F-35 air-to-air - Pro and Con

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

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8382
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post10 Mar 2014, 00:24

Don't forget that the F-35 uses over three times the amount of info to ID a target than even the F-22 uses (per the Australian Parliamentary Testimony).
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

exosphere

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2014, 00:45

Unread post10 Mar 2014, 00:46

Doesn't the EOTS system also allow for BVR visual identification? Even the DAS system, which is a wide-angle close-range system, provides pretty awesome resolution (you can clearly see wave caps and small moving vehicles from a pretty good distance away), and the EOTS is designed for narrow-image, long-range operation, so it should be much better. Since the EOTS can be slewed to the radar and has digital zoom capabilities, it would seem to be a great way to get a VID on a target a long way out after it is initially detected on radar. The EOTS, like most IRST systems, would probably be a poor system to detect other aircraft, since it has a narrow FOV, but it should be great at identifying unknown targets.

I think I saw a video somewhere showing an EOTS image where individual windows on a building were visible 50+ kilometers away. The image switched to a residential area, and I could literally count the shingles on roofs. That system is amazing...

Personally, I'd say that between the EOTS, NCTR, track correlation (i.e. if no friendlies are scheduled to fly near an area where a contact has been detected, the contact probably isn't a friendly), and IFF (which I've heard can be unreliable, but is probably at least somewhat useful), the F-35 should have a pretty good capability to identify targets at long range. Of course, I don't have any direct experience with military equipment or ROEs, so this is all just me postulating on a subject I don't have an incredible amount of experience about.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3282
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post10 Mar 2014, 01:18

As has been mentioned, target ID is no longer the pilot on his own -- it is now a system-of-systems thing.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7691
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post10 Mar 2014, 01:42

The sensor suite on the F-35 is no doubt the most advanced and comprehensive tech flying today and for the foreseeable future. What makes it even worse for foes is that individual jets will enjoy a shared COP leveraging the aggregate capabilities of other friendly assets, providing an unmatched appreciation of the battlespace. Fighting smarter beats fighting harder. Also, aside from greater awareness, Sensor fusion and LPI/LPD data links results in a more resilient system, able to overcome even DRFM tech as revealed in the Oz Parliamentary session Spaz referred to.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

exosphere

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2014, 00:45

Unread post10 Mar 2014, 01:48

count_to_10 wrote:As has been mentioned, target ID is no longer the pilot on his own -- it is now a system-of-systems thing.


With regards to that... I've heard that when two F-35s data link with each other, the information is displayed on each F-35s screen as if it is coming from the receiving F-35s own sensor suite, instead of being displayed on a separate screen. I've also heard that the information from the EODAS/EOTS/RWR/APG-81 is all displayed in an identical fashion (I.e. there isn't one kind of display for an EODAS track, one kind of display for a RWR bearing, and another kind of display for a radar track). Finally, I heard that the F-35s computer combines information from all the sensors and automatically adjusts them to provide the most accurate data without needing pilot interaction. Is all that true?
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23091
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Mar 2014, 02:25

'exosphere' I have heard a lot of things but it is likely what you enquire about is true. :D You could search for 'sensor fusion' on the web or 'fusion' on this spider web to find out heaps. This forum is a vast HEAP of info about the F-35 gathered from all corners of - yes - the extraterrestialsphere. SLDinfo.com is a good place to start whilst the 'white papers' there - especially from LM will give you the gen. I'll post a linky for ye.....

http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/flyi ... cture-cop/
&
http://www.sldinfo.com/whitepapers/the- ... on-engine/

There is an extra special one I'll get a link for soonish like. :shock:

The Impact of Advanced Fusion in 5th Generation Fighters on Combat Capability
by Michael Skaff, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company
http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... Fusion.pdf

Michael Skaff is Chief Designer of the F-35 cockpit from his F-16 background - he can be seen in several Ubend Videos showing his wares in the travelling F-35sim. There is an especially good one about how to VL the F-35B.

The very long thread about the HMDS has a bunch of FUZZed info and this is one example:

https://www.ncoic.org/apps/group_public ... 090225.pdf (7.8Mb)

Here you go for an explaino: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=20144&p=228550&hilit=Weigel#p228550
________________________

ADDITION: There are many possibilities - this PDF should be one of them - available here:

Advanced Fusion Avionics Suite 2011
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-17620.html (PDF 2.4Mb)
Attachments
F-35fiveGenInegratedFuzedScreen.gif
Last edited by spazsinbad on 10 Mar 2014, 03:23, edited 1 time in total.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

smsgtmac

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 861
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
  • Location: Texas

Unread post10 Mar 2014, 03:07

neurotech wrote:
The political restrictions will dictate the RoE more than the technical capability. Classic example was the F-14 had TCS "video" for target ID at "BVR" range, but wasn't allowed to engage BVR during the Gulf War because the IFF was incompatible. An E-3 could have tracked a target since takeoff, and vectored an F-14 to the target, except the RoE still wouldn't allow a BVR engagement with the F-14s IFF.


We are not in any material disagreement. The question comes down to how much info is needed before it is a determined to be a Positive ID when still BVR? I would submit that if anything, our political masters these days have more faith in technology than they should, and unless something radically changes, the military will be more 'self-constraining' than 'being constrained' until they build the same degree of confidence in the new systems. There really is no comparison between the F-35 and all other aircraft in this area: everyone else has some serious catching up to do.
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post10 Mar 2014, 04:56

smsgtmac wrote:
neurotech wrote:
The political restrictions will dictate the RoE more than the technical capability. Classic example was the F-14 had TCS "video" for target ID at "BVR" range, but wasn't allowed to engage BVR during the Gulf War because the IFF was incompatible. An E-3 could have tracked a target since takeoff, and vectored an F-14 to the target, except the RoE still wouldn't allow a BVR engagement with the F-14s IFF.


We are not in any material disagreement. The question comes down to how much info is needed before it is a determined to be a Positive ID when still BVR? I would submit that if anything, our political masters these days have more faith in technology than they should, and unless something radically changes, the military will be more 'self-constraining' than 'being constrained' until they build the same degree of confidence in the new systems. There really is no comparison between the F-35 and all other aircraft in this area: everyone else has some serious catching up to do.

The main thing I don't agree with is the claim "dogfighting" is obsolete made earlier. An F-35 could likely obtain a positive ID with both ELINT and EODAS at longer range. The scenario like in Libya in 1981 where the Sukhoi kept turning towards the F-14s, then turning away, and that could result in a 5th gen F-35 getting uncomfortably close in a BVR engagement.

If multiple F-35s determine a jet is hostile, then that reduces the chance of a error by one pilot causing a "friendly fire" accident is reduced. By the time the F-35C goes to the fleet, Capt. Dorsey will have long retired and RF-4s will not be mistaken for targets. Over Kosovo in 1999, F-16 pilots themselves decided they'd rather fly low with greater threats, than accidentally target refugees towed behind a tractor.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2145
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post10 Mar 2014, 07:58

Good point Neurotech

It also reminds me that back in 1981 and again in 1989, the Su-22s and Mig-23s the F-14s engaged were all identified as bandits well beyond visual range.

They could have been engaged at BVR ranges as well, and in one of those engagements an Aim-7 was launched but failed to track.

In the end, Sidewinders and the Tomcats maneuvering ability saved the day.

Watching an F-14 documentary, a Grumman test pilot said, "With the sensors and weapons that we have on this plane, the enemy would be dead long before he knew he was in a fight"

Sounds familiar? It should, those are the kinds of phrases used to describe 5th gen platforms.

Also. back in the 90s the USAF deactivated all their aggressor squadrons, perhaps as a cost saving measure but also perhaps because people again started thinking that dogfights are obsolete.

Now however, Aggressor squadrons are back, and equipped with state-of-the-art F-15s and F-16s instead of A-4s and F-5s.

The preferred tactic of the US is still BVR no doubt, and they will plan everything out for it to be that way, but war never goes entirely according to plan, and you wont always fight the way you prefer.

That’s why one of the requirements for the JSF program was to have a positive loss exchange ratio against advanced 4.5 gen threats in air combat maneuvering (ACM)
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23091
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Mar 2014, 08:35

'zero-one': I'm not being facetious but curious. Is there a link for this F-35 requirement please? Tah.
"That’s why one of the requirements for the JSF program was to have a positive loss exchange ratio against advanced 4.5 gen threats in air combat maneuvering (ACM)."


I guess at some point when tactics are more public knowledge (RED FLAG) or whatever the USMC want to release beforehand (even though they do not have a requirement for ACM which has been acknowledged by them in their requirement for relaxed G specification etc. for the F-35B) we will know more to have a more informed debate about the F-35 and ACM. Just digging up old stuff with old tech is not really the way. This is new stuff ('yet to be proven' as ELP will have it) requiring new tactics. I look forward to knowing more about this aspect of the F-35. I can dream. :D :devil:
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2145
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post10 Mar 2014, 09:29

Hi Spaz, here's the best that I found on short notice.

The writter seemed to be very knowledgable with the F-35 as he and Gums share the same comments at times.

Edward Wu Defence Watch Guest Writer wrote:The F-35’s Performance Parameters laid out in the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) sheds light on the exact performance requirements that are being demanded from the F-35.

The requirement for all three variants is to provide a platform that will have a positive exchange ratio during air combat maneuvering (ACM) engagements against “high performance threats that employ helmet mounted cueing and high off-boresight weapons.”4 Furthermore, the ORD goes on to state that the JSF must further possess high angle of attack (AOA) capabilities “similar in nature to (or better than) the F-18C

Adding link:
http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2014/02/ ... da-part-1/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23091
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Mar 2014, 11:13

OK thanks - I'll see what I can find. Anyone have a link to the JORD please?
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

av111

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 4
  • Joined: 08 Mar 2014, 22:41

Unread post10 Mar 2014, 17:08

neurotech wrote:I see your new here :D

Many have said "dogfights in modern warfare are obsolete" or similar and proven wrong. Remind me why TOPGUN was created?

If a F-35 encounters a tactical transport or ELINT aircraft as a target, the pilot would have to be 110% sure it isn't an airliner and they can't do that from BVR. A hostile jet fighter could be flying low, using terrain for cover until the F-35 approaches to check VID the tactical transport, and then engage the F-35 in close. The resulting dogfight with a 5th gen F-35 would still occur.


To clarify what I mean, I wouldnt suggest dogfights will never occur, what I mean is that dogfights will not be the main battle in the air to achieve air superiority. In terms of engagement for every 100 engagements, dogfights would only make a small proportion of the engagements in the air in future. The majority will occur BVR.

If what you are suggesting is that planes will all need to get visual confirmation before engaging then it would make pretty much most of the advances in the past 20 years obsolete and pointless. I guarantee your enemy will start shooting you BVR whilst youre just trying to get a closer look.

Sometimes the impression is that the maneuverability of the T50 means they will run into a fight chasing everyone swinging a baseball bat, when in fact they will tactically engage on a stand off basis too.

A T50 pilot is not going to rush in and put a giant bullseye marked on his head.

Even the F22 WVR is not absolutely dominant. It is still the best fighter but it will know its in a fight even against older fighters like the Typhoon , Rafale, Su27, and Migs, as it loses many of it advantages of being a 5th gen fighter when WVR.

I will also add that past strategy of air combat does not reflect on future air combat because the capability of effective BVR combat was not there that we see today on the F22 and the F35. BVR capability, although present in the past, was unreliable.

The advancement of technology has changed the game and its important to be ahead of the game dictating the terms. In terms of building a fighter for BVR or WVR, you would elect for BVR. If I flip the scenario and said Russia had dominant BVR aircraft and the US had dominant WVR aircraft you would feel extremely exposed.
Offline

exosphere

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2014, 00:45

Unread post10 Mar 2014, 20:57

Okay, disclaimer first: I know this is from Keypubs, and I know that makes it of dubious reliability, but I saw something interesting while I was perusing the forums (it's great entertainment value!). I saw a thread where they were claiming that IR stealth is "impossible", and that the F-35 and F-22 can thus be detected by IR systems. One of them posted a link to this video of the F-22 at the Farnborough air show and used it as evidence that IR stealth doesn't work, that the F-22 is virtually as visible as other non-VLO aircraft, and that the F-22's RAM coating actually makes it MORE visible to IR, because it is rough and thus causes more friction heating.



This was followed by much congratulating by the other Keypublicans about the wit and intelligence of the poster for bringing up such hard evidence.

Personally, I can think of a few things wrong with this "analysis", but I was wondering if I could get any feedback from the people on this forum, as I'm not an expert on aircraft design or air warfare, and I know there are at least a few people that post regularly here that are.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23091
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post10 Mar 2014, 21:19

Firstly why disrail this thread with a post not related to topic? Secondly see the firstly. Thirdly why not search the forum? I will do that because I know this topic has been covered - ya think? Fourthly why not start a new thread for your unrelated question? Fifthly - I forget.

As I recall this special IR camera at the air display was on high gain at close range. DUH.

The same video is mentioned here.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests