I'm a F-35B supporter (still extremely concerned about Marine Armor and think that it needs to take priority...a delay won't hurt the program)but today should give Lockheed Martin and supporters pause.
The Navy found a legit reason to skip the F-35 and go directly to the 6th gen stealth fighter. The X-47 taxied, launched and the only thing left is for it to land on a carrier. No pilot. Greater endurance. Good to great payload. No worries about conducting combat rescue of pilots...just a determination of whether you're going to destroy the plane in place or recover it. The X-47 probably changed combat aviation in a way that other drones never could. The X-47 is a threat that must be taken seriously by technologically advanced forces. Its stealthy, its fast and its a threat...to the enemy and the F-35. What follows is a sequence of photos from taxi to getting set up on the catapult to launch.
The Navy found a legit reason to skip the F-35 and go directly to the 6th gen stealth fighter. The X-47 taxied, launched and the only thing left is for it to land on a carrier. No pilot. Greater endurance. Good to great payload. No worries about conducting combat rescue of pilots...just a determination of whether you're going to destroy the plane in place or recover it. The X-47 probably changed combat aviation in a way that other drones never could. The X-47 is a threat that must be taken seriously by technologically advanced forces. Its stealthy, its fast and its a threat...to the enemy and the F-35. What follows is a sequence of photos from taxi to getting set up on the catapult to launch.
Nice weather.
ReplyDeleteperfect weather and thanks for reminding me that if they get automated landing done then weather will be a non-factor for strike missions. thunderstorms, pitch black night, hell even hurricanes wouldn't be an issue except for the men on the flight deck.
DeleteIt certainly would render the F-35 obsolete for strike missions. UCAVs have a long way to go before they will be able to perform air-superiority however.
ReplyDeleteToo bad the F-35 will likely suck as a air-superiority fighter, that being the F-22's job.
I think you're probably wrong about jets like the X-47 not being able to do air-superiority missions. This might sound stupid at first, but you have to stop thinking like a human and start thinking like a machine.
DeleteMachines don't work like we do. X-47s, without a human pilot, are automatically hundreds of thousands dollars cheaper (it's probably millions, I haven't checked recently to see what the latest figures are on a US Navy pilot's dollar value). That's factor one. Also consider that humans, comparatively, are terrible at team work. X-47's specialize in team work. It's not unreasonable to think that jets like these will literally swarm opponents. Sure, your F-22 can shoot down what 4-6 opponents over the horizon if everything goes perfectly? That's all great till you see 50 of these guys all covering each other in perfect harmony.
Finally, I'd like to point out jets like the F-22 are primarily limited by the human pilot. F-22 and others like it max out their G rating around 9 because that's the most the human inside it can take. I don't know myself, but how much "extra" weight does an F-22 have because that meatball up front needs life support systems to maintain flight at 40,000 ft; lest we forget his extremely heavy chair with rockets and a parachute and that dumb canopy he sits under?
By the time Boeings FA-XX comes out and is put into production it will be late 2030s, possibly 2040 since the Air Force tests planes for way to long. The Navy is commited to F-35C. They may buy less than expected, but the F-35C will not be skipped. A UAV wont take over the mission of a manned aircraft.
ReplyDeleteyes, and after the whole RQ-170 vs. Iranian hackers thing, I doubt this drone's leash will be very long at all.
DeleteThis thing is only useful as a precision strike platform, I am certain that a Mig-21 could shoot this thing down.
i don't doubt what you're saying but i'll counter it by asking you this. what would you rather risk on a deep strike mission...a non stealthy F-15 with two pilots dropping precision munitions or four UAV's that are stealthy, fast carry the same precision munitions and are getting long range jamming support?
Delete@DA: You must have missed the Australian testimony (not a fluff piece, PR, or any thing else... it was "under penalty of perjury" stuff) where in "manned" simulators (not simplistic computer sims) the F-35 demonstrated a LER of > 6:1 when outnumbered 4:8 vs "Advanced Red Air". That does not "suck" by any stretch of the imagination.
ReplyDeleteI heard mention of it, but I wonder how accurate those simulations are when the F-35 hasn't been fully flight tested, finalized, or even approved for live fire exercises.
DeleteI also wonder how the F-35 can achieve a 6:1 ratio while so greatly outnumbered when it only carries 4 missiles internally. I guess the simulation assumes a 100% pK for the AMRAAM and the F-35s never get within range of the "Advanced Red Air's" IRST. What is this "Red Air" anyway? Su-35s? PAK FAs? Or outdated MiG-29s?
You are making some of the same assumptions that get F-35 Haters in trouble (not that you are one). The F-35, as it is today, is not being put together from pieces that have never been tested on their own.
DeleteEvery piece of avionics in the F-35 has been tested in the lab and in flying platforms for years prior to it being put into the F-35 for testing. They know what het radar is capable of, they know what the ESM, IRST, EODASS, etc are capable of. The only unknown is what they will behave like when all put into the F-35. They know what they expect of them, but there is always little things that creep up (hello helmet issues) that takes you by surprise. The mark of a good program is how fast you address these issues to get the program to behave the way you expected it to.
The other mistake you made is to think that each missile have to be 100% pk. Remember that this was a 4:8 fight. This means that when carrying 4 AAMs, each AMRAAM could be 50%pk and still get > 6:1 LER. That does not even include a gun fight.
You are making some of the same assumptions that get F-35 Haters in trouble (not that you are one). The F-35, as it is today, is not being put together from pieces that have never been tested on their own. Every piece of avionics in the F-35 has been tested
Let's just say that I'd be very interested in seeing the actual parameters of the simulation... And leave it at that. It certainly seems like its "too good to be true".
DeleteNo, I'm not a "F-35 Hater", more like a "F-35 Realist". It certainly wouldn't be the first weapon system to over-promise and under-deliver. Don't get me wrong, I think it will be a great strike aircraft one of these days but some of the air-to-air claims seem downright outrageous. If it is as good as they say, then the USAF should retire the F-22 the day the F-35 becomes fully operational.
But we all know that won't happen...
As far as making the F-35 an obsolete striker… it would take 3-4 UAVs to do the job of one F-35 due to small internal bays and no wing hardpoints. There is not enough room on the carrier for that.
ReplyDeleteThen there is the issue of datalinks. What happens when China or Russia start exporting datalink jammers? You cannot put all your ability to project power at risk by depending on one piece of tech (the datalink).
Btw, there is a difference between Air-Dominance (aka Air-Supremacy which is the F-22’s job) and Air-Superiority (the F-35’s job). It’s not a marketing term.
Air Supremacy:
Definition: (DOD, NATO) That degree of air superiority wherein the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference.
Air Superiority:
Definition: (DOD, NATO) That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another which permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by the opposing force.
UCAS-N still has to get on-board without killing a bunch of people in the process. With that, it will be very very useful indeed. As for the F-35, well I guess we will know when OPEVAL happens.
ReplyDeleteSince the F-35 is designed so that the pilot can assign targets to specific flight members (and likely specific weapons as well), I do not see why the F-35 cannot have a few UCAVs tag along with the F-35.
ReplyDeleteLet the F-35 handle the A2A, manage mission planning, etc and let the UCAVs haul the extra baggage. Keep 1 or 2 UCAVs up real high loaded with AAMs and even use the distributed EW plans of the F-35’s Blk5 to handle EW.
Using this method, the UCAVs are not susceptible to Datalink jamming (since the jammer would have to get between the UCAV and the F-35.
It does not have to be an Either / Or situation.
The USN could live without the F-35C and buy more F/A-18E/F's but it would lose capability till the F/A-XX comes online. While the X-47B follow on will be quite useful in some strike missions the USN is really more focused on using it for ISR.
ReplyDeleteThe current plan midterm is to have 24 F/A-18E/F's, 20 F-35C's, and a detachment of 4 to 6 UCLASS. If the aircraft is a big success it's possible that detachment gets increased to a squadron (even if just on some deployed carriers).
We're a long way from UAV's doing air to air in any significant way. While that day will come eventually we're not going to see it mid term.
The ARC-120. Good? Bad?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rockwellcollins.com/~/media/Files/Unsecure/Products/Product%20Brochures/Communcation%20and%20Networks/Communication%20Radios/ARC-210%20Integrated%20Comm%20Systems%20white%20paper.aspx
Over-reliance on communications. Am I the only one who has never even seen comms work well in peace time?
That first photo in the thread looks like a painting from a sci-fi magazine. :)
ReplyDeleteI'll take a manned aircraft over a computer any day.
ReplyDeletehow about if you're on a scud hunt and you need a persistent cap over a countryside with the hope of being able to quickly respond to the sighting of a launch vehicle.
DeleteI would think that the F-35 being a single engine aircraft would give the Navy reason to decline it.
ReplyDelete