The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

Silavite · Post by **Silavite** » Sun May 24, 2015 10:10 pm #90283

The more I read about this bird the more I feel sorry for the contractors who were in the JSF program.
They had to make a plane which can take off/land vertically, be stealthy, carry enough of a payload for strikes, and have good enough performance to tango with other fighters.
Not only that, but now our oh-so-smart Air Force wants to throw out the baby with the bathwater with retiring the A-10, and replacing it with the F-35, a plane with about as much armor as a snowblower, for close air support (CAS).
If the air force had half as much brain as they had corruption, they'd never of done the JSF program in the first place, and instead upgraded the A-10, focused on the F-22 program, and maybe have done a new program for a new interdiction aircraft.
Article(s) to Read
JSF Programs Don't Save Money - http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pu ... MG1225.pdf
F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter Assessment - http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html

Post by **oranges** » Sun May 24, 2015 10:15 pm #90284

If you try to make an airframe that can do everything, you'll end up with average performance across it all.

bockman22 · Post by **bockman22** » Mon May 25, 2015 12:24 am #90356

I think replacing the A-10 with the f-35 is a retarded project and shouldnt be touched. A-10 can take a pounding and get the job done.

Timbrewolf · Post by **Timbrewolf** » Mon May 25, 2015 12:53 am #90367

The F-35 was a giant scam to bilk a ton of cash out of pockets of numerous NATO militaries and it worked like a charm.

It solved a bunch of problems nobody had and satisfies a bunch of bullshit requirements nobody would ever ask for.

An STO/VL airframe? A troop transport variant? WHY?
Everytime someone mentions the F-35 you should immediately think of this video.
If you have not seen it yet get ready for a fucking wild ride.
This is a man who had a big hand in inventing the F-16 and A-10.

[youtube]mxDSiwqM2nw[/youtube]

THE MIGHTY GALVATRON · Mon May 25, 2015 1:10 am

Reminds me of this.

[youtube]aXQ2lO3ieBA[/youtube]

Silavite · Post by **Silavite** » Mon May 25, 2015 2:45 am #90418

An0n3 wrote:The F-35 was a giant scam to bilk a ton of cash out of pockets of numerous NATO militaries and it worked like a charm.

It solved a bunch of problems nobody had and satisfies a bunch of bullshit requirements nobody would ever ask for.

An STO/VL airframe? A troop transport variant? WHY?
Everytime someone mentions the F-35 you should immediately think of this video.
If you have not seen it yet get ready for a fucking wild ride.
This is a man who had a big hand in inventing the F-16 and A-10.

[youtube]mxDSiwqM2nw[/youtube]

Ah, the Pierre Sprey video. While I hate the F-35 program, there are a lot of things in this video that are dumb.

I agree with the general premise that building (single role planes > building multi role planes) but there are still planes that can preform different tasks without requiring significant compromise on the design.
The idea that the F-35 would lose to a MiG-21 is... well... bullshit. I agree that the F-35 makes a lot of compromises that make it a worse dogfighter than a lot of other planes (high wing loading, wide fuselage that doesn't follow the area rule, 34 degree wing sweep), but it is far and above a MiG-21.
Two internal compartments totaling a 4,000 pound payload is not a terrible bomber.
Stealth is not a lie, it isn't a silver bullet like the AF tries to claim, but it sure as hell isn't useless. Stealth tech can reduce effective range of guidance systems by many times. Low frequency radar can detect and give general position of stealthy aircraft, but it is not accurate enough to be able to be used in a SAM site. That said, low frequency is still good enough to give a bearing to interceptors.

That said, I do agree with a lot of the stuff he said, especially about Close Air Support.

THE MIGHTY GALVATRON wrote:Reminds me of this.

[youtube]aXQ2lO3ieBA[/youtube]

I just finished reading the original book Burton wrote. It's even more eye-opining than the movie.

Timbrewolf · Post by **Timbrewolf** » Mon May 25, 2015 3:20 am #90433

Stealth helps somewhat in avoiding guided munitions and enemy attack craft. It doesn't avoid detection by enemy forces but it does make you harder to engage...

...for now. As the battlefield gets smarter and more integrated it is only a matter of time before things like reliable IFF and BVR combat are a reality. When you have guided munitions that don't use their own guidance, but piggyback off the network which is fed data by superior fixed station radar. At that point, Stealth technology wont mean shit. If anyone can spot you, everyone can spot you. Automated omniscient AWACS for everything.

I agree with his appraisal that the Mig-21 would shit all over the F-35. While they have somewhat similar flight envelopes because of their proportionately similar fuselage the Mig-21 has a better thrust-to-weight ratio. If it's using R-27T thermal seekers all that stupid bullshit radar defeating tech wont mean shit. My favorite thing to do in DCS is play the silent hunter with those things in a Su-27.

Two compartments totalling any weight is a terrible bomber unless you're solely planning on deliver nuclear payloads. Only two drops is shit and the craft itself has such shit loiter and shit range it's limited to only bombing single nearby things and then leaving. We have much better bombers in service already. Even the F-16 and F-15E are much better for this same thing while also having better air-to-air performance.

Silavite · Post by **Silavite** » Mon May 25, 2015 4:49 am #90460

An0n3 wrote:Stealth helps somewhat in avoiding guided munitions and enemy attack craft. It doesn't avoid detection by enemy forces but it does make you harder to engage...

...for now. As the battlefield gets smarter and more integrated it is only a matter of time before things like reliable IFF and BVR combat are a reality. When you have guided munitions that don't use their own guidance, but piggyback off the network which is fed data by superior fixed station radar. At that point, Stealth technology wont mean shit. If anyone can spot you, everyone can spot you. Automated omniscient AWACS for everything.

I agree with his appraisal that the Mig-21 would shit all over the F-35. While they have somewhat similar flight envelopes because of their proportionately similar fuselage the Mig-21 has a better thrust-to-weight ratio. If it's using R-27T thermal seekers all that stupid bullshit radar defeating tech wont mean shit. My favorite thing to do in DCS is play the silent hunter with those things in a Su-27.

Two compartments totalling any weight is a terrible bomber unless you're solely planning on deliver nuclear payloads. Only two drops is shit and the craft itself has such shit loiter and shit range it's limited to only bombing single nearby things and then leaving. We have much better bombers in service already. Even the F-16 and F-15E are much better for this same thing while also having better air-to-air performance.

I see what you mean about only being able to hit 2 targets. Also, have you ever read any books about John Boyd? I can definitely recommend reading about him.

Timbrewolf · Post by **Timbrewolf** » Mon May 25, 2015 5:57 am #90483

Like one of the first things a plane is supposed to do when engaging in an air-to-air scenario is jettison irrelevant munitions.

How the fuck is the F-35 even supposed to do that while preparing for or attempting to go evasive?
What am I saying, it can't even go evasive it's a brick shithouse.

To be fair the F-22 has the same damn problem but it flies so fucking fast it gives its pilots strokes so there's no reason for it to ever engage in a knife fight. I'd love to read a statistic on how many cannon rounds have ever been expended from an F-22 in a combat scenario in another decade or so. "Lt. Col. Falco Starfox expended 15 rounds accidentally once while blacking out during a maneuver" and that's it.

Incomptinence · Mon May 25, 2015 8:03 am

Coming to bankrupt an Australia distant from you due to John Howard signing onto this shifty pipe dream right before biding with real concrete working jets was about to start back in the day. Like literally the our airforce was mid evaluation of jets in 2002 and he signs this shit in a hotel room over in America. Now the LNP have signed us on for the rest of this cyanide pill. It sure is nice to live in a cock sucking prostitute of a country that pays the john she's sucking like holy fucking shit this could be instrumental to ruining our budget permanently.

That second link has AUS in the title for a reason this shit will wreck us too.

Post by **lumipharon** » Mon May 25, 2015 8:10 am #90541

>liberals kick up a huge fuss about labor 'budget blow out'
>liberals get into office and have an even larger deficit

topkek

Incomptinence · Mon May 25, 2015 8:25 am

You know I despise them but I hope Aus Liberals get their shit together. Having a right wing party that is economically incompetent AND full of the worst regressive crap that can pass the vote is hauntingly American.

Now I hear murmurs of bringing in more American style criminal punishment like we need an eternally growing population in prison too.

THE MIGHTY GALVATRON wrote:Reminds me of this.

[youtube]aXQ2lO3ieBA[/youtube]

You know with all that weapons bloat it looks like they could have just pushed a bit further and made one hell of a fast easy evac glass cannon tank destroyer. It destroyed more armored vehicles in the gulf war than the Abrams according to wikipedia which is ridiculous.

Oh well looks like MRAPS are replacing it now, multiple designs matching the original intent with mine/ied protection armor instead of an arsenal.

Edit: Shit looks like the fucked the MRAPS too with nonsensical variant designs.

Loonikus · Post by **Loonikus** » Mon May 25, 2015 8:40 am #90552

I don't get it. What does this thing do that a Super Tucano can't do for less than 1/32nd of the price?

Remember, all we do anymore is blow the fuck out of third world subhuman ghettos. The only air defense they have is rusted cold war era garbage that is pretty easily spoofed by even basic modern counter-measures. Meanwhile we enjoy complete, unopposed air superiority in all of our operations, so you can pretty much forget about dogfighting. Therefore, why don't we save ourselves a few hundred billion dollars and build what we need instead of BEST ON THE PLANET OVERKILL EXTREMO-PLANE FOR ONLY 4,912,280 EASY PAYMENTS OF $19.95!!

Incomptinence · Mon May 25, 2015 8:45 am

Aaaaand for the smaller buyers into this program the horrendous flaws and bloat may leave them undefended in the air and bankrupt to boot.

Partner countries this dead parrot is sold to (due to misplaced trust and or corruption) outside the US is basically jeopardized due to this in the future.

Comparative planes in development around the world are superior in any given role due to not having ridiculous requirements, any technical advantage implicit in the design or technology is known to have its designs STOLEN and can be copied cheaper without the dev cost on more dedicated designs.

This design counts on total overwhelming numbers to achieve supremacy in any role that is what counting on "5th gen" coordinated weapons to do everything short of pumping your lungs for you means, in the most well funded military in the world this gilded zergling shit might pass. In the partner countries this basically means they paid the most they possibly could for what sounds like one of the worst planes to have in small numbers, paying top dollar to be woefully undefended without the golden horde of other spruce gooses nearby.

XSI · Post by **XSI** » Mon May 25, 2015 3:19 pm #90612

An0n3 wrote:The F-35 was a giant scam to bilk a ton of cash out of pockets of numerous NATO militaries and it worked like a charm.

Basically this
It's got a 'feature list' as long as they could possibly put in there without having to advertise automated ejection seats if it ever takes off, just so they could use it to convince people who don't know about it that it's a good idea

It's not about being a good airplane
It's about profit. Profit for the shareholders of course, not profit for citizens, countries, or anything like that. Just the shareholders and the companies who can afford to lobby their shit

And of course where I live the worst government since WW2(Occupation government included, not making it up - They have less approval than the nazis had) paid for it while at the same time saying they are forced to cut things like healthcare because there's no money

Post by **Thunder11** » Mon May 25, 2015 3:48 pm #90621

I'm pretty sure Kelly Johnson is turning in his grave just now.

Timbrewolf · Post by **Timbrewolf** » Mon May 25, 2015 4:51 pm #90632

You see this piece of shit and then you see 5th gen lo concept fighters like the Gripen

and you're like

HOLY MOTHER OF SHIT WE COULD HAVE HAD THAT?
AT HALF THE UNIT COST?

FUCK.

EDIT: The Bradley may be over-engineered but it's also quite effective and other militaries have either bought them from us or made attempts to engineer their own versions of it. The design process behind it may be parodied or whatever but the way it fits into modern infantry tactics is great. Troops disembark and give the vehicle a screen against anti-tank infantry while the vehicle protects the troops from armored threats. At the time they designed it it probably sounded like a really shitty idea because wars were still fought and won by tons of troops on the ground. Our modern military is much more mechanized and the Bradley fits in perfectly.

Silavite · Post by **Silavite** » Mon May 25, 2015 7:34 pm #90668

An0n3 wrote: EDIT: The Bradley may be over-engineered but it's also quite effective and other militaries have either bought them from us or made attempts to engineer their own versions of it. The design process behind it may be parodied or whatever but the way it fits into modern infantry tactics is great. Troops disembark and give the vehicle a screen against anti-tank infantry while the vehicle protects the troops from armored threats. At the time they designed it it probably sounded like a really shitty idea because wars were still fought and won by tons of troops on the ground. Our modern military is much more mechanized and the Bradley fits in perfectly.

We got lucky with the Bradley in that respect. We were also really damn lucky to have the thing live fire tested. Originally, they wanted to just put it into production with a shittion of 25mm shells and TOW missiles stored INSIDE the fighting compartment. The Live Fire Test Program managed to get the TOWs stored outside the tank, and Burton wanted to store belts of 25mm ammunition in compartments like the way ammo was stored in the M1 Abrams. Why this wasn't ever done is a mystery, it seems.
There was also trouble with the Halon fire extinguishers, because Halon reacts with some explosive gasses to form toxic vapours.

Loonikus · Post by **Loonikus** » Mon May 25, 2015 9:27 pm #90694

As far as I know, Halon is practically always at least slightly toxic anyway. At least, thats what I learned in my emergency response classes. Besides, the way I see it, I'll take inhaling some toxic fumes over burning alive any day of the week.

I like the Bradley, with the growing focus on MOUT we needed something with more staying power. In a situation where light AT weapons can strike at anytime from any angle, something as simple as an up-armored M113 isn't going to cut it. True, they are not ideal scout vehicles but that role is better filled by the Stryker anyway, which despite what some people say, is not shit. What the Bradley lacks in scouting and troop transport it makes up for in firepower.

Silavite · Post by **Silavite** » Mon May 25, 2015 10:26 pm #90718

Loonikus wrote:As far as I know, Halon is practically always at least slightly toxic anyway. At least, thats what I learned in my emergency response classes. Besides, the way I see it, I'll take inhaling some toxic fumes over burning alive any day of the week.

The Halon gas mixture caused almost instant delirium and after a minute or more caused an irregular heartbeat, which can lead to cardiac arrest and death. Furthermore, 66% of the time the extinguisher system discharged where there was never any fire to begin with, and to top it off, most fires were ammunition fires, which were self-oxidizing anyway. Halon only worked when there was a fuel fire, because fuel is not self-oxidixing.

Fun fact: The army claimed in its report that, "[there was] Little effect on crew due to overpressure or temperature." The pressures reached when the Bradley was penetrated would easily rupture eardrums.

Silavite · Post by **Silavite** » Wed May 27, 2015 12:26 am #90993

An0n3 wrote:You see this piece of shit and then you see 5th gen lo concept fighters like the Gripen

*awesome photo snip*

and you're like

HOLY MOTHER OF SHIT WE COULD HAVE HAD THAT?
AT HALF THE UNIT COST?

FUCK.

EDIT: The Bradley may be over-engineered but it's also quite effective and other militaries have either bought them from us or made attempts to engineer their own versions of it. The design process behind it may be parodied or whatever but the way it fits into modern infantry tactics is great. Troops disembark and give the vehicle a screen against anti-tank infantry while the vehicle protects the troops from armored threats. At the time they designed it it probably sounded like a really shitty idea because wars were still fought and won by tons of troops on the ground. Our modern military is much more mechanized and the Bradley fits in perfectly.

If you want to see a really interesting (and radically against the status quo) proposal for a new light air superiority fighter, look at this guy's page.
https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/201 ... -proposal/

Also, I actually disagree with your assessment that the Bradley is a good vehicle. Just... I'd explain everything wrong with it, but there's WAY too much stuff. If you want to know everything wrong and more, plus a good book for $25, buy this: http://www.amazon.com/The-Pentagon-Wars ... 1612516009
If you don't want to spend $25, watch this 10 part series (part 1): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgsueD1eMaw

Malkevin · Post by **Malkevin** » Wed May 27, 2015 5:23 pm #91103

An0n3 wrote:The F-35 was a giant scam to bilk a ton of cash out of pockets of numerous NATO militaries and it worked like a charm.

It solved a bunch of problems nobody had and satisfies a bunch of bullshit requirements nobody would ever ask for.

An STO/VL airframe? A troop transport variant? WHY?
Everytime someone mentions the F-35 you should immediately think of this video.
If you have not seen it yet get ready for a fucking wild ride.
This is a man who had a big hand in inventing the F-16 and A-10.

[youtube]mxDSiwqM2nw[/youtube]

What? How the fuck.... does it carry the people strapped under the wings?!?

Timbrewolf · Post by **Timbrewolf** » Wed May 27, 2015 6:02 pm #91106

Beats me man. One of the initial requests the Marines had for the F-35B was that it could transport troops.

Silavite wrote:-snip-

Read quite a bit but when he mentioned that it was worth throwing Radar away to save 150kg I noped out.

An air-to-air fighter operating completely without radar wont work in a combat theater because of the way tasking and frag orders are done. Brief radar pings play a huge part in making sure our planes aren't shooting down our own planes. IR identification and IR missiles are great (see my comments above) but they still rely on radar to give them a little bit of a hint on where you should go look for stuff.

A skilled pilot COULD use his RWR to identify a bearing for enemy targets but that would require them to ping you first, and you're at a disadvantage in the hunt already when that is happening.

Imagine you're in one of these FLX planes in a combat theater trying to hunt another FLX while a friendly pilot in an FLX is also in the area. It's going to be a nightmare for any of you to find any of you, and you're going to have a hell of a time trying to identify whether the FLX you're trying to engage is friendly or not without radar to communicate position and heading to AWACS.

Kot · Post by **Kot** » Wed May 27, 2015 6:08 pm #91107

Malkevin wrote: What? How the fuck.... does it carry the people strapped under the wings?!?

It doesn't. It's "stealth" so it has to carry two people inside the hull in bomb bay.
EDIT: BTW, I imagine F-35 in flight sims. Flying one would be an equivalent of tied and blindfolded five years old trying to play Dark Souls on hardest possible difficulty, with all the bosses coming at you at once, apparently.

Timbrewolf · Post by **Timbrewolf** » Wed May 27, 2015 9:51 pm #91150

Man I can't stop thinking about what a bad idea a modern jet fighter without radar is.

WW2 era planes could do this because they flew at lower altitudes and airspeeds and used unguided munitions so you could just use your goddamn eyeballs to find people without blowing up because no supersonic heat-seeking spear loaded with high-explosives was going to appear and blindside you.

Putting a pilot in a modern airframe flying around a battelfield at supersonic speeds trying to visually identify other airframes also flying at supersonic speeds to see which ones are clean shoots and which ones are on your own side before someone else either identifies you or makes a mistake and blows you up is a fucking shitty shitty shit shit idea and invalidates everything this guy just said.

People didn't need radar in WW2 because the bar was a lot lower. In modern fighters the effective radius at which they can lock-on, identify, and splash targets is much larger than the radius a pilot's human eyeball is going to be able to notice the silhouette of an aircraft on the horizon.

Even if they equipped the planes with some kind of TGP so the pilot could visually confirm "That's the outline of an FLX, that's a MiG, etc." they're still going to get fucked because:

1) Thermal optics have a maximum effective range that is trumped by radar
2) Radar sweeps can more rapidly cover an area than thermal sweeps, therefore making them more effective at rapid acquisition and able to cover more ground in the same amount of time
3) Radar is more precise, able to tell heading, speed, and elevation while thermal can't

While the only thing they get in exchange are

1) Thermal is stealthier, it's a passive system
2) Thermal could potentially weigh less and be more compact (though I imagine it will be roughly equivalent in size if you are trying to build a "search and track" type system around thermal acquisition)

Incomptinence · Wed May 27, 2015 10:12 pm

Kot wrote: It doesn't. It's "stealth" so it has to carry two people inside the hull in bomb bay.

It all makes sense now, Dr Strangelove was actually a movie about future troop transportation techniques.

Timbrewolf · Post by **Timbrewolf** » Wed May 27, 2015 10:32 pm #91161

MUH-REEEEEEEENS

HOO AHH

Silavite · Post by **Silavite** » Thu May 28, 2015 2:25 am #91205

An0n3 wrote:MUH-REEEEEEEENS

HOO AHH

Well, there is a certain saying... ("The deadliest weapon in the world is a Marine and his rifle.")

Also, I screwed up with the FLX thing. That was v2, it is at v6 right now.
https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/201 ... roposal-6/
And for your IFF woes...

Modern IR sensors are rivaling radar in capability. PIRATE IRST of Eurofighter Typhoon can track subsonic fighter-sized targets from 90 km from front or 145 km from rear. It can identify the target at 40 km, and track 200 different targets. Range figures will be 10% greater against fighters supercruising at Mach 1,7, and a Mach 4 AMRAAM can be detected at 80 km. Angular resolution is less than 0,05*, possibly as good as 0,0143*. Fighter supercruising at Mach 1,7 generates shock cone with stagnation temperature of 87* C, and Mach 4 AMRAAM generates 650* C shock cone, while temperature of the surrounding air is -50* C at 10.000 meters, -54* C at 12.000 meters and -70* C at 15.000 meters. This shows that significant IR signature reduction is nothing but a dream, with even commercial IR detectors being able to detect 0,1* C differences in temperature. IRST can also use Doppler-shift measurements to estimate closure speed of the target. Atmospheric conditions also aren’t as much of a problem as typically believed: during testing, Rafale’s OSF managed to detect a turboprop C-160 through the cloud at range beyond MICAs engagement envelope. Even if cloud cover is thick enough to affect the IRST, most clouds do not extend above cca 10 km. Skyward-G, based on the PIRATE, has been stated to be capable of picking up all aircraft flying at speeds above 300 kts, regardless of IR signature reduction measures, simply through aerodynamic heating of the skin. It is also thought to offer better performance than PIRATE. Further, most of adverse conditions that may affect the IRST occur below the 10.000 feet, and radar has problems when detecting, and especially targeting, low-flying aircraft.

I know that you can 'buddy spike' with radar, but that requires you to hard lock with him and gives away your position. If you need to ID past 40km, you can do a radio callout
(example: "Group at 28,000, Bullseye 127, 20 miles; ID.")
I forgot to link Pierre Sprey's paper as well. It basically explains the rationale and historical evidence for the priorities outlined in the development of theoretical FLX (list is on page 49 of the PDF). http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/08.pdf
Finally, here's a RAND report kind-of implicitly bashing BVR as well, but not radar in specific: http://www.mossekongen.no/downloads/200 ... iefing.pdf

Timbrewolf · Post by **Timbrewolf** » Thu May 28, 2015 2:39 am #91209

Those statistics still suck.

Can track incoming at 90km and outgoing at 145km? Identify at 40km? Cool.
Radar equipped fighters can track and identify both at ~300km with altitude, bearing, and speed.

IRST can use the doppler effect to estimate closure speed. Neat. You could prrrrrobably get a heading out of that. You wont get an altitude out of that though unless it's integrated with a radar system or GPS and a system to CC that and it'll all be approximate guestimates.

Most of the adverse conditions that may affect the ISRT occur below angels 10, where radar has problems?
Yeah...ground based radar stations have troubles tracking low and slow because of clouds and mountains. Airborne radar systems don't, though, and we're talking about equipping flying craft here not ground stations.

The one thing I see here that does sound promising is its ability to identify and track incoming munitions, which is a cool asset considering how much time and effort has gone into producing munitions that either don't pop up on RWR until they "pitbull" or just never show up RWR at all like that glorious R-27T I was talking about before.

You're still in a problem where you're more dependent on AWACS being up and working and responding quickly to things vs the ability of a radar-based platforms in a uniform setting (where you aren't fighting countries flying similar craft) being able to tell for themselves "Whoops that's an F/A-18" and call out a buddy spike without having to dial home. Being able to tell that's a Su-27 at 300km vs 40km is a HUGE FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

EDIT: Like you said though in ideal circumstances they wouldn't need to wait that long to identify pop-ups but to manage a fleet of these things we'd need to triple the AWACS presence to handle this increased volume of calls. As a short-range fighter craft on the lo philosophy paired with our hi bid F-22's and such this could maybe work but historically speaking that relationship rarely gets employed like they say it should on paper and F-22's require so much maintenance for their flight time I see a situation where these FLX's are going up against Su's and Mig's without that screen and it not ending well at all for the FLX's whereas F-16's and F-18's could handle themselves (and have shown to be able to handle themselves) much better.

By the by I love the "can track 200 simultaneous targets" metric. If we're even in a theater where our enemy is fielding anywhere near 200 craft simultaneously we're either fighting alien invaders from space or the entire world is trying to attack a single country.

Silavite · Post by **Silavite** » Thu May 28, 2015 4:41 am #91218

An0n3 wrote:Those statistics still suck.

Can track incoming at 90km and outgoing at 145km? Identify at 40km? Cool.
Radar equipped fighters can track and identify both at ~300km with altitude, bearing, and speed.

IRST can use the doppler effect to estimate closure speed. Neat. You could prrrrrobably get a heading out of that. You wont get an altitude out of that though unless it's integrated with a radar system or GPS and a system to CC that and it'll all be approximate guestimates.

Most of the adverse conditions that may affect the ISRT occur below angels 10, where radar has problems?
Yeah...ground based radar stations have troubles tracking low and slow because of clouds and mountains. Airborne radar systems don't, though, and we're talking about equipping flying craft here not ground stations.

The one thing I see here that does sound promising is its ability to identify and track incoming munitions, which is a cool asset considering how much time and effort has gone into producing munitions that either don't pop up on RWR until they "pitbull" or just never show up RWR at all like that glorious R-27T I was talking about before.

You're still in a problem where you're more dependent on AWACS being up and working and responding quickly to things vs the ability of a radar-based platforms in a uniform setting (where you aren't fighting countries flying similar craft) being able to tell for themselves "Whoops that's an F/A-18" and call out a buddy spike without having to dial home. Being able to tell that's a Su-27 at 300km vs 40km is a HUGE FUCKING DIFFERENCE.

EDIT: Like you said though in ideal circumstances they wouldn't need to wait that long to identify pop-ups but to manage a fleet of these things we'd need to triple the AWACS presence to handle this increased volume of calls. As a short-range fighter craft on the lo philosophy paired with our hi bid F-22's and such this could maybe work but historically speaking that relationship rarely gets employed like they say it should on paper and F-22's require so much maintenance for their flight time I see a situation where these FLX's are going up against Su's and Mig's without that screen and it not ending well at all for the FLX's whereas F-16's and F-18's could handle themselves (and have shown to be able to handle themselves) much better.

By the by I love the "can track 200 simultaneous targets" metric. If we're even in a theater where our enemy is fielding anywhere near 200 craft simultaneously we're either fighting alien invaders from space or the entire world is trying to attack a single country.

(Seconded with the 200 target thing being hilarious)
Hm, I see your point, IFF with radar is a huge advantage. It wouldn't be as bad news as you make it out to be IMO, as RWR's should be able to distinguish between friends and foes with radars radiating at farther ranges then the said aircraft would be detected (waves weakening with inverse square law and all that). A bigger hurdle would be with those who have non radiating radar. Then again, with non radiating radar, the guy you are going for wouldn't know where you were either until you got within ID range (40km). Worst case scenario would be some guy just flying around just outside IRST ID range running silent radar starts radiating and launches some radar guided missiles. Evasion at 40km would (hopefully) still be quite possible though.
Ultimately, this would cost the most in terms of time. Fighters would go after eachother until ID range (40km) in a useless frenzy without AWACS.

All avionics aside, the look of something with wing loading and T/W like that looks like returning to the YF-16 days of yore.

Post by **oranges** » Thu May 28, 2015 7:20 am #91235

It's funny because it looks like they eventually approved the original bradley plans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker

XSI · Post by **XSI** » Thu May 28, 2015 5:34 pm #91336

An0n3 wrote: By the by I love the "can track 200 simultaneous targets" metric. If we're even in a theater where our enemy is fielding anywhere near 200 craft simultaneously we're either fighting alien invaders from space or the entire world is trying to attack a single country.

>Alien invaders

Now I'm just saying...Buuuuut

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science ... ng-us.html

Maybe they know something they're not telling

Timbrewolf · Post by **Timbrewolf** » Thu May 28, 2015 6:25 pm #91341

oranges wrote:It's funny because it looks like they eventually approved the original bradley plans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker

Goddamn that looks so cool. My American blood wants to own one for driving around town and oppressing my neighbors.

XSI wrote:
An0n3 wrote: By the by I love the "can track 200 simultaneous targets" metric. If we're even in a theater where our enemy is fielding anywhere near 200 craft simultaneously we're either fighting alien invaders from space or the entire world is trying to attack a single country.
>Alien invaders

Now I'm just saying...Buuuuut

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science ... ng-us.html

Maybe they know something they're not telling

LOL EVEN THE ALIENS WORK WITH THE UNITED STATES OVER CANADA

Kot · Post by **Kot** » Thu May 28, 2015 7:06 pm #91347

An0n3 wrote: By the by I love the "can track 200 simultaneous targets" metric. If we're even in a theater where our enemy is fielding anywhere near 200 craft simultaneously we're either fighting alien invaders from space or the entire world is trying to attack a single country.

Or Russia. I am pretty sure they still keep ~1950s planes in bearable condition so in case of actual full-on war they're capable of fielding amazing amounts of shit-tier vehicles and weaponry. It's actually something normal in post-Warsaw Pact countries, it wasn't until recently Poland started doing something with horrible amounts of WWII guns. Apparently we offloaded shitton of PPSh into Africa about ten years ago and we still have plenty to sell.

Timbrewolf · Post by **Timbrewolf** » Thu May 28, 2015 7:56 pm #91360

HELL YEAH MOTHERFRUCKER

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/shop/

SUMMER SALE IS UPON US

Silavite · Post by **Silavite** » Thu May 28, 2015 8:34 pm #91376

Anon, Picard578 (the guy who proposed FLX) made this in reply after I posted your comments about radar on the page.
(The page here: https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/201 ... roposal-6/)

Here is a full reply, I’d like you to post it there and say it’s from me since I couldn’t register:

https://tgstation13.org/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3690

“Radar equipped fighters can track and identify both at ~300km with altitude, bearing, and speed.”
Actually, they can’t. They can detect, maybe track, but not identify. (The only fighters that can track fighter-sized targets at 300+ km are Russian Flankers, Su-35 to be more precise, and even then it requires fighter to have a barn-door RCS and no jammers). Irbis-E may be able to detect target of 5 m2 RCS at 425 km, but that’s a big iffy. Even if it can, Rafale has RCS of 0,15-0,3 m2 from front. FLX is smaller than Rafale, so let’s say 0,1-0,2 m2. With 8 missiles, and considering that 4 of these have no pylons, RCS will be 0,65-1,00 m2. Let’s round it to 1 m2.

(RCS1/RCS2) = (R1/R2)^4
(1/5) = (R1/425)^4
0,2 = (R1/425)^4
0.66874030497 = R1/425
R1 = 284

This is detection range. Tracking range is 80% of detection range, so Su-35 can start locking on at 227 km, assuming no jamming.

With jamming, reduction in range can be as much as 78%:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a257316.pdf

Assuming 60%-80% reduction, Su-35 can start locking on at 45-91 km. Electronic acquisition will take at least 10 seconds, against cooperative target, and in this situation several times longer. With Mach 2,73 mutual approach speed (1,53 + 1,2 supercruise), 10 seconds means that distance between fighters will decrease by 8,27 km; 30+ seconds which is more likely means that distance between fighters will decrease by 24,8 km. So Su-35 can launch a missile at 20-83 km, and even then it will not know what it is launching at.

FLX has two ways of detecting and targeting Su-27/30/35. Its IRST can detect Su-35 at 100 km (90 km vs subsonic target + 10% vs supercruising target) from front and 160 km from the rear. RWR will be able to detect Su-35s radar at several hundred kilometers, but it will only be accurate enough for targeting solution at distance of maybe 140 km.

However, all of this does not really matter as neither fighter has a missile with >100 km effective range. To use Western missiles, Meteor has an effective range of ~100 km against aircraft in attack and 25 km in chase; AIM-120D has an effective range of 36 km against aircraft in attack and 9 km in chase.

“Yeah…ground based radar stations have troubles tracking low and slow because of clouds and mountains. Airborne radar systems don’t, though, and we’re talking about equipping flying craft here not ground stations.”
Airborne systems have trouble tracking anything low because of clutter.

“You’re still in a problem where you’re more dependent on AWACS being up and working and responding quickly to things vs the ability of a radar-based platforms in a uniform setting (where you aren’t fighting countries flying similar craft) being able to tell for themselves “Whoops that’s an F/A-18″ and call out a buddy spike without having to dial home. Being able to tell that’s a Su-27 at 300km vs 40km is a HUGE FUCKING DIFFERENCE.”
Actually, it is kinda the opposite. The only reliable way to identify platforms is to not rely on IFF but solely on onboard sensors. This means either NCTR (with radar) or video recognition (with visual sensors, including IRST). But there is a problem. Radar NCTR works in two basic ways. One is to identify the aircraft through its specific engine first stage signature. This does not work if aircraft in question has hidden engine face (like FLX, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen, F-22, F-35… you get the idea) or if approach puts target aircraft at anything but head-on collision course. Second one is radar imaging. It is possible, but is very resource-intensive in terms of processing, and easily defeated by jamming. Even rapid maneuvers can seriously degrade imaging performance, and in either case it has lower range than IRST imaging.

Third way includes reliance on enemy sensors. Basically, if the enemy uses radar, and you have its signature in database, you can recognize aircraft type. This obviously means major disadvantage for whoever is using radar in the first place.

“As a short-range fighter craft on the lo philosophy paired with our hi bid F-22’s and such this could maybe work but historically speaking that relationship rarely gets employed like they say it should on paper and F-22’s require so much maintenance for their flight time I see a situation where these FLX’s are going up against Su’s and Mig’s without that screen and it not ending well at all for the FLX’s whereas F-16’s and F-18’s could handle themselves (and have shown to be able to handle themselves) much better.”
First, FLX does not have “short range”. I fail to see how is 1.124 km combat radius on internal fuel “short-ranged”, considering that literally the only Western fighter with greater combat radius is the F-22 (1.166 km, mere 42 km (4%) advantage). 40% fuel fraction isn’t there for nothing.

Second, I don’t see how the “F-16 and F-18 can handle themselves much better”. As I have explained above, not having radar is not a very large disadvantage. If radar really is required, I don’t see why it would be impossible to put AESA radar into supersonic external fuel tank (or supersonic pod), and have one FLX in each flight carry such a radar.

Not-Dorsidarf · Thu May 28, 2015 8:54 pm

It's the old soviet policy - 'It doesn't matter if they can shoot down ten thousand nuclear bombers, as long as you send ten thousand and one'

Timbrewolf · Post by **Timbrewolf** » Fri May 29, 2015 12:16 am #91433

RWR will be able to detect Su-35s radar at several hundred kilometers, but it will only be accurate enough for targeting solution at distance of maybe 140 km.

FLX can get a targeting solution off of its RWR? What?

Anywho I'm still not hearing anything in this figures to say that the IRST is superior to Radar, just a bunch of measurements and comparisons to say "it's not as bad as you think". It's still not as good, and we're getting ready to roll out systems like the AN/APG-81 which reportedly has a 400km range so that gap is going to fluctuate in how large it is from time to time...but there will always be a gap with radar ahead of the curve.

EDIT: I do want to add, since the author might read this, that despite my criticisms I think it's an impressive idea and I appreciate the amount of work he has put into designing all of this. IRST is an impressive technology and he obviously knows more about this than me, but despite the figures and reasoned argument I think there's still a clear reason to include radar in birds vs. a solely IRST dependent platform.

Silavite · Post by **Silavite** » Fri May 29, 2015 2:39 am #91461

An0n3 wrote: FLX can get a targeting solution off of its RWR? What?

I think he is talking about the use of an air to air anti radiation missile, like the R-27P or EP.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_(air ... )#Variants

Also, I suspect the reason he chose IRST as the singular sensor is three-fold. First is about the fighter comparison study by Spery I posted earlier
(Here: http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/08.pdf).
Page 49 of the PDF

The first point in the table is probably the primary reason that Picard578 decided to forgo radar; the element of suprise is crucial.

Second reason could be aerodynamic (I say 'could' as I am not well-versed in the field). When the YF-16 went through modifications to become the F-16A, a larger radar was fitted, which in turn required a larger nosecone. This caused instability problems at high AoA, so the F-16 was limited to 25 degrees AoA rather than the aerodynamic max of 32 degrees.

The third could have to do with enemy weaponry.

(From http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html)
Currently classified capabilities such as the use of the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar as an X-band high power jammer against the Russian BARS or Irbis E radar are not a panacea, and may actually hasten the demise of the F/A-18E/F or F-35 JSF in a BVR shootout. This is for the simple reason that to jam the Russian radar, the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar must jam the frequencies being used by the Russian radar, and this then turns the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar into a wholly electronically predictable X-band high power beacon for an anti-radiation seeker equipped Russian BVR missile such as the R-27EP or R-77P. The act of jamming the Russian radar effectively surrenders the frequency hopping agility in the emissions of the APG-79 or APG-81 AESA radar, denying it the only defence it has against the anti-radiation missile. A smart Russian radar software designer will include a "seduction mode" to this effect, with narrowband emissions to make it very easy even for an early model 9B-1032 anti-radiation seeker.

These reasons are all speculation on my part, however. I'll ask him the reasons he chose specifically later.

(Getting a discussion going is a real pain, because you only start posting around 23:00 GMT, and Picard578 lives in Croatia, so the time disconnect is a real pain)

Silavite · Post by **Silavite** » Fri May 29, 2015 12:48 pm #91549

From Picard

“FLX can get a targeting solution off of its RWR? ”
It is about precision. Old RWRs couldn’t target anything because they were not accurate enough – 10* accuracy of classical radar warners was not enough for anything but a “look there, missile’s gonna come from there” warning. FLX uses interferometric radar warners, and distance of the smallest base pair is enough for 0,062* accuracy (RWR antenna spacing of 25 wavelengths is required for 0,1* accuracy, 2,5 wavelengths for 1* accuracy. FLX has minimum spacing of 152 cm or 40,5 wavelengths, as explained in the article). Combine this accuracy with missile seeker range and you get the engagement range – and I used 9 km seeker range when calculating engagement distance, considerably less than even MICAs seeker range (about half of it, actually). Plus, it would most likely be used with anti-radiation missiles (I have proposed using both Meteor and a theoretical dual-stage BVRAAM as anti-radiation missiles – RWR would get initial targeting data, they’d follow radar emissions of a targeted fighter with their own antennas during the flight, and would go active once within seeker range, if at all).

EDIT: For comparison, CAPTOR has angular resolution of 0,05 ° at 165 km. So a 100+ km engagement distance with RWR is most likely achievable with FLX’s configuration.

“Anywho I’m still not hearing anything in this figures to say that the IRST is superior to Radar”
Main issue is that most, if not all, BVR kills have happened when target was surprised. IRST allows for surprise, with radar you are warning the enemy at least of your presence. IRST is also far harder to jam, and most fighters don’t carry high-powered IR lasers anyway. Further, all ID measures can get hacked except for ones not dependant on electronic transmissions. Hence a requirement for VID and/or NCTR. From what I know, IRST actually has longer ID range than radar NCTR modes.

“It’s still not as good, and we’re getting ready to roll out systems like the AN/APG-81 which reportedly has a 400km range so that gap is going to fluctuate in how large it is from time to time…but there will always be a gap with radar ahead of the curve.”
It is not as good in terms of raw performance (range etc.) but I still have issues with using radar. First is that radar may well be incompatible with achieving BVR kills against a competent opponent. All BVR kills so far were against comparably low-capability targets that were, most of the time, surprised. Serb MiG-29s were literally climbing into USAFs AMRAAMs, with no missile warners or ECM suite avaliable – and in some cases at least they had no operable radar or IRST as well, though neither would have warned them of incoming missiles anyway (IRST might, but IIRC on MiG-29 it is cued by radar and it is a far cry from PIRATE anyway). Still, in one account I know of, a MiG-29 evaded several AMRAAMs after seeing his wingman get shot down (if I remember it correctly). Iraqi aircraft also typically had no RWR or MAWS. Second one is that using radar for search – which is its main advantage over IRST – means warning all and sundry at several times the detection distance. In fact, target will get the same energy as radar at four times the distance, and this is assuming perfect reflection – but reflection is never perfect, and a personal car has an RCS of 100 m2 compared to between 1 and 25 m2 for a typical fighter aircraft, which should give you an idea of how much gets reflected away. Third one is raw performance. You can either optimize a fighter for aerodynamic performance (e.g. Rafale) or for radar performance (e.g. F-15), not both. I chose the aerodynamic performance, and I doubt that with the size and configuration I was aiming at a radar would have given better range performance than IRST (plus I would have it used as an RWR most of the time anyway). Now if it could be possible to include radar antennas into wing and tail leading edges, I might consider it, but I’m not sure it was ever done, and I don’t know how heavy such elements would be or what their performance will be. I did include the radar pod (check the loadout options illustration), with an idea that a single flighter in each flight would use it and then datalink information to his wingmen. I still have to find an AESA radar that can fit into a 1.250 l supersonic fuel tank though.

Radar will, by its nature, always have greater range in ideal conditions. But that is the key: in ideal conditions. However, modern fighters regularly have a self-defense suite, and there are also standoff jammers. There was an article about EFAs IRST back in 1990s I have a photo of, in which it is mentioned that “simulated trials of EFA’s ECR-90 radar show that its airborne detection range capability can be cut to less than 9km (5nm) by a combination of known Soviet stealth techniques and stand-off jammers.” Mind you, it is likely vs a Flanker, so it would be even less against something with smaller RCS (like Su-35 / Flanker-E, or J-10). While I don’t think that as good performance will be achieved vs a modern AESA radar, it still points to an impressive performance by jammers.

“I do want to add, since the author might read this, that despite my criticisms I think it’s an impressive idea and I appreciate the amount of work he has put into designing all of this.”
No problem, I always like a nice discussion – and you can’t have a discussion if everyone agrees in everything. I only have a problem when people disregard what I write with no arguments (more than once I read something along the lines of “You can’t have a fighter without a radar, that’s stupid”, and that was it, no argument, no examples, nothing but a lot of hot air) or arguments like “everybody is doing it differently, ergo you are wrong”.

“but despite the figures and reasoned argument I think there’s still a clear reason to include radar in birds vs. a solely IRST dependent platform.”
There is a reason, yes. But all designs are tradeoffs, and I don’t think radar is necessary as a part of fighter’s regular sensory suite.

EDIT: something I missed from a previous post:

“By the by I love the “can track 200 simultaneous targets” metric.”
Alien cows from space!

On a serious note, it can track “200 simultaneous targets” not just “200 simultaneous aircraft”. “Targets” likely include aircraft as well as any missiles they may have fired.

Incomptinence · Fri May 29, 2015 1:30 pm

Wait these planes can hypothetically relay targeting data to each other if they work properly right? All their targeting data is infrared radiation.

Aren't they capable of working similar to interferometer array telescopes then to improve angular resolution in groups of planes distances from each other? Would improvement in image resolution due to this make them better at tracking at different ranges?

I mean I am not an astronomer but I have read about how arrays are being used to discern fine details around stars like say second stars and planets. Looking for a light at the end of this tunnel Australia has dug itself into must be driving me crazy.

Timbrewolf · Post by **Timbrewolf** » Fri May 29, 2015 5:46 pm #91602

Australia should:

1) Purchase a single F-35 under contract
2) Roll it out into the plains towards a vicious pack of wild emu combatants
3) Record its combat data as it gets pecked to pieces
4) Cite poor combat performance and abandon the contract before you lose more kangaroo bucks.

qwert · Post by **qwert** » Fri May 29, 2015 11:35 pm #91696

Why was yf-23 program rekt?
Combat jets without pilots, when?

Incomptinence · Fri May 29, 2015 11:49 pm

That sounds like a much better idea really. Unmanned planes don't black out.

Silavite · Post by **Silavite** » Sat May 30, 2015 4:00 pm #91824

Incomptinence wrote:That sounds like a much better idea really. Unmanned planes don't black out.

The problem is that without the pilot in the plane, you're going to have ping delays. Even a quarter of a second in air combat is vital, not to mention the risk of jamming the pilot-plane control datalink.
Unless you are proposing a fully automated plane, in which I'll just say that we (probably) don't have the programming for that. I say probably because I am not really big on unmanned military aircraft. The only way to do it without risking jamming and ping delays would be full automation.
Edit: After a bit of reading, automated systems have some non combat essentials down
(Aerial Refueling:http://arstechnica.com/information-tech ... o-history/
and also Carrier Landing:http://arstechnica.com/information-tech ... -landings/ though this is on a stationary runway and not a deck traveling at 30 knots pitching in the ocean.)
But aerial combat itself seems like it would be difficult to design software for, given its inherently chaotic nature.

Ricotez · Post by **Ricotez** » Sat May 30, 2015 5:18 pm #91839

There exist plenty of machine learning algorithms that could do it today. The problem is processing data fast enough for the plane to be sufficiently responsive. There is a bridge between smart systems and responsive systems that's being built on from both sides but isn't quite finished yet.

XSI · Post by **XSI** » Sun May 31, 2015 7:33 pm #92017

Silavite wrote: But aerial combat itself seems like it would be difficult to design software for, given its inherently chaotic nature.

Give it 20 years and some game will have accidently done it for their AI planes to throw at the players. And then the army goes "Wait, what, can we buy that?"

Timbrewolf · Post by **Timbrewolf** » Sun May 31, 2015 8:42 pm #92020

I don't think it would be hard to program at all. You just give it a bunch of rules (eg. never dive so many degrees/airspeed below a certain altitude) and then set a bunch of conditionals.

I'm pretty sure you could just take the AI right out of any modern flight sim and with a little bit more polish and some of those rules unleash it as is.

Silavite · Post by **Silavite** » Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:55 am #92210

The claim that the F-35 is cheap seems not to be holding up so well when you scrutinize it.
Lockheed likes to claim that the planes will cost <$100,000,000 (https://www.f35.com/about/fast-facts/cost not to mention that they are conveniently leaving out unimportant things, like, you know, the engine) but in fact, if you look at the DoD's 2013 Budget on page 65, (http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media ... 10-115.pdf), 19 F-35's (assuming A variant, as they are for the Air Force) costs $3,447,779,000 or $181,462,000 per aircraft.

Edited the cost numbers because I'm an idiot who can't read and left out 3 zeros on every statistic.

Incomptinence · Tue Jun 02, 2015 2:16 am

That pricing makes sense without the engine it is still an APC that can carry three people!