F-35 Super Fight Plane

[Jauronimo]

Do you know how a drone even operates? There's a remote pilot. I mean come on, you don't know anything about these new weapons? I figured people at least had some idea of how they worked and what they were capable of but I guess not...

If you meant remote pilot then state remote pilot. Your inability to communicate is not a reflection on me.

[Tiberius]

Actually what our Military wants is AI strong enough so they can set mission parameters and then let the drone go- it might takes 10 years to get there or 30 years but if there is a roadblock it will probably be on the political/legal side not the technological side

 

I've seen another problem. Flying pilots are getting the promotions and the drone pilots are not so there is actually a shortage of drone pilots now, so the military has to make changes in who it's favorite sons are and that might be tricky with the people that face danger getting passed over by guys that sit in air conditioned trailer

 

If you meant remote pilot then state remote pilot. Your inability to communicate is not a reflection on me.

 

No, it reflects on you because you can't keep up with the topic and need obvious details explained to you.

[Luka]

Do you know how a drone even operates? There's a remote pilot. I mean come on, you don't know anything about these new weapons? I figured people at least had some idea of how they worked and what they were capable of but I guess not...

 

Incorrect. Drones are also being built as autonomous.

 

Article

 

Seems to me you aren't quite sure about how this technology is evolving.

[Jauronimo]

No, it reflects on you because you can't keep up with the topic and need obvious details explained to you.

You don't get the benefit of the doubt.

[sherpa]

A few points on DC Tom's lengthy but well constructed post.

 

Responding to the first sentence,

"If flight testing were going that well, the program wouldn't be seven years behind," is a logical fallacy.

The program has evolved over the years until each service has its near final requirements. The fact that flight testing is going well has nothing to do with how long it took to get there.

 

1. Regarding the F-22. There is simply no air to air machine on earth with its capability. None. it has proven in exercise after exercise that it is what it is supposed to be. In a decidedly negative review published by ABC News, it was reported that its decided advantage was lost at the "merge," which is air to combat speak for the fly by resulting in a dogfight. What they mention, in passing, is that nobody gets to the merge unless the F-22 lets it. In other words, adversaries an destroyed beyond visual range by its passive sensors and missile capability which allow it to detect, identify and destroy an adversary before that adversary is aware of its existence.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/f-22-fighter-loses-79-billion-advantage-in-dogfights-report/

 

If you are a US fighter and you ever get to the merge, there has been some failure along the way. Further, what happens after the merge is most dependent on training and experience, along with airplane and weapons capability. Tough to predict, but not supposed to happen, and if it did, I would bet everything on the training and experience of US guys against any current adversary.

 

Still, in my recollection, the last time US fighters had to engage at the merge was when two F-14's eliminated two Libyan Migs in 1981. The thought of spending that much money on an airplane and waiting until the merge is ancestor worship, and to my knowlege, has not occurred in over 30 years.

 

The fight doesn't occur because the fight is over way before that.. I am unaware of any such fight in Iraq 1 or 2, or Afghanistan.

The entire TopGun curriculum, as well as US Air Force fighter weapons school is directed towards getting the kill before the merge-way before the merge.

 

As pointed out, there was a "mission creep" component to its development, (there always is), but its proven stealth capability and the added on ability to deliver air to ground weapons, albeit just a few, but very effective, is a net plus.

 

2. The A-10. There is a reason that the airplane was built with a titanium bathtub surrounding the cockpit, and the reason is that it needs one.

The A-10 was an airplane built around a gun, the 30mm GAU 8. Initially designed as nothing but a tank killer, it is an extremely slow gun platform. Works great when you have air supremacy. Not so much when you have to fight your way in and out. Has served well when there is no real anti air threat, either from the ground or the air, but has never been in a real air to air threat environment. A close air support in a "we own the sky" airplane, and the ground for that matter, only environment.

 

Regarding multi mission platforms, the more I think about it the more I realize that the evolution of the F-18, a tremendously successful airplane that the Navy did not initially want, points out that such worries are unfounded.

The F-35 is not perfect, but its going to be really good at what it does, and it can do a lot.

 

Back to the rpv question. What I think will happen is that a number of such things will carry offensive air to air weapons, or close air support weapons and be deployed in classic mission profiles. When a threat is detected, or a ground asset requires support, they will be called in and provide the same services that manned fighters do. I think its inevitable. Not for a bit, but inevitable..

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

 

 

If flight testing were going that well, the program wouldn't be seven years behind.

 

And it's the nature of any engineered device or platform that you have to make a series of design trade-offs based on required capabilities. For single-purpose aircraft, designed to do one job and do it well, those trade-offs are easy: the F-15 was optimized to be fast, powerful, and put a big-ass radar in the air. The A-10 designers made very specific tradeoffs - high-aspect wing, low speed, high-bypass turbofans for long loiter time, high survivability - to create the best CAS aircraft ever (the A-10 gets my vote for "most beautiful plane ever", simply because Fairchild-Republic was completely uncompromising in designing a plane to the mission requirements at the expense of anything else). The F-14 was designed to do one thing: dominate the outer air battle for a CVBG.

 

And not conicidentally, when those platforms matured, they found that multi-role capabilities could more easily be retrofitted. The F-15 Strike Eagle was derived from the F-15C far more easily than it would have been designed into the platform from the outset. The F-14D "Bombcat" was very effective in Afghanistan after the Navy retrofitted bombing capability to it. The A-10 was never going to be true multi-role...but it still had additional capabilities "bolted on" to take it from a daylight CAS plane to an effective all-weather strike aircraft. The key point being that none of those (or a long list of others I could come up with) were designed with any multi-role capabilities in mind - they were designed to excel in a specifically narrow mission profile, but in being fundamentally excellent had a large amount of derivative and evolutionary value built in to the basic design.

 

Contrast that to the story of the F-22, which has been a "failure" in no small part because of the dumbass idea to make an air superiority fighter into a multirole fighter before it even got to OPEVAL, creating a whole host of new problems on top of the problems they hadn't even identified yet, adding ten years (and many billions of dollars) of development to the program, and ultimately driving per-unit cost to the point where they couldn't afford it. Same thing happened to the RAH-66, too. Same thing is happening to the F-35 - protracted development drives up per-unit cost, which drives down the total acquisition (the planned JSF acquisition dropped from about 4000 originally to less than 2000 now). And the reason that's happening to the F-35 is because of decisions such as making an airframe with the air superiority capability of an F-16 that also has to satisfy the CAS requirements of an A-10 and the VTOL and loiter capabilities of an AV-8B. AND they want it STEATHY (sure, a stealthy lift fan. That'll happen. ) That's the equivalent of building a car comfortably seat a family of six and tow a boat, get good MPG in city driving, yet compete at Daytona. Not going to happen. The F-35 is a horrible mashup of design tradeoffs.

 

Honestly, the DoD would have been much better off buying Boeing's JSF entry for the CAS and VTOL requirements...but the Pentagon wanted one-airframe-does-everything based on the false economy of "multirole is cheaper," which it isn't (and the Navy was never going to go for Boeing's design, not with that massive, unstealthy chin intake). If the DoD had bought both aircraft, they'd have more capable aircraft at less expense, and probably already have them operational.

 

 

 

There'll still be a need for manned aircraft for quite some time - the JSF won't be last. There will always be a need to have a man in the loop close to the pointy end of the spear.

 

It might be the last one that's a primary platform, though. At least numerically. It's far more likely that combat doctrine will evolve to require mixed strike packages of RPVs and drones supplemented by manned aircraft (and I've got $5 that says the first "mixed" doctrine in that sense will be defense suppression).

 

It's interesting to read about how the hardcore USAF fighter mafia types slowly made their way to the pentagon through their careers and their experience and uncompromising "not a pound for air to ground" led to the development of the F-15. The F-15c is probably the purest most successful combat fighter ever.

 

Take the same basic airframe, slap on some conformal fuel tanks, add an EWO in back to run the weapons systems, add some sensors, increase payload capabilities and you have the F15e. Also extremely good at being a jack of all trade strike fighter.

 

The fact of the matter is for any sort of high intensity complex operation or maneuvers you need an onboard pilot to maintain complete situational awareness.

 

And for what its worth the A10 is the purest killing machine to fulfil the purpose it was intended to do. The entire plane is built around its 30mm cannon, designed to survive damage, high manuverabilty at low speeds, operate on unimproved fields, etc... its awesome at what it does.

[Azalin]

I've seen another problem. Flying pilots are getting the promotions and the drone pilots are not so there is actually a shortage of drone pilots now, so the military has to make changes in who it's favorite sons are and that might be tricky with the people that face danger getting passed over by guys that sit in air conditioned trailer

[Joe Miner]

A few points on DC Tom's lengthy but well constructed post.

 

Responding to the first sentence,

"If flight testing were going that well, the program wouldn't be seven years behind," is a logical fallacy.

The program has evolved over the years until each service has its near final requirements. The fact that flight testing is going well has nothing to do with how long it took to get there.

 

How do you test before you have all the requirements?

[sherpa]

How do you test before you have all the requirements?

 

That's my point. When the thing is done, its tested, and flight testing seems to going very well.

[DC Tom]

A few points on DC Tom's lengthy but well constructed post.

 

Responding to the first sentence,

"If flight testing were going that well, the program wouldn't be seven years behind," is a logical fallacy.

The program has evolved over the years until each service has its near final requirements. The fact that flight testing is going well has nothing to do with how long it took to get there.

 

Rather my point - each service is "nearing" their final requirements in no small part because they've had to compromise with other services on their requirements. Fewer mission requirements would have led to a simpler project with better defined requirements and less testing (and less cost), and the ENTIRE history of aircraft development indicates that it's cheaper to build a good airframe to a specialized mission and expand other capabilities from the mature platform than it is to build an aircraft that does everything from the start.

 

1. Regarding the F-22. There is simply no air to air machine on earth with its capability. None. it has proven in exercise after exercise that it is what it is supposed to be. In a decidedly negative review published by ABC News, it was reported that its decided advantage was lost at the "merge," which is air to combat speak for the fly by resulting in a dogfight. What they mention, in passing, is that nobody gets to the merge unless the F-22 lets it. In other words, adversaries an destroyed beyond visual range by its passive sensors and missile capability which allow it to detect, identify and destroy an adversary before that adversary is aware of its existence.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/07/f-22-fighter-loses-79-billion-advantage-in-dogfights-report/

 

If you are a US fighter and you ever get to the merge, there has been some failure along the way. Further, what happens after the merge is most dependent on training and experience, along with airplane and weapons capability. Tough to predict, but not supposed to happen, and if it did, I would bet everything on the training and experience of US guys against any current adversary.

 

Still, in my recollection, the last time US fighters had to engage at the merge was when two F-14's eliminated two Libyan Migs in 1981. The thought of spending that much money on an airplane and waiting until the merge is ancestor worship, and to my knowlege, has not occurred in over 30 years.

 

The fight doesn't occur because the fight is over way before that.. I am unaware of any such fight in Iraq 1 or 2, or Afghanistan.

The entire TopGun curriculum, as well as US Air Force fighter weapons school is directed towards getting the kill before the merge-way before the merge.

 

As pointed out, there was a "mission creep" component to its development, (there always is), but its proven stealth capability and the added on ability to deliver air to ground weapons, albeit just a few, but very effective, is a net plus.

 

Funny, there were reports quite some time ago that the Typhoon's radar (4G, mechanically steered) was actually picking up F-22s in exercises, before the merge. Apparently it happened in one exercise or another, and the Air Force cried "bull ****. Can't happen." But then pulled the plane from the exercises. This was apparently reported on a message board frequented by RAF pilots...until someone from MoD posted "Uh, guys...you know this is probably classified?" Don't know if it's true - just rumor, really - but that is some ridiculous performance from a mechanically-steered radar.

 

At any rate...you're right (aside from the fallacy that "an F-22 won't dogfight unless it wants to"...they said that about the F-4, before they handcuffed it with restrictive rules of engagement over Vietnam), but I don't see your point. No one's arguing that the F-22 isn't the premier air superiority fighter in the world (though I have a soft spot for the Su-35). I won't even argue that the ABC article is nonsense - even if you get to the merge, pilot experience and training count for a lot more than the native capabilities of the aircraft...and like you said, I can't think of ANY modern air force that I know of that has fought anything resembling a close-in dogfight since 1982 (Bekaa valley - maybe, I'm not even sure), not the least of which is because planes don't fight planes - integrated systems fight integrated systems (you'll never see an F-22 in any combat without a shitload of support).

 

None of which was my point in bringing up the F-22. The point I made was that a plane that was close to operational readiness was taken out of operational readiness to change it from "exceptional air superiority fighter" to "multirole tactical fighter," which inflated costs and deflated performance both as an air superiority fighter and a multirole tactical fighter, ultimately resulting in lower acquisitions (arguably too low to be useful), and far less capability overall. Same with the F-35 - costs are soaring, because of a protracted development and test cycle directly caused by trying to replace half a dozen planes, a few of which are very specialized. It simply can't replace what it's being asked to replace, and it's expensively stupid to try.

 

2. The A-10. There is a reason that the airplane was built with a titanium bathtub surrounding the cockpit, and the reason is that it needs one.

The A-10 was an airplane built around a gun, the 30mm GAU 8. Initially designed as nothing but a tank killer, it is an extremely slow gun platform. Works great when you have air supremacy. Not so much when you have to fight your way in and out. Has served well when there is no real anti air threat, either from the ground or the air, but has never been in a real air to air threat environment. A close air support in a "we own the sky" airplane, and the ground for that matter, only environment.

 

Again, my point. The A-10 was designed to do a specific task, and excel at it. And it did so, and did so reliably and cheaply (originally $6M a plane, maybe $20M in today's costs. And we're replacing it with a plane with a unit cost of about $150M, that's less capable and survivable in the same role. That makes sense how, exactly?) And resulted in a mature platform that was extensible beyond its initial requirements.

 

Regarding multi mission platforms, the more I think about it the more I realize that the evolution of the F-18, a tremendously successful airplane that the Navy did not initially want, points out that such worries are unfounded.

 

Given that the early F/A-18s were seriously handicapped by range and payload limits, and that they were significantly less effective than the aircraft they replaced in all roles, I'd question calling it "tremendously successful." "Useful," at best. Not until the E/F models did it start to become a truly effective platform, with useful range and a bring-back weight greater than zero (and side note: the stealth "retrofit" they did to it was an awesome bit of design. The Super Hornet is a very good example of smart, careful design trade-offs). Which also rather goes to my point - the multirole capability originally designed into the Hornet was basically designed into a crippled plane, and it took a very significant evolutionary jump to make it effective. It definitely did not jump off the blueprints fully capable.

 

Back to the rpv question. What I think will happen is that a number of such things will carry offensive air to air weapons, or close air support weapons and be deployed in classic mission profiles. When a threat is detected, or a ground asset requires support, they will be called in and provide the same services that manned fighters do. I think its inevitable. Not for a bit, but inevitable..

 

One might argue there's no such thing as a "classic mission profile" where RPVs are concerned. Look at what the Predator is doing right now.

 

How do you test before you have all the requirements?

 

Hell, my testers would be arguing that the requirements aren't testable, because they require a plane to test.

 

(Seriously. I have a meeting about that tomorrow. "We should be able to test software requirements without referring to the software!" Really? Seriously? Shut the !@#$ up.)

[sherpa]

In the interest of ease of reading, I'm going to ask you to defend this post line by line.

 

"Given that the early F/A-18s were seriously handicapped by range and payload limits, and that they were significantly less effective than the aircraft they replaced in all roles, I'd question calling it "tremendously successful."

 

Defend this,as I don't see it as being "significantly less effective than the aircraft," it replaced.

 

Next.

"Again, my point. The A-10 was designed to do a specific task, and excel at it. And it did so, and did so reliably and cheaply (originally $6M a plane, maybe $20M in today's costs. And we're replacing it with a plane with a unit cost of about $150M, that's less capable and survivable in the same role. That makes sense how, exactly?) "

 

The A-10 was designed as a tank killer. Nothing more. Of course it has performed well, given that it has done so without any credible air defense opposition. We will never design such an aircraft again, because there is no need. You can have a multi mission capable airplane that does the same thing without being completely useless in any reasonable defense.

Comparing its efficacy to the capability of the F-35 is senseless, as is comparing its cost. You could do the same thing with a helicopter or a C-130 gunship.

[Kevbeau]

And for what its worth the A10 is the purest killing machine to fulfil the purpose it was intended to do. The entire plane is built around its 30mm cannon, designed to survive damage, high manuverabilty at low speeds, operate on unimproved fields, etc... its awesome at what it does.

 

Not disagreeing, but I've always had a soft spot for

Edited August 28, 2013 by Kevbeau

[Tiberius]

 

 

 

 

And for what its worth the A10 is the purest killing machine to fulfil the purpose it was intended to do. The entire plane is built around its 30mm cannon, designed to survive damage, high manuverabilty at low speeds, operate on unimproved fields, etc... its awesome at what it does.

 

When did it ever fulfill the purpose it was intended for for? It's a cold war weapon that was never used against it's intended adversary. I wouldn't be surprised if it failed in it's mission if it had ever been called upon, but we will never know, anyway helicopters would perform the same mission better. Really, had it never been built it would not have mattered. And drones can absolutely do it's mission better, no doubt about that

[DC Tom]

When did it ever fulfill the purpose it was intended for for? It's a cold war weapon that was never used against it's intended adversary. I wouldn't be surprised if it failed in it's mission if it had ever been called upon, but we will never know, anyway helicopters would perform the same mission better. Really, had it never been built it would not have mattered. And drones can absolutely do it's mission better, no doubt about that

 

Every single sentence in that is wrong. Every single one. That's !@#$ing amazing.

[Tiberius]

 

 

Every single sentence in that is wrong. Every single one. That's !@#$ing amazing.

 

Ut oh! Message board hero boy thinks he has me! I'm all ears Tommy, enlighten me!

[DC Tom]

Ut oh! Message board hero boy thinks he has me! I'm all ears Tommy, enlighten me!

 

When did it ever NOT fulfill its intended purpose? Why does that matter? Why does the "intended adversary" matter? Why do you think it would have "failed" in its mission "if ever called upon?" Why do you think it was never called upon for that mission? How do helicopters perform that mission better? Had it never been built, what would have fulfilled that mission? And how do drones execute that mission better? Hell, start by describing "mission"...

 

EVERY single statement demonstrated your basic ignorance. Every one.

[Tiberius]

 

 

When did it ever NOT fulfill its intended purpose? Why does that matter? Why does the "intended adversary" matter? Why do you think it would have "failed" in its mission "if ever called upon?" Why do you think it was never called upon for that mission? How do helicopters perform that mission better? Had it never been built, what would have fulfilled that mission? And how do drones execute that mission better? Hell, start by describing "mission"...

 

EVERY single statement demonstrated your basic ignorance. Every one.

You resort to sophistry? That shows your ignorance not mine.

 

He said it fulfilled it's mission, which it never did, you disagree, how so? I never said it would have failed, just said I wouldn't be surprised. Much like I'm not surprised you need to switch my words around. I said that because it was a slow aircraft whose mission called for it to operate in hostile environments, it was suppose to be able to take a lot of damage. Now, you, me, Admiral Mullen or anyone has no idea how they would have survived that, I would not be surprised if they were shot to pieces by soviet AA fire. Or blasted out of the air by missiles. It's just an aircraft after all. Helocopters were/are more stand off weapons, they can hover away from the action and fire missiles from a distance,

 

And seriously, drones can't do better, cheaper and with less danger to pilots? Come on man, they fire he'll fire missiles, are smaller and harder to detect, ****, a tank will be blown up before it even knows it's being watched.

 

 

 

Oh, and don't get me started on the worthless B-1. Jimmy Carter was right about that one.

[DC Tom]

You resort to sophistry? That shows your ignorance not mine.

 

He said it fulfilled it's mission, which it never did, you disagree, how so? I never said it would have failed, just said I wouldn't be surprised. Much like I'm not surprised you need to switch my words around. I said that because it was a slow aircraft whose mission called for it to operate in hostile environments, it was suppose to be able to take a lot of damage. Now, you, me, Admiral Mullen or anyone has no idea how they would have survived that, I would not be surprised if they were shot to pieces by soviet AA fire. Or blasted out of the air by missiles. It's just an aircraft after all. Helocopters were/are more stand off weapons, they can hover away from the action and fire missiles from a distance,

 

And seriously, drones can't do better, cheaper and with less danger to pilots? Come on man, they fire he'll fire missiles, are smaller and harder to detect, ****, a tank will be blown up before it even knows it's being watched.

 

 

 

Oh, and don't get me started on the worthless B-1. Jimmy Carter was right about that one.

 

That's not "sophistry". That's pointing out, in detail, your lack of understanding. For example:

 

"I said that because it was a slow aircraft whose mission called for it to operate in hostile environments, it was suppose to be able to take a lot of damage. Now, you, me, Admiral Mullen or anyone has no idea how they would have survived that, I would not be surprised if they were shot to pieces by soviet AA fire. Or blasted out of the air by missiles. It's just an aircraft after all. Helocopters were/are more stand off weapons, they can hover away from the action and fire missiles from a distance,"

 

The A-10 actually has demonstrated the capacity to take a lot of damage, be resistant to AAA AND hard to engage with missiles (precisely because it flies low and slow, and is highly maneuverable). And it's demonstrated itself to be more of a standoff platform than heilcopters, with greater survivability.

 

Those are all facts. You could find them out for yourself. 1991. The only capabilities it never demonstrated were if it can operate in an integrated anti-air environment (which, given that it was intended to operate in the tactical-operational zone, was never much of a concern), and if it could operate in conditions of air parity or worse (which was also never much of a concern, since US military doctrine has always focused on and presumed air superiority).

 

In fact, I'll see your accusation of sophistry, and raise you true fallacy: everything you mistakenly (i.e. completely idiotically) say the A-10 hasn't demonstrated, hasn't been demonstrated by drones.

[sherpa]

You have not replied to what I questioned in post 71.

 

Again, how is the F-18 "significantly less effective in all rolls than the aircraft replaced," and, per your claim, do you really think the F-35 is an A-10 replacement?

 

I'm not one for internet warfare/insults, and they seem to permeate here-just a newguy observation, so please don't do that.

Just a simple question in response to your post.

Edited August 28, 2013 by sherpa

[DC Tom]

You have not replied to what I questioned in post 71.

 

Again, how is the F-18 "significantly less effective in all rolls than the aircraft replaced," and, per your claim, do you really think the F-35 is an A-10 replacement?

 

I'm not one for internet warfare/insults, and they seem to permeate here-just a newguy observation, so please don't do that.

Just a simple question in response to your post.

 

Missed that post, sorry.

 

The F/A-18 was significantly less effective, given that replaced the A-7, A-6, and F-4, all of which were far better suited to their missions - better loads, better range, the F-4 was faster, the A-7 was more maintainable. The F-18 had the A-7 and F-4 beat on avionics - maybe the A-6, too, but I'm not sure. And while avionics aren't trivial, they become so when you can't reach the target with a meaningful payload - having the best dual-mode synthetic aperture radar available in 2001 doesn't mean much if you can't reach Afghanistan. The F/A-18C was a light, maneuverable bird with short legs and a light payload that was unsuited to replace the aircraft it actually replaced.

 

And as for whether or not I think the F-35 is an A-10 replacement...that's not what I think, that's what the Air Force claims. And has claimed since program inception. Do I think it will replace the A-10? Either not effectively (i.e. it won't be as effect a CAS platform), or not at all (i.e. they're retiring the A-10, and deprecating CAS missions in doctrine). Likely the latter, since all US military doctrine is evolving to emphasize counter-insurgency, in which traditional CAS is deemphasized (and don't get me started on the "planning to fight the last war" that represents, either). But in that case, the Air Force should just admit they're retiring the A-10, not replacing it. Alternately, given that a slow, low altitude platform with a long loiter time, large load-out, and high accuracy can be useful even in asymmetric operations - I'm certain there were situations in Afghanistan where having an A-10 in what the Brits called the "cab rank" role would have been extremely desirable - they should replace it with a platform that actually has those capabilities. Either way, the Air Force is showing a level of mendacity in their claims that surprising only in its obviousness.