Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10?

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7882
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post14 Dec 2018, 07:43

It's not that the F-35 was to replace the A-10, it was that the mission and methods that the A-10 used were no longer needed on a modern battlefield. The vast majority of CAS is already done by fast-jets & bombers and the need for a heavily armored jet flying low & slow in order to ID a target is no longer there.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

citanon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 379
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 21:42

Unread post14 Dec 2018, 12:14

Gums wrote:Salute LB !

Ever hear of a gated laser or IR illuminator? Might also work with very short wavelength radar like the MMW thing the Apache has for Longbow. The AC-130's fooled around with this at the end when on the Trail and claimed it helped a lot to find poorly covered trucks and guns, ................... and people.

You pulse the illuminator- IR, laser or MMW radar. Pretty much like we have been doing for the radar since WW2. But we do not "bite" on the first part of the return. With the new timing circuits we have, like GPS stuff, we can look for returns a nanosecond or two or twenty after that initial hit. The Spectre guys told us that it was like "x-ray" eyes and could see thru light vegetation for a few feet.

Gums opines...


Funny you mention these Gums. I was just thinking that modern LIDAR detectors seem to see through even vegetation very well. The problem is the typical civilian sensors are employed from fairly low altitude by propeller driven aircraft, helicopters or drones then processed offline.

I wonder if we would see higher power longer range versions on strike aircraft if there's an expectation that we will start fighting in jungle more.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... a-pacunam/

https://leica-geosystems.com/products/a ... rainmapper
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5670
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post14 Dec 2018, 20:38

boilermaker wrote:It is such stupid hype to talk about the F35 replacing the Hawg. The arm forces could instead think in terms of replacing both the Apache and the Hawg with a tilt rotor or fan-jet type gunship. Trying to stretch down the F35 to a Hawg or the Apache up to fill for the Hawg is the approach of bean counters, not that of battle oriented people who can think.



K :roll:
Choose Crews
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2211
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post14 Dec 2018, 23:55

Gums wrote:Salute LB !

Ever hear of a gated laser or IR illuminator? Might also work with very short wavelength radar like the MMW thing the Apache has for Longbow. The AC-130's fooled around with this at the end when on the Trail and claimed it helped a lot to find poorly covered trucks and guns, ................... and people.

You pulse the illuminator- IR, laser or MMW radar. Pretty much like we have been doing for the radar since WW2. But we do not "bite" on the first part of the return. With the new timing circuits we have, like GPS stuff, we can look for returns a nanosecond or two or twenty after that initial hit. The Spectre guys told us that it was like "x-ray" eyes and could see thru light vegetation for a few feet.

Gums opines...


And to Gums' point(s), note 'laser imaging sensors' at this link:

http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabili ... fault.aspx
Offline

lbk000

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 208
  • Joined: 04 May 2017, 16:19

Unread post15 Dec 2018, 08:40

Gums wrote:My rationale is that heavy vegetation is harder on almost all sensors than the desert. Plus, zipping along fast or hanging high limits the time to allow the sensors to acquire tgts in the bushes/trees. And I don't think the Hawg would do any better, and most likely worse.

Thanks for the response, looks like I misunderstood your original statement. I took it that you were suggesting the F-35 would be fundamentally disadvantaged compared to the A-10 in jungle environments by nature of operational altitudes or the like. I think it's possible that an F-35 up at 23000' may in fact enjoy similar if not longer viewing windows as an A-10 down at 3000' thanks to parallax though?

But generally speaking, I agree that the jungle environment is undoubtedly much more challenging compared to desert for all sensors.

In addition to onboard spectral techniques you mentioned, there's also the option of offboard sensors; those little expendable aerially launched drone swarms tested a year or so ago may likely be used to aid targeting data generation.
citanon wrote:The problem is the typical civilian sensors are employed from fairly low altitude by propeller driven aircraft, helicopters or drones then processed offline.

In the networking age perhaps this is a problem solved by an appropriate datalink instead of a louder sensor.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7882
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post15 Dec 2018, 22:59

SAR maps laugh at jungle canopies :mrgreen:
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 236
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post16 Dec 2018, 02:23

boilermaker wrote:It is such stupid hype to talk about the F35 replacing the Hawg. The arm forces could instead think in terms of replacing both the Apache and the Hawg with a tilt rotor or fan-jet type gunship. Trying to stretch down the F35 to a Hawg or the Apache up to fill for the Hawg is the approach of bean counters, not that of battle oriented people who can think.

At this rate indeed, bring back the Cambera or the Hunter to replace the Hawg...


Just spoke with the Army officer in charge of procurement for rotary wing assets last February. There is no plan, or even projection, to begin incorporating something like the S-97 within the next 30 years. So that idea is out.
Offline

tailchase

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 28 Nov 2018, 12:47

Unread post16 Dec 2018, 12:49

SpudmanWP wrote:SAR maps laugh at jungle canopies :mrgreen:


Even better : SAR+multispectral optics ;)
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1649
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post16 Dec 2018, 18:13

SpudmanWP wrote:SAR maps laugh at jungle canopies :mrgreen:


Question:
- SAR maps cannot detect infantry (human beings), can they? (the same question also extends to all other radar modes)

If that's the case and while modern technology (such as SAR) should easily detect stuff like tanks or other sorts of vehicles under jungle canopies they cannot (and hardly can) detect infantry on foot under the same jungle canopies specially when compared to and for example, a Desert.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 236
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post16 Dec 2018, 18:22

ricnunes wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:SAR maps laugh at jungle canopies :mrgreen:


Question:
- SAR maps cannot detect infantry (human beings), can they? (the same question also extends to all other radar modes)

If that's the case and while modern technology (such as SAR) should easily detect stuff like tanks or other sorts of vehicles under jungle canopies they cannot (and hardly can) detect infantry on foot under the same jungle canopies specially when compared to and for example, a Desert.


SAR can detect and track people.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2974
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post16 Dec 2018, 19:06

If an F-35s sensors can't spot something, the likelihood of an A-10 pilot's Mk1 eyeballs spotting it, is somewhere around nil.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1649
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post16 Dec 2018, 19:31

kimjongnumbaun wrote:SAR can detect and track people.


Are you sure?
If yes, could you share a source? Thanks in advance.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1649
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post16 Dec 2018, 19:32

wrightwing wrote:If an F-35s sensors can't spot something, the likelihood of an A-10 pilot's Mk1 eyeballs spotting it, is somewhere around nil.


Yes, I fully agree with you.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7882
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post16 Dec 2018, 23:59

ricnunes wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:SAR can detect and track people.


Are you sure?
If yes, could you share a source? Thanks in advance.


The APG-81 can do GMTI and troops fall under DMTI (Dismount Moving Target Indicator). DMTI is a relatively new acronym and I have not a direct mention of DMTI in the F-35's quiver.

Dish size does not play a role in if DMTI is possible as the Reaper has it and its radar is much smaller than the F-35's APG-81.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 236
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post17 Dec 2018, 03:25

ricnunes wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:SAR can detect and track people.


Are you sure?
If yes, could you share a source? Thanks in advance.


Capabilities are classified on the military side. Here is an example of rudimentary tracking on the civilian side under "Vehicle and dismount tracking". Our helos have some pretty amazing systems. Not sure what is on the F-35, but my guess it is as capable or more advanced.

https://www.sandia.gov/radar/areas_of_e ... sions.html
Last edited by kimjongnumbaun on 17 Dec 2018, 03:36, edited 1 time in total.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests