Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

USAF not F-35 thread

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • bring_it_on
    2005-year of the RAPTOR!!

    #21
    Originally posted by snafu352 View Post
    No.
    So thats essentially what he is saying as well. The F-15C/D is going to be secondary to the F-22 and F-35 fleets, which would ultimately play a secondary role to the fighters that will look to replace them well into the future. No one is going to claim that the F-15C even with AESA and newer EW gear is going to be a cutting edge fighter in the 2030's nor will it act as such since its operator would have a sizable next generation fleet by then. As per the current plans the F-35 acquisition winds down in 2038 and by then the F-X should be in LRIP if not full rate of production. Depending upon how development, and budgets pan out you would be looking to either replace the F-15C/D's with the F-X (replace F-22+F-15C fleets) or continue buying more F-35's if there are cost or technical challenges developing or producing the F-X.

    UCAV's would obviously be in addition to this.

    @FBW, I suggest you change the title of the thread
    Last edited by bring_it_on; 27th March 2015, 17:03.
    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

    Comment

    • Sintra
      Rank 5 Registered User

      #22
      Originally posted by SpudmanWP View Post
      Simple reasoning.

      The F-15 will not be a primary fighter through 2040 as it can count on the combo of F-22/35 for that.

      However, the Eurofighter does not have anything else to fall back on.
      Off course that by 2040 the only obvious advantage that those two aircrafts have over the Eurofighter on the ATA scenario, RCS, might well be entirely eroded...
      sigpic

      Comment

      • SpudmanWP
        Rank 5 Registered User

        #23
        I was not trying to compare the F-22/35 with the Eurofighter.

        I was simply answering the question of how the F-15 could remain operational through 2040 when some claim that the EF will have trouble in a post-2025 world.

        The answer was simply that the F-15 has two newer planes (the F-22/35) that will handle future A2A threats and that the EF does not have anything in the pipeline that will be available to take over for it in the A2A role by 2025.
        "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

        Comment

        • Vnomad
          Rank 5 Registered User

          #24
          Originally posted by TooCool_12f View Post
          replace maybe no, but work with, quite possibly. A flight of a manned fighter with a few autonous drones which would follow and fight designated targets could very well be done, including in air to air. While they wouldn't have the capability to analyze the situation like a human could, once the target is designated, you could order them to destroy it and even order a particular tactic. If, today, the video games industry can program the A.I. to "fly" this or that way, chances are that, with the budgets allowed, with hardware available, defence developers will be able to program the A.I. of the drones to do the same.
          That's bit of a stretch frankly. If you want a drone with the speed, agility and flexibility of a fighter aircraft... well, odds are it'll cost far more to develop than a conventional fighter aircraft. The UK and France (and the US for that matter) don't seem to aiming for something that ambitious with the FCAS. Alternately, you could use the UCAV purely as a weapons platform in air combat but that's feasible only if we're willing to treat it as a (somewhat) expendable asset, but given the likely unit cost of the aircraft (not much cheaper than a fighter) that's not going to be possible.

          Comment

          • Vnomad
            Rank 5 Registered User

            #25
            Originally posted by Sintra View Post
            Off course that by 2040 the only obvious advantage that those two aircrafts have over the Eurofighter on the ATA scenario, RCS, might well be entirely eroded...
            Not necessarily. The Eurofigher will be nearing retirement so probably won't field 2040s tech (an awkward phrase). It'll probably have a sensor fit from an MLU dating back to 2025-30. Will we field technology capable of entirely eroding RCS in that time-frame? Most firms developing fighter aircraft in the world are probably hoping that's not the case (except perhaps for Saab). Maybe they'd develop some sort of strap-on gadget (an even more awkward phrase) nullifying stealth post-2030?

            Comment

            • Nicolas10
              Senior Member

              #26
              Originally posted by Vnomad View Post
              Not necessarily. The Eurofigher will be nearing retirement so probably won't field 2040s tech (an awkward phrase). It'll probably have a sensor fit from an MLU dating back to 2025-30. Will we field technology capable of entirely eroding RCS in that time-frame? Most firms developing fighter aircraft in the world are probably hoping that's not the case (except perhaps for Saab). Maybe they'd develop some sort of strap-on gadget (an even more awkward phrase) nullifying stealth post-2030?
              You only need your drone to be stealth & subsonic, and have good onboard sensors & datalink to transmit data to accompanying fighters (any two seater will do). Direct LOS AESA datalink will enable a stealth drone & fighter to work in tandem, with the drone going anywhere the fighter can't in hairy scenarios and expanding weapons or sending firing coordinates to other assets.

              Nic

              Comment

              • Vnomad
                Rank 5 Registered User

                #27
                Originally posted by Nicolas10 View Post
                You only need your drone to be stealth & subsonic, and have good onboard sensors & datalink to transmit data to accompanying fighters (any two seater will do). Direct LOS AESA datalink will enable a stealth drone & fighter to work in tandem, with the drone going anywhere the fighter can't in hairy scenarios and expanding weapons or sending firing coordinates to other assets.

                Nic
                1. If the fighter and drone operate in tandem, than the fighter also gets limited to subsonic speeds. What if the formation gets intercepted by enemy aircraft? The fighters will be able to scatter, withdraw or engage. The drones will be hobbled with by their limited speed and agility. Especially considering that the drone will be at a certain orientation to the fighter while the enemy attacks can come from any aspect.

                2. The need to maintain line-of-sight limits the pair's capability. The drone will always be 'leashed' to the fighter, making penetrative strikes and long range attack difficult to pull off given that the Rafale will still be detectable and the LOS has limited range and the fighter will need to remain on station throughout.

                Point is, the arrangement will rob the fighter pilot of the flexibility necessary for his job.
                Last edited by Vnomad; 27th March 2015, 21:27.

                Comment

                • obligatory
                  Senior Member

                  #28
                  Originally posted by SpudmanWP View Post

                  The answer was simply that the F-15 has two newer planes (the F-22/35) that will handle future A2A threats and that the EF does not have anything in the pipeline that will be available to take over for it in the A2A role by 2025.
                  It's safe to say those F-15C will provide cover for F-35 and not the other way around,
                  F-35 is for A2G work

                  Comment

                  • obligatory
                    Senior Member

                    #29
                    Originally posted by Vnomad View Post
                    Maybe they'd develop some sort of strap-on gadget (an even more awkward phrase) nullifying stealth post-2030?
                    lasers consume too much power to install as a retrofit,
                    but MALD, GaN AESA, & IRST can be expected 2030

                    Comment

                    • SpudmanWP
                      Rank 5 Registered User

                      #30
                      Originally posted by obligatory View Post
                      It's safe to say those F-15C will provide cover for F-35 and not the other way around,
                      F-35 is for A2G work
                      After 2025, in denied environments.. put the bottle down
                      Last edited by SpudmanWP; 27th March 2015, 22:31.
                      "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                      Comment

                      • bring_it_on
                        2005-year of the RAPTOR!!

                        #31
                        Still early days on how the aircraft would be deployed in 2025 let alone 2030. The USAF absolutely expects the F-22 and F-35 to be teamed up for various missions in the 2020's and beyond. The F-15C will play a role and there would be missions where it would have to perform with either the F-22, F-35 or both but the plan is to embed as many 5th generation F-22A's and F-35A's as possible keeping in mind that the F-35A is going to be introduced at a maximum rate of 80 per year. You aren't going to get 1763 odd until the late 2030's.
                        Last edited by bring_it_on; 27th March 2015, 22:30.
                        Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                        Comment

                        • TomcatViP
                          Rank 5 Registered User

                          #32
                          Originally posted by obligatory View Post
                          lasers consume too much power to install as a retrofit,
                          but MALD, GaN AESA, & IRST can be expected 2030
                          Surface is important when you start thinking about Laser. The 15 is a flying tennis court in this regards. it also hve two big engines that, updated, will generate plenty of elec.

                          It is then a good candidate for a futur application.

                          We hve alrdy discussed the matter, but a big bulky plane is easier to upgrade than a nimble one (think at the ever lasting Phantom).
                          Last edited by TomcatViP; 27th March 2015, 22:50.

                          Comment

                          • Nicolas10
                            Senior Member

                            #33
                            Originally posted by Vnomad View Post
                            1. If the fighter and drone operate in tandem, than the fighter also gets limited to subsonic speeds. What if the formation gets intercepted by enemy aircraft? The fighters will be able to scatter, withdraw or engage. The drones will be hobbled with by their limited speed and agility. Especially considering that the drone will be at a certain orientation to the fighter while the enemy attacks can come from any aspect.
                            It's a Drone, not a remote control plane. You can program them with emergency procedures if contact is broken, rendez vous at some point or whatever + you can switch to satcom if LOS is broken.

                            2. The need to maintain line-of-sight limits the pair's capability. The drone will always be 'leashed' to the fighter, making penetrative strikes and long range attack difficult to pull off given that the Rafale will still be detectable and the LOS has limited range and the fighter will need to remain on station throughout.
                            Deep penetration strikes will be made with preplanned actions. No need for constant LOS with a supporting fighter then. Besides, what do you think SATCOM is for? Liason would be more useful in seek & destroy type scenario, like SCUD search in GWI or looking for mobile ADS.

                            Point is, the arrangement will rob the fighter pilot of the flexibility necessary for his job.
                            Nope.

                            Comment

                            • Sintra
                              Rank 5 Registered User

                              #34
                              Originally posted by Vnomad View Post
                              Not necessarily.
                              True, it might happen, might not.

                              Originally posted by Vnomad View Post
                              The Eurofigher will be nearing retirement so probably won't field 2040s tech (an awkward phrase).
                              Dont bet on it. The first NATO "fighter" to receive an HMD (the good old Marconi Striker) coupled with the latest 180 generation AAM was called... the Jaguar, it also had an LDP and datalink, that was done years before it got canned, the first non American aircraft equiped with a Link 16 was called the Sea Harrier FA2, before it got axed, the Tornado FMK3 was upgraded right untill it got axed, the 16 "diamond standard" fleet RAF GR4 are receiving ugrades now, etc, etc... The RAF upgrades their aircrafts right untill it scraps them.

                              Originally posted by Vnomad View Post
                              Will we field technology capable of entirely eroding RCS in that time-frame? Most firms developing fighter aircraft in the world are probably hoping that's not the case (except perhaps for Saab). Maybe they'd develop some sort of strap-on gadget (an even more awkward phrase) nullifying stealth post-2030?
                              For the "strap on" kind of arguments try JSR not me.
                              Now is there any chances that sensor evolution and computing power erode a great big chunk of the tactical advantage that a low RCS gives to the Raptor versus an older generation of aircrafts, more than THIRTY years after it was received by USAF Sqns? Is it possible or not? If you say "its not possible", i have a wonderfull Northrop Gruman video featuring F-35s stating that agility is a bit irrelevant, something that the General Dynamics 1990 PR chaps would surely disagree.
                              On top of that we have this Joint Strike Fighter Tier 1 partner with an anti stealth program (reforger) led by this company called British Aerosomething wich happens to build a great big chunk of DAVE, and that partner will field something like five sqns of Typhoonsomething, and offcourse that they wont use these three sqns of "Davesomething" to model an answer to the latest Russian and Chinese low RCS aircrafts.
                              And the fact that the RAF was the first NATO air force to field IR seekers linked through L16 across its fleet had nothing to do with their experience with the F-117 and the Raptor and the fact that the US Navy and the USAF agressor units went right after them also doesnt say anything about exercises with the USAF Raptor fleet.
                              I honestly think that if the USAF didnt believe that the RCS advantage enjoyed by the likes of the Raptor or the JSF wouldnt be seriously compromised by the mid thirties, they wouldnt be looking for a new fighter by that timeframe.

                              Cheers
                              Last edited by Sintra; 27th March 2015, 23:47.
                              sigpic

                              Comment

                              • FBW
                                FBW
                                Rank 5 Registered User

                                #35
                                Originally posted by Sintra View Post
                                True, it might happen, might not.



                                Dont bet on it. The first NATO "fighter" to receive an HMD (the good old Marconi Striker) coupled with the latest 180 generation AAM was called... the Jaguar, it also had an LDP and datalink, that was done years before it got canned, the first non American aircraft equiped with a Link 16 was called the Sea Harrier FA2, before it got axed, the Tornado FMK3 was upgraded right untill it got axed, the 16 "diamond standard" fleet RAF GR4 are receiving ugrades now, etc, etc... The RAF upgrades their aircrafts right untill it scraps them.



                                For the "strap on" kind of arguments try JSR not me.
                                Now is there any chances that sensor evolution and computing power erode a great big chunk of the tactical advantage that a low RCS gives to the Raptor versus an older generation of aircrafts, more than THIRTY years after it was received by USAF Sqns? Is it possible or not? If you say "its not possible", i have a wonderfull Northrop Gruman video featuring F-35s stating that agility is a bit irrelevant, something that the General Dynamics 1990 PR chaps would surely disagree.
                                On top of that we have this Joint Strike Fighter Tier 1 partner with an anti stealth program (reforger) led by this company called British Aerosomething wich happens to build a great big chunk of DAVE, and that partner will field something like five sqns of Typhoonsomething, and offcourse that they wont use these three sqns of "Davesomething" to model an answer to the latest Russian and Chinese low RCS aircrafts.
                                And the fact that the RAF was the first NATO air force to field IR seekers linked through L16 across its fleet had nothing to do with their experience with the F-117 and the Raptor and the fact that the US Navy and the USAF agressor units went right after them also doesnt say anything about exercises with the USAF Raptor fleet.
                                I honestly think that if the USAF didnt believe that the RCS advantage enjoyed by the likes of the Raptor or the JSF wouldnt be seriously compromised by the mid thirties, they wouldnt be looking for a new fighter by that timeframe.

                                Cheers
                                Time to start looking at RCS reduction as a starting point for an aircraft rather than a gimmick or an advantage that will prove fleeting. Sure, technology will (and has) eroded the idea that stealth alone is a strength unto itself. The USAF made this assertion with the advent of the F-22 and the retirement of the F-117, yet the idea that somehow "stealth" is the singular power of the maligned "fifth generation" is in signal reduction remains.

                                The simple fact is: the F-22 is not (arguably) the best air superiority fighter because it is stealthy, or maneuverable, or because can super cruise. It is dominant because it has: excellent radar, AN/ALR-94 which is the single most expensive and classified piece of equipment on the aircraft (the abilities of which are not really open to discuss due to the lack of open source references, nor does the USAF tout it unlike SPECTRA on the Rafale because the F-22 is not an exportable product) but the most important factor the pilots have discussed are the advantages provided by the sensors and sensor fusion.

                                Sensor fusion has become a buzz word in the industry but truthfully it is misused nearly as often as stealth. There simple is no level of sensor fusion on legacy aircraft comparable to the F-22, F-35 despite the claims of Sweetman and others. Legacy fighters can mimic sensor fusion by blending the data from different sensors into the MFD and HMD of legacy aircraft. The difference?
                                1. They are federated systems, you can plug and play the Elbit SAPIR, or the OSF and the DDM NG on the Rafale, they are not all tied into the ICP as the sensors are in the F-22 or the F-35. These are not opinions, it is a fact.
                                2. federated sensors have some advantages such as: the ability to upgrade quickly, easier integration onto the airframe, agility in upgrade paths not tied to software/hardware obsolescence.
                                3. the drawbacks are: to the pilot the sensor information "appears" fused i.e.. they are presented with the data from the array of sensors on the MFD or HMD, but there was no processing in the ICP. The threat database does not cross reference the radar with the IRST and the onboard IDAS as in so called "fifth generation" fighters.
                                4. There simply is not substitute for having the actionable information presented to the pilot from:

                                a. all the onboard sensors categorizing and labeling the threat aircraft using all of the sensors available and telling the pilot: what they are facing, where the wingmen are, what the others in the formation are seeing,
                                b. labeling and tracking of targets even as they pass out of visual, radar FOV
                                c. a "shoot" list
                                d. how likely they are to be detected and what actions to take to avoid detection (active/passive)
                                e. automatically deploying/taking countermeasures and actions to avoid threats. If you doubt that the F-22 and F-35 can do this than you have not read the details released.



                                All aircraft can do some of the above, some can mimic all. The simple fact is that there is no substitute for tying all sensors and defensive countermeasures into the ICP of the aircraft. Whether the lack of flexibility and difficulty of upgrade paths and software difficulties are worth the level of integration is a worthwhile discussion. Is, for example, the Gripen NG strategy of state of the art plug and play sensors integrated at the pilot level a cost effective way of achieving most of the advantages of sensor fusion? Is it advantageous to avoid the difficulty and expense of a project like the F-35 software worth it if it provides 70, 80, 90% of the capability of sensor fusion provided by ICP integration of sensors in the F-22/F-35? I don't know.
                                Last edited by FBW; 28th March 2015, 01:33.

                                Comment

                                • Vnomad
                                  Rank 5 Registered User

                                  #36
                                  Originally posted by Sintra View Post
                                  Dont bet on it. The first NATO "fighter" to receive an HMD (the good old Marconi Striker) coupled with the latest 180 generation AAM was called... the Jaguar, it also had an LDP and datalink, that was done years before it got canned, the first non American aircraft equiped with a Link 16 was called the Sea Harrier FA2, before it got axed, the Tornado FMK3 was upgraded right untill it got axed, the 16 "diamond standard" fleet RAF GR4 are receiving ugrades now, etc, etc... The RAF upgrades their aircrafts right untill it scraps them.
                                  The Tornado F3 received only minor upgrades over the last decade of its service and was retired on schedule AFAIK. The Jaguar and Harrier on the other hand were both retired ahead of schedule so upgrading them (or retiring them depending on your perspective) was not as per plan, it was a result of mismanagement, plain and simple. The equivalent here would be to upgrade the Eurofighter fleet in 2025 and retire it in 2030. A major upgrade in 2035 on the other hand is highly unlikely.

                                  I honestly think that if the USAF didnt believe that the RCS advantage enjoyed by the likes of the Raptor or the JSF wouldnt be seriously compromised by the mid thirties, they wouldnt be looking for a new fighter by that timeframe.
                                  Actually what I'm suggesting is that with a limited amount of residual life remaining, the Eurofighter won't receive any significant upgrades in the mid thirties. Especially if you consider that Eurofighter retirement technically begins just next year.
                                  Last edited by Vnomad; 28th March 2015, 03:03.

                                  Comment

                                  • Vnomad
                                    Rank 5 Registered User

                                    #37
                                    Originally posted by Nicolas10 View Post
                                    It's a Drone, not a remote control plane. You can program them with emergency procedures if contact is broken, rendez vous at some point or whatever + you can switch to satcom if LOS is broken.
                                    Except that what I'm describing isn't an emergency, its something you can expect to happen on a very regular basis unless we're talking about a low threat conflict. Control oversight by the fighter WSO should not be taken for granted in any typical mission.

                                    Deep penetration strikes will be made with preplanned actions. No need for constant LOS with a supporting fighter then. Besides, what do you think SATCOM is for? Liason would be more useful in seek & destroy type scenario, like SCUD search in GWI or looking for mobile ADS.
                                    Well clearly we're discussing different things. You're looking at a newer Iraq or Libya type intervention while I'm thinking more on the lines of Russia or China. Meaning I expect plentiful long range radars (and SAMs) on ground, plentiful interceptors in the air (backed by AWACS and including LO fighters), unreliable SATCOM with satellite subject to jamming (if not outright shootdowns) and limited time and intelligence for pre-planning missions. Some of that would you'd face even against a mid-tier threat like an Iran rearmed with Russian equipment. Or to pick a better trained (albeit more unlikely) foe, a Pakistan with the latest generation of Chinese weaponry.

                                    Comment

                                    • MadRat
                                      Rank 5 Registered User

                                      #38
                                      War with China or Russia would be reckless. Not happening. Enuff said.
                                      Go Huskers!

                                      Comment

                                      • Wanderlei
                                        Rank 5 Registered User

                                        #39
                                        Things will even considerably change in 5-10 years or so as China and Russia are picking up the paste, and considerably so!
                                        Simply put, Its all going to depend on what and how many China and Russia decides to go for.

                                        Thinks about it, if the Soviet Union did not collapse, there would be at least 500 F-22s now with major upgrades already in place. Current F-22 is a shadow of what it was meant to be. Why, because there would be hunderds of Su-35/37s out there, and possibly thousands including Chinese AF licence builts, plus Soviet 5th generation fighter well in service by now.

                                        So things are changing now fast enough (almost) again, right?!

                                        on a slightly different angle..

                                        I also am thinking that stealth as we know it might seize to exist as a dependable protection for an aircraft in the next 10 years, 15 TOPS! What happens then? !
                                        The reality of F22 becoming absolete as an old dog, while new Pak-Fa ends up being much more adaptable and suitable to modern warfare. F-35 becoming insufficient while expensive and demanding in obsolete way to maintain, makes me think that future modernization and overhauls of F-16, F15s, and Superhornets might extend their life quite a bit past 2025.

                                        More Likely a 6th generation fighter bomber will be an answer to both issues sooner than we think, and with a faster prototype to actual service entry time than what we've seen in the past 25 years! This timing could be the winning bid!
                                        Last edited by Wanderlei; 29th March 2015, 05:11.

                                        Comment

                                        • MadRat
                                          Rank 5 Registered User

                                          #40
                                          No matter the pace, stealth will always be relevant. It's been pointed out here ad naseum that still is just a facet in the electromatic signals intelligence game. It will only become more relevant, not less. Unfortunately people don't read the intelligent posts in the forum and would rather participate in low brow battles of wit.
                                          Go Huskers!

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X