OooShinyMalaysian AF pilots average 60 hours a year compared to 180-250 hours for most future f-35 operators. Source “the miltary balance”.
$83k per hour if the ac hours match the pilot hours. Can’t see them having 3 times as many pilots as planes.
OooShinyYou mean like an AAM launching version of the Minion/Minotaur? Probably already exists. They are re-usable, so the drone could be launched earlier than required so it is on station to attack targets that may pop-up. When they start to run out of fuel they just fly home to fight again the next day.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234295[/ATTACH]
OooShinyan active electronically scanned array radar fitted in the skin of the fighter, instead of the present front-facing radar.
That would be largely pointless unless they planned on flying the Rafale side-on to the enemy to use the radar. Phased arrays are only effective up to somewhere between 50 and 60 degrees off broadside. Putting them on the aircraft’s skin, for example on the surface of the radome would provide no forward coverage. There’s numerous reasons why replacing the forward facing radar with TRMs built into the skin would not work.
OooShinyCertainly an interesting development by LM there. If they can achieve full spherical coverage with this and it has the power to quickly (as in within 10 seconds of a turning fight) disable/destroy an enemy fighter or its pilot, close in dogfighting will definitely go the way of the dodo.
When you think about it, attacking the pilot would be a viable tactic for the system because …
a: canopies (and the pilot) are located in the same’ish place on all fighters and they are farthest away from the IR noise of the engines
b: in a turning fight where an enemy is trying to outturn you, the enemy’s canopy will always be facing your aircraft (and lasers).
There will be knock on effects for BVR combat as well. Missiles to counter it will need to have a fast terminal phase velocity to close the gap quickly and will need to be fired in larger groups simultaneously to overwhelm the lasers which can only engage a single missile at a time and need time to destroy the target. The missiles will need to be more stealthy to avoid early detection and would probably be aided by having their own decoys on approach.
Stealthy aircraft surfaces may be more susceptible to damage by laser weapons. They are largely made of non-metallic materials that are designed for EM absorption (albeit at different frequencies). So there will need to be a trade off between stealth and tolerance of intense IR energy.
Once everyone has them, it may simply come down to who has the most powerful, compact and matured systems.
OooShinyRadar beamwidth (accuracy) is function of wavelength/antenna width.
Re: china detecting F-22 claims. You can bet your life that F-22s operating in Korea are wearing their luneburg device = rcs no different to an airliner.
OooShinyNot really.
The A-10 is superior for CAS and COIN simply because of its ability to take damage and requiring little maintenance. For sustained operations in areas where air superiority is won the A-10 is and will be a superb choice even in the future.
In all other areas, like airspaces where the enemy is expected to contest the airspace, the A-10 is among the worst platforms second to helicopters.
For instance, when leading CAS/COIN aircraft it is pretty common to mark areas with smoke. Sometimes there are two different colors on the smoke markers. This means the pilots have to get down to visual range so they can orient themselves before engaging the enemy. An IR-system doesnt see the colors so even the F35 would have to get close. Yes, there are laser designators, yes, GPS has been around… but to this day CAS/COIN are usually lead in by radio and visual ques. (In Desert Storm the cars where marked with white Vs that where hard to spot from altitude)
At 30 s we see a danger close being lead in by red smoke (danger close, west of the red smoke). In a scenario where the target is moving (like tanks are) and the targets have laser warning, the aircraft performing CAS has to be close enough to identify the individual tanks. The F35 will be able to perform this, but I would personally prefer it higher up performing DEAD and counter air and leaving this type of engagement to an aircraft that can survive being hit by the enemy.
It’s likely that a GPS/laser mark will just be translated by to a visual cue on the helmet, possibly along with the position of friendlies.
SAR plus Brimstone will do the job. If necessary to use a laser for discrimination, it can be left until the very last moment. At least a dozen targets can be engaged simultaneously, which is far better than any capability the A-10 had in that respect.
I also expect guided cannon ammunition will make a debut later on, allowing high shooting accuracy from 10,000ft if necessary.
Actually I remembered the F-35 will have blue force tracking and it also beams it’s sensor data to the guys on the ground. The next logical step (and I find people always invent these ideas before me) is for the guys on the ground to designate targets directly from the f-35’s own sensor footage. SDB here, 2000lber here, press the fire button. Got more vehicle targets than the f-35 overhead has bombs? just assign them to the other f-35 50miles out carrying 24SDB’s, 24 targets destroyed simultaneously. No need for laser designation with its trimode seeker.
OooShinyNot really.
The A-10 is superior for CAS and COIN simply because of its ability to take damage and requiring little maintenance. For sustained operations in areas where air superiority is won the A-10 is and will be a superb choice even in the future.
In all other areas, like airspaces where the enemy is expected to contest the airspace, the A-10 is among the worst platforms second to helicopters.
For instance, when leading CAS/COIN aircraft it is pretty common to mark areas with smoke. Sometimes there are two different colors on the smoke markers. This means the pilots have to get down to visual range so they can orient themselves before engaging the enemy. An IR-system doesnt see the colors so even the F35 would have to get close. Yes, there are laser designators, yes, GPS has been around… but to this day CAS/COIN are usually lead in by radio and visual ques. (In Desert Storm the cars where marked with white Vs that where hard to spot from altitude)
At 30 s we see a danger close being lead in by red smoke (danger close, west of the red smoke). In a scenario where the target is moving (like tanks are) and the targets have laser warning, the aircraft performing CAS has to be close enough to identify the individual tanks. The F35 will be able to perform this, but I would personally prefer it higher up performing DEAD and counter air and leaving this type of engagement to an aircraft that can survive being hit by the enemy.
Why wouldn’t the guys on the ground just throw ir strobe devices , one that emits constantly and another that flickers? The added advantage is the enemy wouldn’t see it.
OooShinyA smoking gun has already been produced many times over but you and Paralay are still persisting to keep posting theories of an impossibly complex conspiracy instead of realising that it’s pretty clear what happened. The balance of evidence is massively one sided.
OooShinyIt certainly seems like “some” of the future capability will be high and fast. I can’t see strikes against moving ground targets happening from up there though, maybe slow moving or static high value assets.
High altitude and fast looks like the pattern for LM’s recent patents though. Propulsion designed for 150kft altitude for speeds up to Mach 10, and there’s been quite a bit of focus on geo-navigational systems that use stars as reference points, which really does make sense if you’re flying at such high altitude, unjammable, consistent and highly accurate due to the very short wavelength of light.
OooShinyscrew it, off topic so started a new thread for an interesting topic.
OooShinyLockheed, Boeing and Northrop (from memory) all seem to have worked out how to use plasma for aircraft applications and how to negate the downsides associated with its use. In 2005 and 2006, around the time when all 3 companies were submitting their patents for hypersonic propulsion systems (the recent SR-72 announcement prompted the search for this information), there was also a whole bunch of technologies patented for using plasma systems in conjunction with electromagnetic aircraft surfaces to negate drag.
Lockheed’s patent claimed to be able to actually use the skin of the aircraft to generate additional propulsion and it removes the need for moving control surfaces on aircraft by controlling the airflow using plasma produced at the leading edges. They also claimed to be able to enhance and control airflow into irregularly shaped inlet ducts. From memory Boeing had plans to use plasma with helicopter rotors.
Will be quite a game changer for aircraft considered by many to be “un-aerodynamic” if these companies have turned the laws of aerodynamics on their head.
Someone mentioned the effects on plasma on radio communications and radar. Don’t remember if it was Boeing on NASA, but there was another patent for technologies to locally negate the effects of plasma. The context of the technology was for eliminating radio blackouts for re-entering spacecraft.
OooShinyTvc to shoot down incoming missiles with a gun?
There’s a lesson in that comment for everyone. Don’t take drugs, be 12yo, drink alcohol, be …. like simple Jack and post folks.
OooShinySurely that’s not right. They’re saying that a single aircraft in the F-35 program that first flew 4 months after the first T-50 flight has clocked up more flight hours than the entire T-50 program.
OooShinyThe fibre is probably melted epoxy and the left side may have been damaged due to the leaking, burning fuel travelling downhill.
Methinks a catch phrase is starting to gel for the t-50 though.
Can’t hide, can’t stop catching fire at the most inopportune times?
OooShinyThe issue will just be with the models they use. Most likely there’ll be a flat “plug” inside the inlets and nozzles of their 3d models.
There’s no reason for their front aspect to have higher rcs than from a few degrees left I right of centre. The largest leading edges have the highest sweep angle away from incident beams from the front aspect.
You’re right about the aircraft knowing it best and worst aspects though. There a video showing an f-35 cockpit somewhere and it clearly shows where each threat radar is and how close the f-35 can get to it while avoiding detection …. pretty amazing and unfair.
Rest assured most upcoming aircraft labelled as “stealth” have a low rcs front sector.
Sign In
