land safely

none of this matters though, the US is about to go the way of the USSR, the F-35 will become a forgotten dream long before it ever reaches IOC

debating time 😀

Although i agree partially with what you have said, i do not agree with the fact that taking away money from traditional weaponry and putting it into UAV’s/UCAV’s will make the overall situation better..Striking a balance surely, but not aimlessly taking cash from one program to feed another…

I agree. but I am argumenting that one has to invest in the future, not in the past. manned aircraft are the past, UAVs are the future. yet even couting Black programs, the focus of most military budgets around the world is still firmly fixed on the past

except maybe the Israeli’s, who are putting a relatively large amount of money and energy into UAVs amongst other things (like an unmanned AWACS)

Lets take strike UCAV’s for example..The US has spent billions on developing them, as because the technology is relativly new and so is the mission set … I do not feel there is anything wrong with that, since i would hate the fact that i pay for a system which does not exactly meet the requirements that the services have , just because i have spent billions i developing technology for it..

I totally agree

which is why I love UAVs: the technology is mostly off the shelf or low tech, meaning limited risks and a good return on investment

UCAVs are trickier, but still relatively easy: stealth technology has become available for most developed countries now, and the other tech is hardly new for an experienced company like NG

then we come to the manned alternatives, namely the B-2, the F-22, the F-35, and in lesser degree 4.5 generation aircraft
here, the stealth aircraft have a long history of meteoric price hikes and operational problems, and advanced F-15’s easily cost $100 each
the F-35 has become the biggest monstrousity of all, with program and aquisition costs that should make any general shiver to his bones, and we probably haven’t even seen the worst of it

all this costs money. even discounting the hundreds of billions in program costs, an F-35 still costs at the very best a $100 million (bare bones, there is a god, no engine), is pretty much useless over Afghanistan or the Pacific, and is too valuable to be risked in operations over say Lybia, Syria or Iran. on the other hand you could buy at least 10 high class UAVs for that money, each of which can be risked and lost with relative ease

Neither China, nor the Russians are scaling back their traditional air combat development..Both have active 5th generation programs, and china is actively acquiring 4th – 4.5th generation fighters and russia upgrading its inventory…

I didn’t explicitly mention Russia, they’re a dinosaur when it comes to aircraft, which isn’t really their fault I guess considering their economy. they’ve completely missed the UAV bus, and while the advanced tech in the Su-50 is promising, it still leaves them at a disadvantage in my eyes

Anyone will tell you use of decoys in this fashion is anything but revolutionary though…Israelis started developing the concept in 71, used it in 73, and the USAF used it equally as successfully over Iraq two decades later. In your terminology its a ‘traditional’ tactic.

absolutely, yet the US military today has no active decoy programs, they’d rather bet the bank on stealth. the IAF for one does use decoys

Yes the ‘plucky underdog’ is a very romantic concept. To fight a carrier though you need a carrier as the Chinese are well aware!. To fight a tank you need a tank. To fight a submarine its best to send one of your own.

I’m a bit confused here, isn’t the best way to kill a carrier with a submarine? for example I’m pretty sure the Dutch Royal Air Force would never even get close to a carrier, yet in exercises outdated Dutch subs have had great succes “sinking” US carriers. and I’m not even talking about Chinese IBMs

the same goes for tanks, in the 70’s Israeli and Egyptian/Syrian tanks got butchered by enemy infantry equiped with anti-tank missiles, while the tanks had serious trouble countering these units

it’s the rock-paper-scissors discussion: my point is that while an F-22 or even an F-35 has a large advantage over 4th generation aircraft, they’d be no match for swarms of cheap UAVs or decoys, because they lack the ability to effeciently destroy them. it’s like using an elephant gun to hunt vermin: not effective, very costly and you’re more likely to hit yourself than a rat

Innovation has its place, but, so does reliable and dependable.

and I’m argumenting that the F-35 is not a reliable and dependable investment, but rather a huge waste of money that would have been better used on UAVs (or budget cuts :diablo: )

They stress this because its true. What happened to that drone that fired the Stinger….and did the Stinger score on the MiG in question?. Hardly testimony for the concept is it?. If you want to build a big, fast, platform with a hugely powerful onboard radar and multiple BVRAAM carry surely you could have some kind of airborne missile battery, but, it would be costing pretty much what a manned combat aircraft would and be less flexible than the manned platform. Putting BVRAAM’s on slow mover UAV’s is insane unless its a point-defence platform. Intercept geometry always favours the fast platform and BVRAAM range is dramatically impacted by the launch impetus provided by the firing platform. Once you build in fast, practical range/endurance, adequate sensor package and multiple BVRAAM carry into an airframe you are leaving ‘cheap’ far behind.

1. you don’t need an onboard radar to launch for example the AMRAAM. the F-35 for example will be able to launch it using data information from another F-35 (an ability the Typhoon has as well), or even backwards using data from rear-facing optical sensors. all an AMRAAM needs is target data, and it does everything else. if that data comes from the launch platform, another aircraft, a ground station or a satellite is irrelevant

2. AMRAAMs are used for SAM missions, so I doubt launch vehicle velocity is very relevant. the SL AMRAAM has a range of 40 km, opposed to the 55–75 km range on the air launched version. so velocity adds 35 km at best, hardly a factor against 70’s Soviet jets equiped with only short ranged missiles

3. an AMRAAM weighs 152 kg. the MQ-1C can carry 227 kg, so it would be able to carry at least one. the MQ-9 can carry 1,746 kg, so it could carry up to 10 (but preferebly two for air combat and the rest in ground attack amuntions)

4. and this doesn’t take into account more advanced and lighter missiles like the AIM-X or the Israeli Python 5, which are 360 degree fire and forget IR/optical guided missiles, which means combined with the UAVs 360 degree optical sensors that they could be launched at any aircraft in range that it can optically see, even stealth aircraft (and regardless what they might tell us, I doubt an F-35 can outfly a missile. an F-22 might have a chance)

what you want is a stripped down UAV with little more than the missiles, using external targetting data to aim its missiles, like a flying SAM site. alternatively you can equip them with dummy missiles just to keep the enemy guessing, or equip bigger UAVs like the Reaper with a mix of AMRAAMs, HARMs, guided bombs… for an aircraft that can hit pretty much any type of target that gets in range

By knocking down the billion dollar satellite linking the UAV’s to the backend C3 system. Or by suppressing the airfields that your cheap lo-end UAV’s are stacked up on. Or, in a maritime context, by deceptive manouevre sending your UAV swarm to the wrong place.

that’s what everyone tells me, but that’s my whole point: that’s a traditionalist’s argument. what if an opponent doesn’t think like that?

the wave tactic is just one example, but the argument is that if used and equiped correctly, new technologies can make a world of difference. you just have think further, don’t be afraid to imagine the unimaginable

for example who says those UAVs need satellite guidance? you can simply put them on auto-route, and take control using nearby manned or relay aircraft/ship/ground stations as the situation requires

by making what are basically target decoys, you really can make such UAVs in huge numbers at a cost as low as $100,000 each. the problem for an opposing force, like say a squadron of F-22’s, is that they won’t know what they’re shooting at until they get a visual, and even if they try to target the more advanced/manned controller aircarft in the wave, their missiles will probably be intercepted by the drone wave or counter-missiles

Your machine-gun analogy was actually a very good one Sanem. This is as it shows what happens when there is a reliance on one weapon system. The allies had no answer for German MG’s in the trenches….then tanks came about. Ultimately then the Germans lost that war.

yes, but it was probably because they lost the war that they completely rethought the way they fought, while the victors clinged to their old ways. resulting in a technological and material inferior German army that in 1940 achieved the fastest and greatest victory in human history

in the same way, the US military, having been the world’s dominant air and sea power for the last 60 years or so, has pretty much stalled in the way it thinks and fights, while the Chinese underdog/dragon is adopting new technologies at unseen speeds, anything from UAVs to cyberwarfer to stealth and laser technology

the first machine guns and tanks were useless, the next generations was still cumbersome and had serious flaws, but these examples show that clinging to the old ways can lead to a huge cost in both lives and military power. in order to go forward, one has to let go of the past

I’m a devotee of UAV tech, but, a ‘swarm’ of lo-end UAV’s doesnt present any real revolutionary threat as, to be used at range, must be used as part of a system of systems which is distinctly NOT cheap…and contains critical fail points. What UAV’s do offer though is legacy distribution potential and endurance. The UAV doesnt have to do every job to bring revolutionary capability to the battlespace…just the ones its attributes make it suitable for.

as for swarm technology, you’re right to say that the system isn’t the cheap, but the UAV actually is
think of the system as a firearm and the UAV as its bullets. the bullets aren’t free but they’re relatively cheap, and as long as the enemy can’t destroy you or your gun, you can keep throwing bullets his way. now you can go for the top of the line, uranium tipped bullets that’ll kill a tank but are overkill against a softer target. or you could for the low quality bullets, where you’ll have more jams and they won’t always penetrate, but the sheer volume will help. I’d rather fire 1000 bullets and get 1 hit, than fire 1 bullet and get 1 miss 😉

can asian countries operate UAVs themselves?
i would think so, and would think their operators will be on the ground (or in FJs or AWACs potentially).
why can’t other countries operate UAVs from local bases?
if they are operating manned forces in the regions, what is the difference to UAV support?
why couldn’t all local relays be routed thru fiber optic cables to US, etc?
i mean, yes, everything is vulnerable, but that is going to be the case with the vast majority of UAVs,
but having them in the air is still useful and still is useful in initial stages of combat,
either they aren’t taken out, or effort must be spent to take them out, while they are gathering data useful for other forces.

communications by itself isn’t that hard, direct relay is easy enough to do for regional operations, and relay stations can be installed on aircraft, ships and islands
it’s mostly a the question of UAV communications jamming
my guess is that it’s a lot harder to do in reality than in theory, a few reasons:
– jamming would require blocking a large spectre of frequencies, a strategy that’s hard to pull off against modern frequency jumping radio’s, and also makes the jammed frequency anavailable for the jammer’s side
– jamming requires powerful generators, which make for very interesting cruise missile targets (nothing a school bus worth of children can’t fix, but still, tricky)
– there’s also focussed radio beams, which means the jammer has to be positioned between the UAV and the communications relay in order to be effective, a strategy that becomes useless when the UAV gets its signals from multiple relays
– and UAVs are becoming more advanced every year, meaning they need less and less controller input in order to execute a mission. especially over large areas of water, all the UAV will need to forward is a picture of potential target ship/aircraft and wait for the kill order
– another factor is cost, one side could simply preprogam large numbers of stripped down UAVs to fly on preprogrammed routes: any attacker would have to risk plenty of resources to shoot these down, not knowing if they’re even worth the cost in missiles, and exposing their own forces in the proces

…i think all the details are just beating around the bush that getting in a war with china in the next 20 years just isn’t a good idea.

my thoughts exactly, the Cold War lasted so long becaue neither side wanted to risk it. and with China being the US’s biggest economic partner, that’s a second reason it can’t ever happen. a third reason is cyber warfare, the potential damage that can be done today with non-lethal weapons is mind-numbing, just imagine an attack on the banking system, the stock markets, the electrical grid… all relatively easy targets with huge damage potential

aaah yes, UAV bandwith usage, the biggest joke in history

first of all it’s very easy to reduce that bandwith volume

live stream video is high quality, 24 frames per second (FPS)

let’s say average transit time for a UAV is 8 hours to move to and from the mission area, followed by 16 hours of actual mission footage

that 1/3rd flight time of transit footage is quite useless, your biggest worry is that you’ll fly into another aircraft or a mountain, and for that role 1 FPS and medium quality image will be sufficiant

then there’s the actual mission footage. here on average an operator will spend most of his time watching humans, vehicles and buildings. most of the time nothing actually happens, and the rest of the time it’s usually clear enough if what you’re watching is important or not

so one could very easily program the UAV to send medium image quality, with a low FPS. if and when the observer sees something that looks interesting (like someone leaving a building, digging in the ground…) the observer can order the UAV to send the high quality image, up until a few seconds ago
it’d be a lot like TiVo, where you can skip through the commercials, the boring parts or pauze when you have to take a bathroom break. when you see something interesting you can rewind, pauze, zoom…

secondly there’s automatisation, as UAVs get smarter they’ll be able to pre-select the information that could be interesting to its human overlords. for example they’re working on automated collision avoidance system, with this an operator would need very little visual information, the UAV would only send data if it actually detects anything

thirdly one can improve the way data is sent and received. for example you could put up a blimp UAV at extreme altitude over Afghanistan, equiped with an aray of communication systems, giving the Allied forces a 24/7 communications satellite that can relay all that UAV data at a much lower cost

you can also send more UAV pilots in-country, especially as UAVs become less crew-intensive.