SpudmanWPAim-9X on the outer wing pylon.
SpudmanWPThe US Army wanted a transport that could be quickly sent to an area and land on a short dirt strip (or paradrop) in order to deliver supplies to nearby units.
The USAF wanted a larger transport that would wait on the TARMAC to fill up and would either deliver the supplies via paradrop or land at airstrips that would likely be farther away from the units that need supplies. The units would then have to come get their stuff if they wanted it.
Bottom line: The C-27J could deliver supplies quicker (did not have to wait for a full cargo load before taking off), deliver them closer (access to smaller airstrips than the C-130), and be under the direct control of the Army (ala Sherpa).
SpudmanWPEODAS applies to “advanced situational awareness” which applies to “Advance Avionics” and “Networked Data Fusion”.
SpudmanWPMaybe you can provide a quote of the parts you didn’t like…
Sure, here goes:
Without going too far into historical details, the US Air force’s first operational jet fighter was the F-80; it was followed by the F-86 Saber, F-100 Super Saber, F-104 Starfighter, F-4 Phantom, F-15 Eagle, F-117 Nighthawk, and F-22 Raptor, each of which represents a generational leap over its predecessor. So, in fact, the F-22 Raptor represents the 8th generation of US jet fighters; just why the US Air Force and Lockheed chose to call the F-35 a “5th-generation” fighter is still a mystery.
Right off the bat he demonstrates that he does not understand what is generally accepted in the aviation community as a “Fighter Generation”. He also included the F-117 as a fighter, even though (as you said) it is widely known the “F” designation was disinformation and it is only a light bomber.
First of all, today’s F-35 can barely fly,
Today’s F-35 has demonstrated MUCH more than the ability to “barely” fly. Here is a simplified list:
1. Mach 1.6+ (with fuel and internal warload)
2. Pulled 9.9gs (with fuel and internal warload)
3. Integrated Avionics
4. STOVL ops at sea
5. Cats & Traps (but will need a new hook, coming soon)
6. Night ops without NVGs (has problems but fixes on the way)
7. Limited External Stores
8. Out accelerates chase planes
— Stealth: the F-35’s low radar cross-section and radar-absorbent surface coatings (i.e., paint) make it more difficult to detect by radar, but they do not make it invisible. In any case, detection by radar matters less and less because by switching on its radar a fighter becomes as visible as someone turning on a flashlight in a dark room.
He has no concept of AESA or LPI tactics. Ask all the OPFOR guys that have gone up against the F-22 (including the highly ESM capable Growlers) if the F-22 ever showed up like a “flashlight in a dark room”.
So the preferred detection sensors are optical, like Infra-Red Scan and Track (IRST), and in this case the large and very hot exhaust plume of the F-35’s 45,000-lb thrust engine is as visible as a blowtorch in the same dark room.
Again, no understanding of tactics. If the If you are in a nose-to-nose engagement with the F-35 (or the F-22 for that matter), you will likely show up on his radar or ESM long before you see him in your IRST.
Furthermore, the F-35 will only be stealthy if it carries nothing under its wings. This means no pylons, so no gun (except for the F-35A, which has an internal gun); no extra fuel tanks; and no large weapons, as the small dimensions of its two bomb bays allow internal carriage of only two Amraam missiles and two JDAM guided bombs. That is not an impressive weapon load for an aircraft that, as Gen. Miller noted above, is intended to penetrate ever-more formidable “growing anti-access, area-denial capabilities” in hostile territory.
Fuel and two bombs is the standard warload for most F-16 missions. Why is this a bad thing for the F-35? If need be, those two JDAMs can be traded for 8 SDBs, two JSOWs, two JSMs, two JGBs, etc. The F-35 is about flexibility. If he thinks 2 JDAMs is not enough in a non-permissive environment, what does he think a 4th gen fighter would be able to do in a non-permissive environment?
A final word on the F-35’s stealth: its design makes it less detectable by radar in its frontal sector, but not from the side, nor from the rear, where the laws of physics dictate it will be easier to detect than face-on.
Here again he demonstrated his clear lack of understanding when it comes to RCS shaping an RAM/RAS usage.
– advanced avionics: Full sensor fusion and networking capability already exist, and was notably demonstrated in combat by French Rafales and Royal Air Force Typhoons during the 2011 operations in Libya. This is a capability that the F-35 will deliver at the turn of the decade, if all goes well, so it is hardly revolutionary.
Not all fusion & datalinks are alike. While some 4th gen assets display sensor tracks from multiple sensors on the same screen, the F-35 takes this to the next level due to the sensors themselves interacting with each other rather than just merging results. This fusion is not confined to a single fighter either. Data is automatically shared and compared from multiple F-35s to analyze & build a tactical picture of the area. On the datalink front, no 4th gen asset has a directional LPI datalink. That means that in order to share data, you have to broadcast a unidirectional “ping” of info that may very well give your position away if your enemy has decent ESM.
The F-35 is equipped with the APG-81 electronically-scanned radar, but this technology is already being retrofitted to previous-generation US fighters like the F-15E (APG-82(V)1 and the F-18E Super Hornet (APG-79); it is also available in pod form (AN/ASQ-236), has been exported to US allies, and is produced or in development by non-US manufacturers like Selex Galileo, Cassidian and Saab.
And how many AESA radars are flying in 4th gen assets with LPI, ESM, and jamming capabilities? Notice how he tries to compare a SAR pod to the APG-81?
if it [EODAS] works as advertised, however, and if its data is presented in a way the pilot can assimilate and use.
EODAS has already demonstrated it’s functionality and has been fused into the F-35’s mission systems. Speaking of data fusion, here again he does not understand (or is just trying to obfuscate) that the pilot does NOT need to “assimilate” the EODAS data as it is fused with all the rest of the F-35’s sensor data and appears on the tactical display.
The pilot’s Helmet-Mounted Display System (HMDS) was designed to do this, but it stubbornly refuses to work despite a decade of design and testing.
There is only two issues with the helmet, and fixes are on the way for both. Just this week there was a presser about those fixes.
Other F-35 “innovations” such as IRST, passive sensors and integrated countermeasures are already operational on…
Nobody has claimed these as “innovations” on the F-35. While they are newer, internal (as opposed to a pod), etc, they are evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary.
Its internal weapon load, at 4,000 lbs., is inferior to that of the F-117 Nighthawk, which could carry 5,000 lbs. of assorted internal stores in its internal bomb bays, so in this respect the F-35 is less capable than its stealth predecessor.
Um, the F-117 could only carry 2 x2000lb LGB bombs. The F-35 can do that AND two AMRAAMS.
Last, but not least, his parting shot.
The fact is that, today, after ten years and $50 billion, the F-35 flight test program has demonstrated none of its over-hyped “fifth-generation” capabilities
1. RCS – demonstrated
2. Data Fusion – demonstrated
3. Stealthy datalinks – demonstrated
4. EODAS target detection and tracking – demonstrated
5. LPI AESA A2A and SAR – demonstrated
6. Mach 1.6+ while fully fueled and with an internal warload – demonstrated
7. 9.9gs while fully fueled and with an internal warload – demonstrated
That pretty much covers most of the “5th gen” requirements. Just high AoA, ESM, and sustained Gs left to go.
SpudmanWPHow do you read a joke seriously? 😉
SpudmanWPGive me a break. That “author” does not even understand RCS, LPI, AESA, IRST functionality or even the generally accepted definitions of a “fighter generation” (he even lumped in the F-117 as a fighter).
SpudmanWPMore info here:
SpudmanWPOne or two a year???
That would take > 50 years to get their 100. 😉
SpudmanWPThe safety margin is likely compensated for by the fuel saved in not needing to gain altitude after takeoff.
SpudmanWPA rather big deal is if the B has the serviceability to operate from highly improvised airfields, has there been any notion of operating them in that way ?
This is EXACTLY what the B was designed to do.
Google F-35B austere basing 😉
The EAF and VTOL Pad AM-2 surfaces are representative of current US Marine Corps austere/forward deployed basing capabilities. These surfaces will be used to test F-35B compatibility during Short Takeoff (STO), Vertical Landing (VL), and Slow Landing (SL).
The F-35B supports the Marine Corps’ tactical and operational needs for close air support in austere conditions and locations that may be inaccessible to traditional fighters.
The F-35B uses a specially-designed shaft-driven lift fan system to achieve vertical lift and will be able to operate from ship-to-shore and austere battlefield locations.
http://www.eglin.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=15686
STOVL capability gives the F-35B the unique capability to operate from a variety of ships, roads and austere bases near frontline combat zones, greatly enhancing sortie generation rates. The unmatched basing of the F-35B – ashore and afloat –provides more employment flexibility in any scenario.
SpudmanWPIf the A has the combat radius (ie taking off from an airstrip, attaining altitude, roundtrip to target, landing) of 600+nm, then it certainly can do the same (if not a bit more) without spending the fuel to gain altitude.
SpudmanWPInitial F-35s would be IFR’d in and would also come from carriers if there was a serious threat of ABs being taken out. Besides, what are you going to take them out with? Anything short of a nuke has defenses designed to stop it.
You can’t stop IFR.
Assuming that the target nation even has the ability to go after IFR AB (or the IFR assets them selves), the first few days IFR could come from CONUS. These days are spent taking out the airfields close to the border.
After that when enemy assets have to come from deep in-country (assuming those fields are safe from targeting), IFR assets can be based closer to the front to support a more intensive campaign. Even then, those IFR bases could be well over 1000nm outside the range of any assets that could reach them.
SpudmanWPThey will operate from known ABs. To destroy the “Hornets” you have to destroy their “nest”. A serious opponent will not allow the US-forces to start the action under optimum conditions. 😎
Seriously?? Those IFR assets could come from CONUS, good luck stopping those.
SpudmanWPIndeed, a very nice picture, also one that demonstrates two major weaknesses of the whole stealth idea:
– external stores ruin stealth
Internal-Only is only needed for the most dangerous missions.
– no matter how stealthy the jet, the obligatory tanker certainly is not
Which is why they will be 600+ miles away from the action. Good luck finding them and then getting to them.
SpudmanWPWell not useless (you’re talking about the CVFs here aren’t you?).
UK F35s will launch Meteor (MBDA can’t afford not to make that work), will have cutting edge sensors and will have a very low RCS. It should even have ASRAAM. So it just needs to avoid getting into a turning fight that’s all.
You are forgetting about EODAS. If you are close enough to be in a turning fight, then you are likely within the NEZ of the Aim-120D regardless of the launch angle.
Sign In
