via Diplomat.
But if we evaluate the contribution of the drone not in isolation, but rather as part of a system-of-systems for air dominance, its utility becomes clearer. Stealthy F-35s operate in contested environments, identifying and tracking targets, with the UAVs supplying the missiles that the JSFs can’t carry on their own. Even the payload challenged F-35B can contribute in this context; having as many F-35s in the air as possible increases the clarity of the picture offered to pilots and commanders.Read it all here.
Indeed, this is precisely the type of aerial warfare that the developers of the F-35 envisioned. Although this vision has been part of the Joint Strike Fighter program for some time, it has not, for whatever reason, been articulated clearly to the public. Our public conversation still struggles to conceptualize specific weapons as part of a larger system, rather than with respect to their individual characteristics. This hardly means that programs such as the F-35 or the UCLASS should be above criticism, but it does suggest ways to add nuance to the critique.
Robert is halfway there but stumbles at the one yard line. The concept that was lined out by the Navy Chief of Air Warfare is just that. The parts that we flesh out that concept with are whats in question.
The same concept that was outlined can be fulfilled at a much lower price by using the F/A-18 and the F-14 sized UAV. Its been said that the F-22 has even better stealth than the F-35. Want to get real bang for your buck? Have a flight of F-22 penetrate enemy airspace providing targeting data to your UAVs. The F-35 was designed in the late 90's. Its been in development for over 10 years. Are we really suppose to believe that it will be more stealthy than a UAV that is built sometime in the next 5 to 10 years?
Its the concept that is the key. We have many other tools that we can use at less cost than the F-35 to make it a reality.
And that's where Robert went off the rails.
Fact. The F-35 was first designed 20 years ago.
It seems hard to believe that UCAV would be less stealthy than a F-35. It looks pretty clean to me. I guess if all the armament is external, but I was under the impression that internal weapons bay was available on UCAV. A big problem with the F-35 is having only 2 internal BVR missiles, not much to crow about there. Once the weapons load is external I have to think any difference in RCS will be minimal.
ReplyDeletewell if we're talking about missile trucks and if the UAV isn't as stealthy as the F-35 then the USAF better get to work on that old B-1R proposal and load it up with AMRAAMs. make them drones and have them fulfill the same mission with a heavier payload, endurance etc....but we all know the truth. the UAV will be much stealthier than the F-35. they just won't say so because that would jeopardize the F-35 to the uninformed.
DeleteIn its A2A config, the F-35 currently carries 4 BVR missiles at Blk3 IOC.
DeleteSorry, what are the maximum A2A internal load outs on the F35? 2BVR missiles x 2 on the bomb stations plus 2 x 1 WVR on the doors? What are the probabilities, problems with replacing the WVR missiles with BVR missiles and with adding more missiles per station eg. 3 BVR x 2 and 2BVR x 2 on the doors? Also does anyone know what the status is on Meteor integration?
DeleteSpudmanWP
DeleteDo you know if the F-35 bomb bay doors will still open at a supersonic speed?
suffolkowner
DeleteA drone requires satellite comm link to function. Any kind of signal emission defeats stealth.
Slowman, they already have.
DeleteThe F-35 has been to it's top speed of m1.6 with the doors open.
SpudmanWP
DeleteI am talking about the bomb bay doors, not AMRAAM station doors.
So am I. In the High-Alpha video they have tested the ENTIRE flight regime with the door both open and closed.
DeleteSpudman , good point possibly limiting the viability of A2A ucavs
DeleteI am mostly concerned with the A2A internal loadout on the F35 I think we just have to get more missiles in their somehow
Skunkworks has done a study to show that 6 (total) is possible with a "minor bay modification"
DeleteAnother option is the CUDA as a secondary set of missiles in combination with AMRAAMs (3 AMRAAMs and 4 CUDA).
Spudman I would love to see a schematic of that. Would love to see integration of IRISt and Meteor.
DeleteI am concerned with two things a target rich environment and missile kill probabilities
I meant a total of 3 AMRAAM and 4 CUDA, not that config in each bay.
DeleteOne side would have 2 AMRAAM and the other would have an AMRAAM on the missile door and the CUDAs on the A2G station.
A VLO figher up front is required in order to survive long enough to be the eyes and ears for any UAV launched munitions.
ReplyDeleteThe F-18 does not have the RCS, integrated avionics, range or stealthy datalinks to do the job.
it can have those items you listed but let me hasten to add that neither does the F-22, yet everyone states that its more survivable than the F-35.
DeleteSpudmanWP
DeleteActually, a drone operating jet requires two seats so that one pilot flies the plane, while the back seat pilot operates drones. Since neither the F-22 nor F-35 are two seaters, unless you drink Lockheed cool-aid that the F-35 flies itself so that the pilot can concentrate on operating drones.
There is a reason why the majority of Super Hornets bought by the US Navy are two seaters, and why the F/A-XX is also a two seater.
No it does not require a second operator. The current F-35 Avionics suite supports target assignment within the same flight. There is no reason that this would not apply to the UCLASS.
DeleteSpudmanWP
DeleteSo you drank Lockheed Kool-Aid. Guiding a drone while flying is akin to texting or setting the GPS while driving; it will get you killed quickly.
The pilot is not the one that needs to be flying it. Ground controlers can handle the basic flight mechanics.
DeleteBesides, they are working on a flight profile AI.
I wonder which is likely to be a more successful strategy
DeleteUCAV gets target information from leading F35 flown from ground
UCAV provides targeting to trailing F35 flown from ground
UCAV gets targeting information from leading fighter flown from manned fighter
UCAV provides targeting to trailing fighter flown from manned fighter
suffolkowner
DeleteIt would be a combination of 3 and 4, that a lead surveillance drone sends sensor data to the manned fighter behind, which then gives strike orders to armed drones behind.
Of course, this works best with a two seater.
i think the scenario the Admiral was laying out was a type of spread with the manned fighter providing targeting information to the drones. the real question is this. can this be done autonomously or will it require pilot interaction.
Deleteif it requires pilot interaction then you're looking at a 2 seater for this mission.
it MIGHT BE DOABLE with a single seater but what will NAVAIR say? they won't let pilot overload creep into the equation so this concept points more to something for the F-18 rather than the F-35.
F-18 will NEVER be VLO, especially if you add EFT/CFTs, so putting the rest on won't do any good :)
ReplyDeleteIf you design the UCLASS with this mission in mind, then there should be plenty of room internal for 8-12 AAMs. Even if it is not as stealthy as the F-35, it could stay 15-25 miles behind the F-35s and still be effective.
SpudmanWP
DeleteAnd neither will F-35 be, which is officially reclassified as an LO jet, not a VLO jet.
Please show an "Official" designation of LO where it says it's a reduction. I can show plenty where it still says VLO.
DeleteLockheed Martin talking points will not deliver a credible combat aircraft to the fleet...or anywhere else. And, certainly, not at any price.
Deletebut Spudman if the data connection is vulnerable does it really matter if the F35 leads the UCAV versus the UCAV leading the F35
DeleteThe data-connection is not vulnerable, that is the point of using a combination of SATCOMs (for the pilots of the UCLASS on the Carriers) and MADL (for the F-35 comms). Neither of which can be detected, intercepted, or most importantly jammed.
DeleteIf the data connection cannot be detected than how would it affect the stealth of the drone
DeleteThey can't be jammed, if done correctly. This is a typical reporter error applying a very old problem to future systems assuming that they are the same.
DeletePrevious datalinks were omidirectional and un-encoded. The UAV Control ones that they will be using for denied ops are SATCOMM and LPI in nature. The F-35 to UAV datalink will be handled by MADL which is a tight-beam LPI signal.
Gotcha, does this portend the end of electronic warfare. The only completely secure communication that I know of is quantum messaging
DeleteIt is marketed (key word marketed) as "low probability of intercept". That, does not mean "impossible".
DeleteNot the end, but a giant leap forward. Just as the leap to a VLO airframe is not he end, electronic warfare will continue to be a battle of measure vs counter-measure.
ReplyDeleteHowever, by going to tightbeam COMMs (both SATCOMM and MADL) you are denying the enemy even the chance to intercept the signal let alone jam them. It's as simple as you cannot jam what you cannot detect.
In this video the CEO of Boeing mentions the Super Hornet is Very Low Observable.
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=8k9AjEsML_g&feature=youtube_gdata_player
In this other one Ricardo Traven also nentioned it is Very Low Observable but not like the F-35 .He talks about clasify data. That was before the advanced Super Hornet version 50% less observable.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E1sDYYgY5E&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Are they liyng? I don't thinks so.
In the touch screen videos of Boeing they tipically show the drones closer to the targets and the SH using the Aesa Radar and oher sensors at longer distances to avoid beong detected. If they can detect targes and electromagnetical signals they could easily command the the drones via Satcom to attack. The Growlers can even jamm other radars
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZk8wSyuFg0&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Probably the F-35 won't be aether in front, but detecting the treaths from long distances and commanding the drones closer to the targets.
The only difference will be that the Super Hornet has double crue and cost way cheaper but at longer diatances they will be practically equal in term of stealth.
Having the F-35 in front and the drones at the back doesn't have any sense. They won't have any kinematic advantage launching the Amraams out of range or at extreme long distances and the F-35 will be closer to the enemy fighters with EO/IR sensors and long range IR missiles like the russians have.
the advanced super hornet is a 50 % reduction RCS but that is still about 100 times larger than a F-35.
ReplyDeleteAnd with the way the reds peed down their leg when they saw the F-117 and F-22, they have beefed up their radars to the point that its not really quantifiable improvement.
SU-35 radars are like 300% more powerful, stealthy, and multi-band in comparision to the old SU-27 radars.
So the RCS reductions in the Advanced super hornet aren't really intended to give it stealth as much as it is to keep the ASH from being at a major awareness disadvantage opposed to the SU-35 and aircraft like it.
We need more aircraft than we can afford at the price of the F-35 but ASH and UCLASS aren't substitutes they are only supplements. I do not trust satcomm for more than 30 min in a large scale war, like it or not we are going to lose at least 2/3 of our satellites. then the player lag on the drones assuming they are even under control makes them unsuitable for A2A. Jets like ASH and F-16 block 60 are good for adding numbers and subtracting weak fighters from enemy attack formation but they can't handle 5th generation fighters head on.
DeleteThat's why the UsNavy will have loke 90 Growlers to act with the Super Hornets, UCLAS and oher UAVs with advanced sensors. A somebody commented, stealth is more than just Vert low observability, that's just part of the equation, Jammers Aesa radars, EO/IR sensors, warning receivers, and secure comunication systems are part of the equation too.
ReplyDeletePlus, for the survivability you have double crue, double engine, great maneuverability for dogfight with aim-9X and a functional HMD, and on top of it affordability, roughness, and not any complocated software or delicated skin that or absurd sooling system that can make the aitplane explode with a lighting or at 9mm bullet.
Sorry I tryed to write cooling system.
ReplyDeleteAny way, thanks God for the F-35 (if it's not canceled) there will be like 500 F-18 and X-47B to protect it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLE-v-ldaHM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Its not cancelled or going to be. We're getting about 1,500 of them they've said 1,786 but I think some of those will be old before the last one rolls out. People fuss because of the defense cuts following the war but we are in fact going to continue to have a military.
DeleteThat is a very nice video its nearly impossible to truly capture all the dynamics in play. I think there will be a lot more F-35s, freindly surface to air missiles, and lot more lower tech fighters to deal in that scenario they aren't going to sell all of their old fighters just because they have a nice new one.
Thanks. I'm glad you like my vodeo. That was my hobby until my wife accused me to be a bad father not taking care of my four children after work..hehehe. I invited you to see the rest I did in my youtube channel.
DeleteWow, awesome info and great discussion. I can barely keep up but am learning a lot. Thank you guest writers and special thanks to Solomon for the best blog on the planet.
ReplyDeleteCorpvet
No satelites? Don't panic, that's why they are building very high alt. Drones with radars ans sensors to see every VLO airplane form above and to act as a low alt. Satelite. That way any other drone, 4+ Gen or even 3+ Gen with advanced misiles and HMD will kill multimillion junk.
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=vxglp0msEcw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQUdbw__g_Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player
The F35 is not conceived to face China, maybe some 3th world countries.
ReplyDeleteLook how the Chinese government spend their Trillions to face Russia or the US.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGweDRqj1iU&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Basing an aerial warfare strategy based on drones serving in the air-to-air role is the most idiotic, stupid, pathetic example of acquisitions and stategic malpractice the United States military has ever committed. By using drones you introduce a non-kinetic single point of failure into your battleplan. Jam the drones, and you loose over half your aircraft and even more missiles without the enemy ever firing a shot. The "RQ-170 landing in iran" buisiness should have made this concept stillborn, but alas it lives.
ReplyDeleteNo more idiotic, stupid, and pathetic stategic malpractice than to spend 20 years and Trillions trying to fit 3 totally different requirements in a supposedly one single platform that claim to be undetectable.
ReplyDeleteThe advances in software, radars an EO/IR sensors will be enough to detect them in the short term, if they are not able to do it now as the Growler does with the Raptor. Any cheaper and bigger enemy air force with those sensors and tons of long range IR AAMs will clean the skies in minutes.
Increasing the number and transforming the aprox. 500 Super Hornet/Growlers in to the advanced an more survibable/stealth version will allow to have more manned airplanes to jam or destroy enemy radars and to command those cheaper drones not just to destroy surface targets but olso other fighters. The Drone over Iran was not protected by a Growler or Super Hornets that can use secure SATCOM.
So, finally after 20 years of devellopment the F-35 is changinng from the multirrol called to destroy by itself all the targets with their internal payload to be a simple target designator for he Super Hornets and the UCLAS, to use their stand off weapons. You don't need and hiper expensive airplane to do it, just a cheaper Growler or UAV.
ReplyDeleteThey are just trying to justify its existance.
http://news.usni.org/2013/12/31/f-35c-will-eyes-ears-fleet
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYGM-aB1Luc&feature=youtube_gdata_player
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFVxYlR8Bf8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
ReplyDeletewww.youtube.com/watch?v=wxrZ7jWT_GY&feature=youtube_gdata_player