F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

F-35 Armament, fuel tanks, internal and external hardpoints, loadouts, and other stores.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2125
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post07 Jan 2018, 23:51

Maybe it's no longer an AIM-120 in the weapons bay. Or maybe it's some super duper AIM-120E, or some hypersonic booster with a CUDA on the pointy end where maybe you have until T+120 to affect an intercept.

The reason for asking the question in this thread... is could automagical weapons deployment without pilot intervention ever be coming to 5th gen ops, IF the weapons employment has to meet some really tight time window. I'm not suggesting that the computers' necessarily have totally autonomic deployment capability, but maybe the pilot has to enable autonomic deployment, or he can lock it out? I'm not ready to go total skynet... Maybe that's the biggest reason to NOT go there. On the other hand, if that was a nuke that just got launched... and you COULD HAVE taken it out if autonomic / automagical weapons deployment had been enabled... would you have?

So, the NORK discussion I view more as a launching pad for this (hair brained?) idea.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Online
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1201
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post08 Jan 2018, 01:17

steve2267 wrote:...The reason for asking the question in this thread... is could automagical weapons deployment without pilot intervention ever be coming to 5th gen ops,...So, the NORK discussion I view more as a launching pad for this (hair brained?) idea.


These are overall fifth gen conops questions. We might start by what is command and control, and human in the loop operation. Long ago the command to fire could have been levels above as the "cannoneers" stood ready after loading. Who commanded? the battery commander? the battalion commander? Time moves and concepts such as forward controllers are integrated. What is "fire at will?"

I suspect (actually expect) that there will be a "human in the loop" maintained in some form, even if it's a fire at will release. In the past automation has often been a time delay type of interference. Wait till the autoloader gives you a green light type of effect. In that case sometimes the fire on green light could already have been released prior to completion. Most CIWS systems have a "going hot" mode of operation, that automatically fire on a popup target. A US ship was hit by a Japanese Phalanx that way once if I am remembering correctly. But the human had to arm it to be ready for that to happen. The field of fire had to be set by a human in some way. Obviously in that case some "human" screwed up.

The answer to your question is we really don't know yet. That conops is evolving. But you ask one of the right questions. The basic theory is everyone is a sensor, and everyone is a shooter. The network manages. What and where is the human in the loop for the network? Dunno yet. But they are working on it. And at least the US will likely avoid untended surprise fire on warning scenarios.

MHO,
BP
Online
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1201
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post08 Jan 2018, 01:41

I will add, anecdotally having been in the ballistic missile warning/response chain, that the US systems tend toward a fail safe, "multiple veto opportunities in the kill chain" approach. I have personally "shut off" the kill chain as an O3 on missile launch warnings. (I jumped over a desk to hit the "cutoff" switch). The O-6 above me could have also done the same from his place in the chain. Those above him as well. Ultimately the responses move through from there. The US leans towards "don't do it," as auto responses unfold.

The only caution for these types of approaches is that, once set up, the higher it goes the more the decision makers can lean on those below. The SecDef might do little more than say "Well surely the captain knows what he is doing?!" Good flag officers and those above guard against that, and take their responsibility seriously, to the point of actual exercises exploring that type of event, conditioning them to think, "Maybe he doesn't?."

The more we depend on the automation, the more critical these concepts become. But with today's hypersonic world, it's not a genie that can be put back in the bottle. We just have to be diligent in testing all the "what if's" in planning and exercise exploration. For the "one we didn't think of" .... some human needs to be ready (and able) to jump over the desk. Worse case a good auto system will have a minder with a cutoff option.

That's a long way of saying that the shooter pilot will almost certainly know his equipment could be tasked, is ready to be tasked, and he will have a "stop it," trigger available. That's what has normally been done. Sometimes to the point of people dying because a response that could and should have happened, didn't. We have leaned towards that being the better result than fire on warning accidents. Can't speak for the Russians and Chinese.

MHO,
BP
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2125
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post08 Jan 2018, 02:21



Thanks for your insights BP!

(Only nine more to go!) :mrgreen:
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22824
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post08 Jan 2018, 02:27

Lest we forget - missile truck robotic stealthy aircraft orbiting high (no oxygen required) flying an ersatz :doh: 'LaFFbury :mrgreen: Circus' (circle of Lufbery: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufbery_circle ) so that at any given time a robot may have weapons more or less pointed at a potential target -perhaps unnecessary- but robots are cheap NO; carrying cued missiles?
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2125
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post08 Jan 2018, 02:51

Spaz,

Aren't you describing the optionally manned B-21 Raider?
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1124
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post09 Jan 2018, 07:16

To grapple a little with the other part of your question, what you're talking about is a prioritization-driven C&C system.

Long-range BM pop-up, with unknown package, must necessarily assume Priority #1 (despite little chance that it's actually WMD-based).

A2A defense of F-35 has a relative prioritisation of about negative 12 ... or-there-about.

If it's auto-feed-backing 2-way reports of weapon expenditures and thus dynamic auto-reprioritisations accordingly, then the C&C system-of-systems should 'know' not to put that particular F-35A, with depleted A2A defensive options, into high risk A2A situations nor allow continued flight into a mission that requires A2A support ... without also dynamically reprioritising A2A support aircraft for it specifically, if the threat is dynamically determined to actually warrant it (i.e. if a flight of four super-duper Su-27s in-drag pop-up and set for dooommed tail-chase attack on the poor chappie ...).

In other words, not clear that a lack of AIM-120[X] then presents a significant defensive issue for the pilot ... in [theoretical] tactical 'practice'.

Still doubt an A2A missile is the right tool for the scenario though.

A podded and coop-netted laser weapon, i.e. 12 x F-35s, all autocued and focusing on the BM, almost instantly, from multiple distributed axis, altitudes and ranges, netting their combined watts without weapon bays even opening, weapons needing to meet viable firing parameters, nor missile flight time issues, or pilot brain-power being taxed, nor even bothering to manoeuvre or alter flight/mission plans and paths in fact seems to make the question moot. Only real consideration is where's the tanker to refuel jet and weapon class.

That may not be much further than an operational deployment decision and (a serious) block-upgrade budget away.

Then 5th gen questions become what happens as proliferation of the tech proceeds and changes the whole concept of what fighters can do, and (also) what that will do to its own viability/survivability.

Maybe this laser-based vision of A2A, and A2G, is a bit premature ... but <what if> maybe it isn't?

Consider a mix of automated SA and automated distributed netted lasers ... what does that do to 5th-gen? ... or is that a 6th-gen combat integration conceptual mental-overhaul?
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2125
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post23 Feb 2018, 04:38


The Northrop Grumman B-21 Stealth Bomber: Simply Unstoppable?

by Kris Osborn March 28, 2017
...
Air Force leaders have said the aircraft will likely be engineered to fly unmanned missions as well as manned missions.
...
For instance, lower-frequency surveillance radar allows enemy air defenses to know that an aircraft is in the vicinity, and higher-frequency engagement radar allows integrated air defenses to target a fast-moving aircraft. The concept with the new bomber is to engineer a next-generation stealth configuration able to evade both surveillance and engagement radar technologies.

The idea is to design a bomber able to fly, operate and strike anywhere in the world without an enemy even knowing an aircraft is there. This was the intention of the original B-2 bomber, which functioned in that capacity for many years, until technological advances in air defense made it harder for it to avoid detection completely.

The new aircraft is being engineered to evade increasingly sophisticated air defenses, which now use faster processors, digital networking and sensors to track even stealthy aircraft on a wider range of frequencies at longer ranges. These frequencies include UHF, VHF and X-band, among others.

...
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-northrop-grumman-b-21-stealth-bomber-simply-unstoppable-19931


When I bet Neptune the B-21 only has two engines, I envisioned LRS-B as more of a medium bomber, not as large as the B-2. With recent announcements that the B-1 and B-2 will be retired as the B-21 comes on line, I wonder if the B-21 is not a lot larger than I had thought. If the B-21 can carry a payload as large as, say, 40,000lb, what if that payload could be fuel? Or a mix of fuel and a store of AIM-120D's and/or SM-6's converted to an air-to-air role.

What might be done with 2-4 unmanned KISRB-21's each with 30 AIM-120D's and a push of 30,000lb JP-5 that could accompany a strike of say 8 F-35's and 4 F-22's? You have tankers that accompany your fast movers all they way in on a strike or offensive CAP / SWEEP to a point where the 21's setup in different orbits, functioning not only as flying arsenal ships, but also as a forward deployed, LPI stealthy E-3. If the USAF does not replace the F-22 IFDL with MADL, or add MADL to the F-22, but the KISRB-21's spoke MADL and IFDL (maybe Link-16 too, as a backup to the F-35), then the KISRB-21 would also fill the roll of a stealthy BACN network node, forward deployed where it is needed most. F-35 or F-22 detects some airborne threats? Hang on to their missiles, and have the KIRSRB-21 launch on the target.

With four KISRB-21's spread apart ~200nm, line abreast, you could potentially dominate a battle space nearly 800nm across. They could fill the roll of sensor, shooter, and tanker. In this roll, I envision them setting up in some sort of racetrack pattern. And I don't see the need for them to be manned in this roll. Save manning them for when flying a deep strike mission.

In a shooting war with a near peer, say PRC... a forward deployed stealth CAP of PRC airfields would enable the US to potentially ambush J-20's before they could get to a launch point on US E-3's or KC-10/46/135's.

In some respects, I wonder if the B-21 isn't just an X-47B, just scaled way the hell up with lots of B-2 pixie dust (only newer, improved) sprinkled on and baked into the skin ala the F-35.

The biggest risk I see is the very distinct possibility that F-35's and F-22's cannot be tanked in a VLO manner.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22824
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post23 Feb 2018, 05:12

"...The biggest risk I see is the very distinct possibility that F-35's and F-22's cannot be tanked in a VLO manner."

Seems that it is not likely with current technology - likely 'force-field cloaking devices' could not be generated because of 'radio transmission' restrictions whilst tanking (as I understand things - this is an HF issue with the new USAF tanker).
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post23 Feb 2018, 09:33

spazsinbad wrote:
"...The biggest risk I see is the very distinct possibility that F-35's and F-22's cannot be tanked in a VLO manner."

Seems that it is not likely with current technology - likely 'force-field cloaking devices' could not be generated because of 'radio transmission' restrictions whilst tanking (as I understand things - this is an HF issue with the new USAF tanker).
o

....to digress.. Tanking is WVR, thus data transfer could possibly be via low power lasers 5 mW (adequate bandwidth) during transfer conditions. MADL for approach/ departure.
:)
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post23 Feb 2018, 09:36

[quote="steve2267"][quote]
The Northrop Grumman B-21 Stealth Bomber: Simply Unstoppable?

by Kris Osborn March 28, 2017
...
Air Force leaders have said the aircraft will likely be engineered to fly unmanned missions as well as manned missions.
...
For instance, lower-frequency surveillance radar allows enemy air defenses to know that an aircraft is in the vicinity, and higher-frequency engagement radar allows integrated air defenses to target a fast-moving aircraft. The concept with the new bomber is to engineer a next-generation stealth configuration able to evade both surveillance and engagement radar technologies.

The idea is to design a bomber able to fly, operate and strike anywhere in the world without an enemy even knowing an aircraft is there. This was the intention of the original B-2 bomber, which functioned in that capacity for many years, until technological advances in air defense made it harder for it to avoid detection completely.

The new aircraft is being engineered to evade increasingly sophisticated air defenses, which now use faster processors, digital networking and sensors to track even stealthy aircraft on a wider range of frequencies at longer ranges. These frequencies include UHF, VHF and X-band, among others.

Wow!, a well armed stealth tanker! Who would have thunk it!
:shock:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22824
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post23 Feb 2018, 10:02

Some time back now (I'll look for info) unmanned AVs were going to tank one another (with receiver being in front with fuel PUMPED GOING UP the hose) with the suggestion that information could be passed stealthily to the receiver via said hose connection. In this way a stealthy UAV could go forward to fuel and info update with mission data (and I guess download to receiver) the tanker which returns to a place where it can break stealth to transmit data or land etc.

TWAS Global Hawks: http://alturl.com/bvyx Of course this URL no longer works so here is a quote from it:
Global Hawk Aerial Refueling - Which Way?
02 Jul 2010 Graham Warwick

“...the tanker will fly behind the receiver. The tanker will be equipped with a refuelling probe and the receiver with a hose-drum unit – the opposite of the normal probe-and-drogue arrangement – and it is the tanker that will rendezvous with the receiver, maneuver into contact with the basket and "push" fuel forward to the receiver. Northrop says this "reverse" refueling arrangement reduces the cost of equipping a Global Hawk fleet for aerial refueling because fewer aircraft need permanent modifications. Only tankers would need probes and relative-navigation systems; receivers could be fitted with under-fuselage hose-drum units as required."

PRAISE BE and PASS the AMMOONITION (fuel): http://aviationweek.com/blog/kq-x-yes-how-they-do-it
KQ-X - Yes, That IS How They Do It
22 Aug 2012 Graham Warwick

"...In the reverse of normal probe-and-drogue refueling, the tanker (on the left, above) is fitted with a refueling probe on the nose and the receiver (right) is equipped with a hose-drum unit under the fuselage. The receiver trails the hose, the tanker comes up behind and plugs into the drogue, then pushes fuel uphill to the receiving aircraft...."

A Blast from the PAST 2006: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=6128&p=73418&hilit=Global+Hawk+aerial#p73418
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1124
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post23 Feb 2018, 10:51

steve2267 wrote: //... If the B-21 can carry a payload as large as, say, 40,000lb, ... // ... What might be done with 2-4 unmanned KISRB-21's each with 30 AIM-120D's and a push of 30,000lb JP-5 that could accompany a strike of say 8 F-35's and 4 F-22's? You have tankers that accompany your fast movers all they way in on a strike or offensive CAP / SWEEP ... // ... but also as a forward deployed, LPI stealthy E-3.

If the USAF does not replace the F-22 IFDL with MADL, or add MADL to the F-22, but the KISRB-21's spoke MADL and IFDL (maybe Link-16 too, as a backup to the F-35), then the KISRB-21 would also fill the roll of a stealthy BACN network node, forward deployed where it is needed most. F-35 or F-22 detects some airborne threats? Hang on to their missiles, and have the KIRSRB-21 launch on the target.

With four KISRB-21's spread apart ~200nm, line abreast, you could potentially dominate a battle space nearly 800nm across. They could fill the roll of sensor, shooter, and tanker. In this roll, I envision them setting up in some sort of racetrack pattern. And I don't see the need for them to be manned in this roll. Save manning them for when flying a deep strike mission.

In a shooting war with a near peer, say PRC... a forward deployed stealth CAP of PRC airfields would enable the US to potentially ambush J-20's before they could get to a launch point on US E-3's or KC-10/46/135' ... The biggest risk I see is the very distinct possibility that F-35's and F-22's cannot be tanked in a VLO manner.


I like the forward LO sensor-tanker idea, but it needs to be a dedicated redesign, and not an A2A missile shooter.

The 'Do Not Exceed Speed' of B-21 will be near to 600 kt TAS. Thus 'maneuver speed' at altitude, turning-radius at altitude, and acceleration and vertical agility will be poor and undesirable, for such an arsenal 'shooter'.

You can't mix that into combat near A2A battles, even with a long-range two-stage boosted missile (plus opening the bomb-bay for shots is not LO, and not good for such a forward tanker).

You can't have the fighter's tanker at risk, in the mix with the shooting. Fighters must have assured fuel nearby.

If you want a survivable forward tanker, design a dedicated one, yes, derived from B-21, and yes, make it unmanned and automated.

But then double or even triple the A2A load out of F-35.

Same outcome.

Frankly, laser weapons may largely overtake the missile approach to A2A, by then.

In which case, just one B-21 with a couple of 100 kilowatt lasers would make a pretty good approximation to a Death Star, in effect, over a mobile 150 to 200 nm radius swaith of the forward battle zone.

F-22 and F-35 will already have a decentralised Battle Space Sensor network covered, so no need for a specific 'E-21' sensor role, more a data aggregator and a major comms node re-distributor.

B-21 in close Tanker + Death Star laser mode is also a no-brainer MALD-J type missle platform, for a forwards support for 5th gen attackers.

The Death-Star kills any anti-ship, cruise, ballistic missiles, surface craft, LO aircraft and ALCM bombers, etc., plus self- protects itself against AAMs.

---

Further to the suggestion of a decentralised sensor-net 'E-21' aggregator aircraft, I was facinated by a cryptic paragraph within the Freedom 550 Northrop Grumman pamphlet that I think Spud reposted recently, namely this:

" ... Remote electronics and a dual band multibeam aperture are also being developed to simultaneously handle both MADL and IFDL waveforms. Freedom 550 will enable translation of F-22 and F-35 sensor data and provide the information to Link-16 participants. Freedom 550 is designed to support either two IFDL nets or one IFDL and one MADL net. ... "

- Freedom™ 550, Northrop Grumman pdf

Don't know if I'm behind the info curve here (or if already discussed), or just reading this wrong, but it appears what's being described there is a new (replacement/upgrade) IFDL+MADL panel, to (logically) be fitted on to the F-22A fleet.

You'd only have to fit such a panel array to the F-22A fleet, in order for F-35 to send data directly to F-22A, as then the now MADL-equipped F-22As can simultaneously send their unique sensor data directly to the F-35's common data-fussion tactical picture.

If this is the case, that will be a huge SA and targeting boost for the F-22A fleet, and for the F-35 fleet, and Joint US plus Allied SA and targeting net. In effect, F-22As have then become MADL platforms.

Then a tag-team A2A mix of combined F-22A and F-35 becomes a no-brainer too, making-up for the low numbers of F-22A.

And the SA and ground and surface attack flexibility of the F-22A fleet, increases greatly in general.

The synergistic effect of that would be a leap in battle integration of the entire 5th-Gen fleet.

And both fleets are then able to transform fairly quickly, together, to a next-gen datalink, as needed.

I hope that's what's being referenced in the quote.

Add MADL upgrade and 'a DAS-like' capability and F-22A will rip.

The 5th-gen combined fleet would then hold an even more crushing and demoralising 'air-power' and 'data-power' advantage in any foreseeable high-end fight.

Plus it can't be degraded quickly, or by much.

Now add the forward LO Tanker with decentralised sensor-net data aggregator and network data re-distributor role and EA decoy missle ... and now add in the B-21 itself.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7676
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post23 Feb 2018, 13:58

Freedom 550 could be one approach to 5Gen interoperability. Talon Hate is another. The there is this intriguing tidbit from an AvWeek article Spaz linked to in another thread hinting at an upgraded MADL version in Block 4 that would provide the same capability. Whether this will require new CNI hardware is unknown.

viewtopic.php?f=62&t=50304&hilit=Freedom+550

Meanwhile, Northrop is also working on a more robust version of MADL for the F-35 follow-on program, Block 4, that will allow the jet to communicate covertly with F-22, says Colin Phan, director of avionics and tactical networks for Northrop’s communications business. The F-35 program office also hopes the upgraded MADL will allow the F-35 to communicate with fourth-generation fighters without compromising stealth, says Richard Meyer, deputy chief of the Air Force’s F-35 system management office.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2125
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post23 Feb 2018, 15:18

I suppose adding IFDL to F-35's is one way to bring the F-22's "into the flock." Maybe that's cheaper than re-fitting MADL to F-22's. The logical or optimal solution, IMO, is to replace IFDL with MADL on F-22's. But that may be a non-starter for a number of reasons, cost being one, aircraft or fleet downtime being another.

VLO tanking operations in the middle of an active air-to-air battle is not a good idea. I was thinking more along the lines of using the B-21 to "top off" the F-35's, F-22's a few hundred nautical miles out from the planned or anticipated area of potentially active air-to-air engagements, and then again during egress. In between those tanking ops, the B-21's could be available as missile platforms -- an extended magazine, if you will. Their sensors and datalink / datarelay capabilities might also be of use.

After ingress tanking, the B-21s push on to their "orbit areas" from which they could launch AAM's as required, while the F-35's and F-22's roam about, or push further on ahead to their sweep or CAP areas. As noted, opening weapons bay doors is not VLO, and likely reveals the location of the shooter for a few seconds. If B-21's are orbiting in an area for an extended period of time, and are "continually" releasing missiles, then a BIG DATA approach by the enema could reveal the neighborhood of the B-21 racetracks, so perhaps a racetrack is the wrong CONOP here, and instead the B-21's would sweep through an area. On the USAF side, a network disinformation approach to selecting a shooter at any given time may be required to deny as much "track information" to the enema as possible. That is, don't have ROCK1 keep shooting the missiles. You may need to have the B-21, ROCK1, launch the first missile, but missile shots 2 and 3 may need to come from an F-35 and an F-22, or ROCK4, before you have ROCK1 launch again. On the other hand, I may be getting too "cute" with my ideas.

I don't know if any of this is possible, or even makes sense. I'm just throwing some ideas up on the wall to see if anything sticks.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests