F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 00:03
by blindpilot
So there's a discussion over on the NK thread, as to what the F-35 might bring. I commented that we're still trapped in 4th gen thinking. Same theme in the dog fighting thread ... etc.

blindpilot wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
flighthawk128 wrote:... They'd probably use the F-35 ... fly over the artillery emplacements, then identifies and relays the position to allied artillery batteries to knock them out. ...

... In my opinion what would happen would be a combination ... after all each F-35 can carry 8 Small Diameter Bombs - SDBs,..

... still trapped a bit in 4th gen thinking ... recall from Israel - Maj. Gen. Amir Eshel “... when you take off in this plane from Nevatim [base], you can’t believe it. ... You see things, it’s inconceivable. ... the [entire] Middle East as a combat zone – the threats, the different players, ... close range and long range. Only then do you grasp the enormous potential of this machine. ...” .... They haven't even begun to sort out what the F-35 can bring to NK, and the USMC is [just beginning to] imagine the framework... and it's a lot more than we [are] used to doing....
BP

"Only then do you grasp the enormous potential of this machine"

SO! Let's start imagining and trying to grasp what it means. That's what this thread is for.
(All 4th gen ideas, "look further, go faster, hit harder, better resolution, better comm" are strictly forbidden here!)

BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 00:11
by white_lightning35
Painting targets for the railgun that should be on the zumwalt destroyers. Perhaps DAS can track them hot pieces of metal coming in at mach 5, and zero them in on targets or find new ones

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 00:13
by blindpilot
So ... I'll start with NK artillery suppression missions.

I call this the wagon wheel fire hose...

After you suppress most anti air defenses, fly a few B-2 bunker buster sorties ... and have a SEAD/DEAD cap,

You send out 4 F-35s with 32 SDBs and a B-1 with 144 SDBs. The F-35s fly a large wagon wheel formation around the NK border above Seoul, and put a B-1 in the middle of the wheel orbiting.

The F-35s set up a theatre wide Situational overwatch. As popup artillery targets begin to show themselves, the B-1 begins to drop the SDBs carpet bomb/fire hose style into the mix. The System of systems just directs the hose of SDBs like the Phalanx CWIS does its bullets, onto the "next living target." After 144 bombs fall the next B-1 slides into the wheel. The F-35s drop their 32 SDBs as needed to supplement gaps in the B-1 firehose.

This idea is sponsored by "The Last Starfighter"'s Death Blossum.

Your turn,
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 00:15
by blindpilot
white_lightning35 wrote:Painting targets for the railgun that should be on the zumwalt destroyers. Perhaps DAS can track them hot pieces of metal coming in at mach 5, and zero them in on targets or find new ones


I like that one ! :D
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 00:27
by sprstdlyscottsmn
F-35s gather targets coordinates in real time for MLRS, Railgun, and the GPS Howitzer round (name is escaping me) for the eradication of enemy ground forces. Once B-21 comes online you should have an F-35 equivalent sensor and communications node with many times the payload and loiter to gather up intel to quarterback F-35s who in turn quarterback UCAVs that are in of themselves sensor nodes. Upgrading the accuracy and rage of traditional artillery and allowing the airborne assets to target them ends up a force multiplier for the land forces too. Enemy aircraft will never even get into the fight as they will be destroyed on the ground or, if they are able to take off from far enough away, killed by an SM-6 before they enter the detection zone of an F-35. Information Supremacy and Distributed Munitions will be the way of the future.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 00:28
by blindpilot
blindpilot wrote:So ... I'll start with NK artillery suppression missions.

I call this the wagon wheel fire hose... This idea is sponsored by "The Last Starfighter"'s Death Blossum.
BP


Now the way this works in CONOPs development, is someone says, "I think it would be better if the at least 2 of the F-35's carried a couple AMRAAMs for air defense .." and someone says " yeah and the other two could have AGM-88s?"
or
"What if there is a dug in gun that the SDBs can't kill? We need a B-2 hanging around with Busters!"

My guess is that this is exactly what is happening as new 5th gen CONOPs evolve.

MHO
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 00:31
by SpudmanWP
You don't need to put a B-2 in the mix since there are MLRS-Launched SDBs now. They can sit back in SK and launch at F-35 designated targets from 100+ miles away all day long.

Image

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 00:33
by popcorn
F-35s tag team with F-22s for boost phase intercept of ballistic missile launches. DAS provides wide area sensor coverage and once it detects a launch high-flying Raptors use AIM-120s to take them out. F-35s get to deal with the TELs.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 00:36
by blindpilot
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:F-35s gather targets coordinates in real time for MLRS, Railgun, and the GPS Howitzer round (name is escaping me) for the eradication of enemy ground forces. Once B-21 comes online you should have an F-35 equivalent sensor and communications node with many times the payload and loiter to gather up intel to quarterback F-35s who in turn quarterback UCAVs that are in of themselves sensor nodes. Upgrading the accuracy and rage of traditional artillery and allowing the airborne assets to target them ends up a force multiplier for the land forces too. Enemy aircraft will never even get into the fight as they will be destroyed on the ground or, if they are able to take off from far enough away, killed by an SM-6 before they enter the detection zone of an F-35. Information Supremacy and Distributed Munitions will be the way of the future.


I like it, so the question becomes do we need to wait for battlefield prep to do these things, OR

In a system of systems, can we now with F-35 tech, actually unleash C&C destruction, SEAD/DEAD, your distributed artillery, and my wagon wheels all to begin at one single day one zero hour?

Just saying,
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 00:43
by blindpilot
blindpilot wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:F-35s gather targets coordinates in real time for MLRS, Railgun, and the GPS Howitzer round (name is escaping me) for the eradication of enemy ground forces. ...

... In a system of systems, can we now with F-35 tech, actually unleash C&C destruction, SEAD/DEAD, your distributed artillery, and my wagon wheels all to begin at one single day one zero hour?
BP


And we can have the Navy Carriers with their Growlers screaming real loud, "Over Here! Over Here!," off shore, and the SHs jumping up and down waving their arms off shore as a distraction, while zero hour, day one opens, with Air Force, Marines, and Subs/Destroyers doing all the work !!!

Sorry, couldn't help but ding the Navy for dragging its feet on the C. :oops: :oops: :D :D

BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 00:51
by blindpilot
popcorn wrote:F-35s tag team with F-22s for boost phase intercept of ballistic missile launches. DAS provides wide area sensor coverage and once it detects a launch high-flying Raptors use AIM-120s to take them out. F-35s get to deal with the TELs.

That's actually a very good one since boost phase is a bunch easier than the missile defense approach.
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 02:34
by rheonomic
blindpilot wrote:That's actually a very good one since boost phase is a bunch easier than the missile defense approach.
BP


And later, the F-35s can just shoot them down in the boost phase with lasers.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 02:44
by popcorn
F-35s flying shotgun over Osprey-enabled SOF raiding teams to neutralize high-value targets requiring the personal touch. F-35s download tactical picture of the battlespace directly to troopers' tablets in overwatch mode.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 02:44
by white_lightning35
How much power would it take to take down a ballistic missile? Is the f-35 the ideal platform for that rather than PCA or the like? I'm looking at it for a laser strength perspective.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 03:19
by blindpilot
white_lightning35 wrote:How much power would it take to take down a ballistic missile? Is the f-35 the ideal platform for that rather than PCA or the like? I'm looking at it for a laser strength perspective.


Well, it's not so easy as "how much power." It doesn't work that way. There is atmospheric degradation on beam quality, range, resultant net power at that range, target speed, laser dwell time and bloom, and a formula that is as squishy as gelatin. But typically you would want at least a 150kW laser to reliably kill in that engagement. You could probably do it with 100 kW if it was just a few miles away. On the plus side the missile itself is "highly explosive," by its very nature. So golden BB lucky shots are possible on a tube filled with explosive fuels.

In addition laser systems have serious cooling issues not lightly dismissed.

MHO,
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 06:36
by nathan77
blindpilot wrote:On the plus side the missile itself is "highly explosive," by its very nature. So golden BB lucky shots are possible on a tube filled with explosive fuels.


On the other hand, ballistic missiles make use of heat shields and heat resistant materials (to handle atmospheric re-entry). So I think they would be harder to take down than a cruise missile or mortar round.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 08:03
by blindpilot
nathan77 wrote:
blindpilot wrote:On the plus side the missile itself is "highly explosive," by its very nature. So golden BB lucky shots are possible on a tube filled with explosive fuels.


On the other hand, ballistic missiles make use of heat shields and heat resistant materials (to handle atmospheric re-entry). So I think they would be harder to take down than a cruise missile or mortar round.


Another reason the boost phase is a better attack choice. The launch sections are not conditioned for high speed reentry, like the warheads are. That's one reason why I like the F-22/35 attack proposed by popcorn above. That and ... and it's a nice big target .... and you can't make decoy flares that outshine the mega plume ... and having the debris falling on the attacker of course ...

BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 11:10
by Dragon029
nathan77 wrote:
blindpilot wrote:On the plus side the missile itself is "highly explosive," by its very nature. So golden BB lucky shots are possible on a tube filled with explosive fuels.


On the other hand, ballistic missiles make use of heat shields and heat resistant materials (to handle atmospheric re-entry). So I think they would be harder to take down than a cruise missile or mortar round.


Re-entry vehicles have heat shields and heat resistant materials, the rockets themselves have next to nothing - just thin aluminium covering composite pressure vessels - SpaceX's rockets have to burn fuel to decelerate to prevent melting during re-entry; even then they decided to recently swap out the Falcon 9's aluminium grid-fins (used for hypersonic through to subsonic aerodynamic guidance) for titanium ones to make them properly reusable (because the aluminium was melting / burning). Hitting a ballistic missile also means you don't have to deal with a rapidly rotating target, or something that uses (more stable and non-pressurised) solid fuels / explosives.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 11:37
by botsing
So on an abstract level F-35 5th gen not only provide more information but also a better timing of that information?

In the examples given in this thread I see that it often removes time from the enemy and gives more time to the good guys to play with.

Furthermore I see the "each asset a node in the network" as a way to increase redundancy and reduce information gaps.

So as I see it the F-35 5th gen allows a more reliable force focus on a wider time-bandwith.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 13:20
by madrat
The only caveat is that NK actually has few facilities to launch from so its much easier to find a proverbial needle in the haystack.

Suppressing wired in rocket barrages aimed Seoul would be the million dollar question. They need a gun-based Iron Dome network to have even a remote chance of weening down the inevitable barrage. I feel it warrants a nuclear option of some type. It's much easier to defend if they fear the retaliation for its use.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 14:02
by popcorn
NK has invested in making their missiles mobile, including their ICBM. That said, the F-35 is equipped to hunt hem down.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nort ... SKBN19P1J3

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 14:27
by steve2267
Publicly fast-track certification of B61 capability on F-35 (weeks / months time frame).

Deploy a squadron of F-35s to SK.

Announce deployment of B61's to SK. (Peninsula is already nuclear due to NK public development / tests / announced intentions etc.)

Install a Here I am switch (opposite of the fabled disappear switch in F-35. (Something that functions equivalently to those here-i-am lenses.) Start irregular patrols over Korean peninsula with F-35s (which may or may not have B61's onboard.)

Let the NORK's wonder what those irregular blips are that appear at random intervals over random (strategic) locations over NK.

F*ck hard with their minds.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 14:44
by steve2267
I don't know if the acoustic / thermal environments would permit this or not: develop a SIM (SEAL Insertion Module) that would enable you to load a man with combat gear / environmental support gear / switchblade deployable glider into a weapons bay. A four-ship could then deploy an eight-man team quickly, stealthily and pretty deeply into areas normally a no-go.

Of course, getting said team out again could be problematic. I guess that is where the F-35B SEM (SEAL Extraction Mods) comes into play...

I said SEAL, but it could be Delta, MARSOC, Army A-team, Rangers. But the SEALS seem to have a growing affinity for publicity and seem crazy enough.

On the other hand, if it so be F-35B's performing insertion / extraction, then maybe it needs to be MARSOC. Bees are mostly for transport, but can also act as additional ISR nodes / here-i-am distractors.

A fourship of F-35A or F-35C's could fly top cover / ISR / DEAD. Another fourship could put on a Lightning display here / there / over here / over there with their here-i-am switch to distract / confuse / direct enema attention elsewheres. They would have a mix of air-to-ground ordnance including 2000lb JDAMs (preferably the hardened, deep-penetrating sort).
The top-cover F-35's would have a mix of AMRAAMs and SDB's to deal with air-to-air interlopers and DEAD. Extra SDB's would be available to throw into the mix if necessary.

So you are transporting in a recon or assault team, and establishing an airborne cap / ISR / DEAD network above the battlespace. Fuel becomes the limiting factor, I think.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 14:49
by steve2267
News item: NK ICBM rocket testing base blows up. Fuel farm or whatever.

If you can get in and get out unawares, I have no issue with SDB's or JDAM's igniting the pyrotechnics. Maybe even better that they know F-35's did it. F-22s for topcover / ingress / egress.

I don't know if we have anything that can go deep enough to take out their nuke testing facilities. They are probably dug in deep.

Either a nuclear North Korea is acceptable to the US (and Japan and South Korea -- all of southwest Asia) or it is not. If it is not...

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 14:56
by steve2267
It has been discussed on the periphery that a large aspect of future warefare (or probably even current ongoing ops) is cyber. Needless to say, this subject is invariably highly classified.

Without knowing capabilities, it is impossible to realistically suggest 5th gen conops ideas, but...

If it is possible, I would hope the Lightning drivers and their community fully leverage its ability to go places other cannot to deliver electronic packages and/or to somehow map out the cyberspace so that No Such Agency and others (?) can do their thing. On the other hand, it might be the other way around. That agency develops recon in the cyber realm, along with targeting information... so the F-35 sensors know what to sniff out / recognize then deliver something perhaps more kinetically than some bytes.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 16:20
by ricnunes
botsing wrote:So on an abstract level F-35 5th gen not only provide more information but also a better timing of that information?

In the examples given in this thread I see that it often removes time from the enemy and gives more time to the good guys to play with.


Yes, that's precisely what the F-35 does.

You can see that happening in the following video (which I also shared in the NK thread):


Resuming, in the video above you can see the F-35 sensors generating useful and complete information all of this in Real-Time.

botsing wrote:Furthermore I see the "each asset a node in the network" as a way to increase redundancy and reduce information gaps.

So as I see it the F-35 5th gen allows a more reliable force focus on a wider time-bandwith.


You make an excellent point about how a networked system (with lots of information "floating" around that network) may produce redundancy with too much information which would need to be "cluttered" and thus time would need to be spent in order to clutter that same information so to extract what's really important on all the information.
And that's precisely where the F-35 comes in with it's superior sensor fusion which allows the F-35 to not only collect information but also send it thru the network already "cluttered" which allows a much quicker and effective way to react to the enemy and neutralizing it much faster than it was ever possible even in the recent past.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 16:58
by bayernfan
About the boost phase BM defense, very interesting idea, I thought about it in the past and let's do a simply math.

A typical boost phase (engine burning, still inside atomsphere where AIM-120 can hit) for a MRBM--IRBM--ICBM is about 2.5 min or so (am I correct? I know the NK ICBM has engine burning for 6 min, but I don't know how long before it is too high for AIM-120 to hit). Say F-35 DAS can pickup, identify and track the missile 10s after ingnition, and pass the targeting info to F-22 in another 10s, and F-22 decide to launch AIM-120 in 10s. That leave about 2 min for the interception. If F-35 launch the interceptor itself, a little more time, but less initial speed.

For 2 min, a Mach 4 (sustainable speed?) AIM-120 can travel ~165km -- close to its maximum range (>180km according to wiki), which is pretty decent from a tactical perspective. The Korea Pennisula is about 220km wide around 38 line.

Especially if you can strategically put the F-35/F-22 fleet in front of the most likely target (e.g. CSG for ASBM), then enemy's BM will have to travel across this line of defense, effectively enlarge the area that this defense team can cover.

Also, if F-35 can direct AIM-120 launched by F-22 therefore cut 10s-20s of data passing and decision making, if hypersonic weapon is fielded, the protection range will be even larger.

What I think is challenging is that the on-station time for F-35 and F-22 is quite limited for the tactical requirement to have consistent airborne presence, when you don't know when the enemy may launch. B-21 may be the way to go?

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 17:05
by steve2267
The Israeli's reportedly have won the ability (concession?) to develop their own software for the F-35.

VADM Winters (new JPO head) has recently discussed / floated the idea of agile software development.

I believe I have read that the F-35 avionics (i.e. computers) are compartmentalized and in addition to running a commercial OS (Windriver Realtime OS? or something related) are running virtual machines.

Which leads me to wonder the following... if CONOPS are being developed by brainstorming what-if sessions as sketched by BP, and since many F-35 pilots may be engineers (and/or software types), is the following possible / desirable:
  1. A virtual machine for pilots to be able to develop programs enroute / inflight controlling sensors / loyal wingmen / weapons
  2. A higher level virtual machine enabling squadrons / wings to develop their own software / tactics. Programs / tactics thus developed could be shared via squadrons / wings
  3. Software developed by individuals or groups (i.e. squadrons / wings) could possibly be shared immediately even while a mission or flight is underway
  4. A tight feedback loop established between operational groups and contractor (or service engineering personnel, perhaps?) software engineers to modify / develop (in an agile fashion) software that is not flight critical but in an expedited fashion. To expand the tools available to the pilots / squadrons / wings.

If one visualizes system-of-sytems as a net, then a flight of F-35's is one net. But that flight is integrated into a larger net composed of squadrons / wings / (or from a tactical viewpoint) mission(s)-under-way. However, with the development of loyal wingmen drones and smaller tactical subsystems such as MALD-J, a single F-35 and may establish it's "own" net. So you end up with a hierarchy of nets. OR, if a net established by a single F-35 can feed directly to other F-35's or other assets (F-22 (maybe), B-21, future UAVs etc), then you may have a hypercube of nets.

If a high level language of "tactical objects" could be constructed, then the F-35 pilot (and other 5th gen operators) may be seen as moving "chess pieces" around on his flat-panel cockpit display (or in 3D space through his helmet display system with his hands moving objects) or with his voice, and constructing loops / if-then-else constructs for tactical pieces.

So it could become a 3D real-time chess game, but with the fourth dimension of time coming into play both due to range / velocity constraints, but also due to fuel supply imposed limits.

I know when I write a program, the debug cycle can be a PIMA. So trying to write a tactical "program" in flight may not be the time or place to do so. On the other hand, with suitable high level "tactical" objects, and with a programming AI "helping" the pilot by detecting programming "errors" ahead of time ("Sir, do you really want to do that?"), such a concept may be possible in the future.

These "concepts" go to the idea of the F-35 being the "iPhone" of fighters, and the idea that apps are what made the iPhone a game changer.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 17:32
by steve2267
bayernfan wrote:About the boost phase BM defense, very interesting idea, I thought about it in the past and let's do a simply math.

A typical boost phase (engine burning, still inside atomsphere where AIM-120 can hit) for a MRBM--IRBM--ICBM is about 2.5 min or so (am I correct?


I am speculating here, but for a liquid fueled booster ICBM/IRBM (not too dissimilar to a liquid fueled launch vehicle), 2-2.5 min to 60-80,000 sounds plausible. Solid fueled boosters move out a lot quicker. I would guess you may be down to the 1-1.5 min mark to 60-80,000 ft altitude. I say 60-80,000 ft because I am guessing that is the upper altitude limit for an AIM-120 to make an intercept.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 18:25
by SpudmanWP
The only thing Israel is doing is whiting their own "app" and will not be changing anything that is already in the F-35.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 19:06
by steve2267
SpudmanWP wrote:The only thing Israel is doing is whiting their own "app" and will not be changing anything that is already in the F-35.


Right. And I'm merely suggesting that if proper software protections (via virtual machines?) are in place, opening up app writing to others, e.g. US military squadrons or groups, or dare say even pilots, could leverage the "iPhone app thing" angle of the F-35. Who knows what crazy pilot-engineers/software types might come up with.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 20:42
by blindpilot
steve2267 wrote:...
If a high level language of "tactical objects" could be constructed, then the F-35 pilot (and other 5th gen operators) may be seen as moving "chess pieces" around on his flat-panel cockpit display (or in 3D space through his helmet display system with his hands moving objects) or with his voice, and constructing loops / if-then-else constructs for tactical pieces...
I know when I write a program, the debug cycle can be a PIMA. So trying to write a tactical "program" in flight may not be the time or place to do so. On the other hand, with suitable high level "tactical" objects, and with a programming AI "helping" the pilot by detecting programming "errors" ahead of time ("Sir, do you really want to do that?"), such a concept may be possible in the future.

These "concepts" go to the idea of the F-35 being the "iPhone" of fighters, and the idea that apps are what made the iPhone a game changer.


One of the challenges we had back in the 90's was escaping the "factory shutdown," character of production changes. We wrote a high level ?"tactical?" app that got around this.
I wrote a program that removed the question. The change was moved to an internal sim (AI) program running right beside the actual in production code. The architecture of production(robotic code) and sim(offline virtual) ran on the same virtual base. The sim would be given an objective (make more part A's, and less part B's). It would then run thousands of what if simulations targeting a desired result. When it got an answer (usually less than a few seconds), all you had to do was hit the button and the production switched over to the new base code, including individual robot commands.
I am not sure that the F-35 architecture allows this with good safety/reliability, but the concept and actual implementation in robotics has existed for a while.

You don't even have to wave your hands at the functional tasks. Just set the tactical objective, and let "Hal"/"Siri" whoever run the thousands of what if approaches in "Matrix" land, until it gets the best one. That can happen faster than a blink of the eye. Then you simply answer Hal's "Shall I kill the truck? (Y/N)" and you answer with a voice command, "Yes Hal, Please kill that truck.",without even knowing what missile or targeting system is being used.

That's getting to the heart of the possible future of 5th Gen conops. But the pieces are in place now on the F-35. And early "crawl before you run" apps can be implemented almost immediately. Schedule it for block 4.x.

MHO
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 20:55
by steve2267
blindpilot wrote:
... It would then run thousands of what if simulations targeting a desired result. When it got an answer (usually less than a few seconds), all you had to do was hit the button and the production switched over to the new base code, including individual robot commands...

<snip>

You don't even have to wave your hands at the functional tasks. Just set the tactical objective, and let "Hal"/"Siri" whoever run the thousands of what if approaches in "Matrix" land, until it gets the best one. That can happen faster than a blink of the eye. Then you simply answer Hal's "Shall I kill the truck? (Y/N)" and you answer with a voice command, "Yes Hal, Please kill that truck.",without even knowing what missile or targeting system is being used.


"Matrix" land is key here. Depending on how large a task you ask Hal to solve, that computing task could potentially be distributed across other F-35s (parallel processing). But because the F-35's are net-centric, and I assume are tied into the satellite network, it might be possible to task additional assets back home or back at base (think supercomputers) to help solve the problem, if it is a hard problem you have asked Hal to solve.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 21:06
by blindpilot
blindpilot wrote:... Then you simply answer Hal's "Shall I kill the truck? (Y/N)" and you answer with a voice command, "Yes Hal, Please kill that truck.",without even knowing what missile or targeting system is being used.
MHO
BP

It's actually even better than that gee whiz. A scenario such as the following voice command is close to trivial in "iPhone App/Alexa/Siri," world.

"Oh Sh##! Hal, I know I said 'not yet' on the first truck but now, we really need to kill it ... like right now would be very good!"
and Hal will reply, "Already set. Making the first truck dead now."

and then the following conversation ensues. "Dang! Hal How'd you do that so fast?" and Hal says,
"Dave, PFC Jones, 2nd Platoon, Charlie company of the tenth, got him with a Javelin. It was the best 'right now' option to use. You did mean 'right now' yes/no? We could have used the SDB from the drone, but you said 'right now!'"

MHO,
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 22:00
by archeman
popcorn wrote:NK has invested in making their missiles mobile, including their ICBM. That said, the F-35 is equipped to hunt hem down.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nort ... SKBN19P1J3


The F-35 may be able to hunt down those mobile launchers, or maybe that code isn't finished yet?
The B-2 was DESIGNED to hunt down those mobile missile launchers and can perform that mission very well (even if not quite as well) with a bigger magazine and greater time on station.

If the two can play together (and there isn't any reason they shouldn't), even better.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 22:23
by SpudmanWP
IIRC the B-2 is not designed to "hunt" down anything. No FLIR and I am not even sure of what ESM & SAR mapping capability it has.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 22:35
by bigjku
I believe F-35 opens up the possibility of almost instant dynamic targeting and threat assessment. Eventually a group of a dozen F-35 should be able to merge their sensor picture, evaluate the threats, allocate weapons from craft best positioned to strike the particular target and effectively launch an attack on all at once in both ground and air environments. The program would be written to have certain weapons reserved for emerging threats and would allow pilots to designate priorities if they wanted but would be designed to do the vast majority of the work on its own. The pilots would be flying and the computers would do the shooting.

This would greatly simply mission planning. A flight of F-35's would evaluate threats and deal with them at a high rate, faster than any planner could put together a mission.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 22:40
by SpudmanWP
Block 3F is designed to support 25 MADL terminals (6 groups of 4xF-35s and one extra for sharing with the ROTW).

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Sep 2017, 22:52
by count_to_10
archeman wrote:
popcorn wrote:NK has invested in making their missiles mobile, including their ICBM. That said, the F-35 is equipped to hunt hem down.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nort ... SKBN19P1J3


The F-35 may be able to hunt down those mobile launchers, or maybe that code isn't finished yet?
The B-2 was DESIGNED to hunt down those mobile missile launchers and can perform that mission very well (even if not quite as well) with a bigger magazine and greater time on station.

If the two can play together (and there isn't any reason they shouldn't), even better.

Hunting down missile launchers was exactly what the F-35 was originally designed to do.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2017, 01:05
by popcorn
I see the benefit of reviving the NCADE concept ie. an airborne interceptor optimized for chasing down ballistic missiles during boost phase. The missile would have exo-atmospheric capability for a larger intercept window, specially against more energetic solid rocket boosters. Such a missile would fit nicely with the Missile Defense Agency's initiatives to utilize persistent UAS platforms specifically for the BPI mission.

In a wartime scenario the aforementioned F-35/F-22 would extend coverage into hostile airspace.
https://m.usni.org/magazines/proceeding ... orth-korea
https://m.usni.org/magazines/proceeding ... a-part-two

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2017, 02:09
by nutshell
Is pretty much a polite way to say "i see what you're doing before you actually do it".

The potential of such a thing is hard to explain but easy to immagine; literally the "i-win" button.

100% rate of correct strategic decisions is impossible to counter, as long as the turkey stays in the air uncontested.


The response/reaction times of the US forces (plus eventual allies) would be far, far beyond the capabilities of NK.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2017, 02:51
by count_to_10
blindpilot wrote:
blindpilot wrote:... Then you simply answer Hal's "Shall I kill the truck? (Y/N)" and you answer with a voice command, "Yes Hal, Please kill that truck.",without even knowing what missile or targeting system is being used.
MHO
BP

It's actually even better than that gee whiz. A scenario such as the following voice command is close to trivial in "iPhone App/Alexa/Siri," world.

"Oh Sh##! Hal, I know I said 'not yet' on the first truck but now, we really need to kill it ... like right now would be very good!"
and Hal will reply, "Already set. Making the first truck dead now."

and then the following conversation ensues. "Dang! Hal How'd you do that so fast?" and Hal says,
"Dave, PFC Jones, 2nd Platoon, Charlie company of the tenth, got him with a Javelin. It was the best 'right now' option to use. You did mean 'right now' yes/no? We could have used the SDB from the drone, but you said 'right now!'"

MHO,
BP

That would be interesting from PFC Jones's perspective.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2017, 04:23
by rheonomic
steve2267 wrote:I believe I have read that the F-35 avionics (i.e. computers) are compartmentalized and in addition to running a commercial OS (Windriver Realtime OS? or something related) are running virtual machines.


INTEGRITY-178B, actually. It's a commercial RTOS used for a lot of aircraft, including F-22 and F-35. You can isolate processes, e.g.
Image

For more info: https://www.ghs.com/products/safety_cri ... -178b.html

steve2267 wrote:On the other hand, with suitable high level "tactical" objects, and with a programming AI "helping" the pilot by detecting programming "errors" ahead of time ("Sir, do you really want to do that?"), such a concept may be possible in the future.

These "concepts" go to the idea of the F-35 being the "iPhone" of fighters, and the idea that apps are what made the iPhone a game changer.


A better option is probably to have an intelligent decision support tool. Operational pilots have enough to deal with without needing to become full time software engineers as well.

As far as the "app" concept, I'd see that being done more by contractors and the service research labs (e.g. AFRL, NRL, etc.) rather than the operational end.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2017, 07:11
by blindpilot
count_to_10 wrote:
blindpilot wrote:...and Hal says,
"Dave, PFC Jones, 2nd Platoon, Charlie company of the tenth, got him with a Javelin. It was the best 'right now' option to use. You did mean 'right now' yes/no? We could have used the SDB from the drone, but you said 'right now!'"

MHO,
BP

That would be interesting from PFC Jones's perspective.


Indeed. Probably some icon on his iPad suddenly started blinking bright Red - "Immediate Danger Engage now!"

but it does bring up the question of how do you implement such concepts of operations, that doesn't end up with the high level decisions being usurped by robots (or malfunctioning bugs in the software, or worse cyber), or does a 1Lt. pilot have the authority, even tempered by checks and balance, to tell a Colonel to move his battalion west 3 miles, or something more kinetic.

I would simply say that with the F-35, we actually need to be discussing this very thing ... because it's here now ... This is a serious discussion to begin now. Putting together the radically new CONOPs is not a trivial matter. Massive amounts of distributed decisions and actions across the web of networks is not exactly "in Kansas any more, Toto." We'll need to have a controlled manner of pushing information into the cloud, and managing the responses pulling data from it, that will not be a direct chain of command direction.

Something along the lines of the Colonel tells his troops, "We're going in. Monitor the Sit A display and coordinate your actions with the other platoons." The F-35 in this case is an unknown source in the Sit A cloud, with pertinent data for Jones. He's just following the Colonel's orders ... sort of ... I think ... yeah we need to look at this a bit. :shock: :shock:

MHO
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2017, 15:29
by count_to_10
blindpilot wrote:
Indeed. Probably some icon on his iPad suddenly started blinking bright Red - "Immediate Danger Engage now!"

but it does bring up the question of how do you implement such concepts of operations, that doesn't end up with the high level decisions being usurped by robots (or malfunctioning bugs in the software, or worse cyber), or does a 1Lt. pilot have the authority, even tempered by checks and balance, to tell a Colonel to move his battalion west 3 miles, or something more kinetic.

I would simply say that with the F-35, we actually need to be discussing this very thing ... because it's here now ... This is a serious discussion to begin now. Putting together the radically new CONOPs is not a trivial matter. Massive amounts of distributed decisions and actions across the web of networks is not exactly "in Kansas any more, Toto." We'll need to have a controlled manner of pushing information into the cloud, and managing the responses pulling data from it, that will not be a direct chain of command direction.

Something along the lines of the Colonel tells his troops, "We're going in. Monitor the Sit A display and coordinate your actions with the other platoons." The F-35 in this case is an unknown source in the Sit A cloud, with pertinent data for Jones. He's just following the Colonel's orders ... sort of ... I think ... yeah we need to look at this a bit. :shock: :shock:

MHO
BP

That's something like an attribution problem. Specifically, who is taking responsibility for the order to kill? Who gets the blame when something goes wrong? Given that artiary already does a lot of firing blind, that kind of thing has probably been worked out before.
However, I'm thinking that this kind of situation will have the shooter responsible, just with all the information in front of him. Chances are, it will look a bit like Uber, with a priority target signal going out to potential shooters, one (or more) of which will accept responsibility for shooting at it.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2017, 17:44
by rheonomic
blindpilot wrote:Massive amounts of distributed decisions and actions across the web of networks is not exactly "in Kansas any more, Toto." We'll need to have a controlled manner of pushing information into the cloud, and managing the responses pulling data from it, that will not be a direct chain of command direction.


And then, what do you do when the network is faulty? How do you deal with latency in the information presented? Can you provide assurance on the data and systems in the network, and prevent the enemy from manipulating it via information warfare? To degrade the advantage of the network it's probably sufficient for them to damage trust in the network.

How do you avoid people becoming reliant on the unlimited, "perfect" flow on information?

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2017, 18:52
by blindpilot
count_to_10 wrote:... Chances are, it will look a bit like Uber, ...


That simple aside highlights what is changing in a simple and stark manner. The green 2Lt says, "Well Uber does it this way," and the Major answers, "What's an Uber?" That echoes the description of training in the F-22 that Berke spoke of.

It's a culture shift along with new approach. (and that night the Major takes Uber home, and leaves his car in the parking lot, because he realizes that he has a lot to learn.)

MHO,
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2017, 19:21
by blindpilot
rheonomic wrote:...

.. what do you do when the network is faulty? ... latency in the information presented? ... assurance on the data and systems in the network, ... information warfare? To degrade ... damage trust in the network... people becoming reliant on .., "perfect" ... information?


When I first started downloading my Airline boarding pass onto my Samsung S-4, I used to print out a paper copy at home, "just in case". As I used it I began to realize that the system actually keyed on the Pass Code ("XK52U6" or whatever.) If I had that I didn't even need a pass. The security, gate check, etc. people could just type it in and I would still be allowed to fly. They knew who I was, my birthdate, the rest of my itinerary, even if my phone died.

Since then I have always just used the smart phone, and I never needed a paper pass. Now if the airline system servers go down ... well I have bigger problems than my boarding pass ... which is also something to ponder. The CONOPS will need procedures for that.

But those exists as well. I participated in an evacuation of all US aircraft from Kadena in a few short hours, and those procedures including pouring pilots from the O-Club bar into the back of flight line pickups, and aircraft flew with known maintenance problems (our crew chief boarded our plane with parts in a bag and a box for takeoff). Not sure how safe that was, but it worked and happened as if it was well rehearsed.

But your point is well made.

FWIW,
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 09 Sep 2017, 22:14
by spazsinbad
Perhaps this long SLDinfo article with PDF? addresses some issues: [best read at source - graphic for context below]
The Maritime Services, the Allies and Shaping the Kill Web 06 Sep 2017
http://www.sldinfo.com/the-maritime-ser ... -kill-web/

Graphic: http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... espace.jpg

3.42Mb PDF link is at end of article at above URL.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 07:42
by element1loop
popcorn wrote:F-35s tag team with F-22s for boost phase intercept of ballistic missile launches. DAS provides wide area sensor coverage and once it detects a launch high-flying Raptors use AIM-120s to take them out. F-35s get to deal with the TELs.


Superficially it looks like a great idea, except you are duplicating an expensive and adequately functioning capability in SM3 ... in a Joint engagement force - why? It works, and the debris end up in space, then the sea.

Plus F-22A have a job to do and the near borders are China and Russia - they have to stick to their knitting.

Plus if you have 4 to 8 F-35 over DPRK airspace they can see into all the valleys and spot any new contact in near real time, and they may not classify it as a suspected TEL immediately, but give it a minute, and an EOTS image will confirm it. Then when confirmed drop SDB on moving target.

In 2006 it was necessary for IDF to follow the launchers of rockets back to their base hide out the reload, then kill them. With 5th gen you just point the arrow of time backward, and have a look at where that TEL first appeared in the data track, then go look for its LAIR and hit with 5k bomb, rinse, repeat.

The F-35 + SDB is the world's best pre-boost-phase interceptor. Won't probably need SM3s.

F-35 is not mere Airpower, F35 is Datapower. That with distributed Joint weapons is the key.

Combine MDF system with real world data, for US, Allied and mobile LHD and Carrier F-35s aircraft, and thus build a real-time global data picture.

Said data picture improves the MDF, the MDF is built into the SIM engine for training the F-35 Crews, and extended to Air Ground, Sea and Space sim, using same data and engine, to create a global sim to create a massively parallel Global Joint Operations Paradigm, Global Joint Experimentation sim environ, Global Joint Allied Training tool, Global Battle Planning tool, and Weapon Requirement development tool, to test concepts of operations before building an implementing them in the real world.

That BP, is how you will bring it about, step by step.

I am NOT in favour of 5th gen data being used as an excuse for 'open' systems and excessive data access. Need to know only. Mainframe with isolated terminals for tasks and coordinates/targets and a tactical data display that you can not alter, and can be turned off in the event of overrun of forces.

i.e. like what probably exists right now.

DPRK soldier with claw hammer hits junior officer's toes until he provides access. They have access, they better not be able to change things or see everything on that display or terminal. Else they will form small teams to do just that, armed with a hammer.

The data links are the string in the bow, thankfully they're so secure they struggle to give data to teenager aircraft.

I LIKE that! This is good. The system will probably stay up.

The computers attached to the very secure datalinks are the obvious targets, they will be attacked. Why make it easier than it needs to be? Open systems must take a back seat to ensuring data security, in my (defensive conservative) view. I am all for maximising hitting, but let's not lose sight of the big picture.

This is State on State BIFFO! Not COIN.

Why insert a few people in an F-35B? To mess with their heads? Make a headline? NAH!

I want to blow their head off. If I just "mess" with their head, they will not surrender, but if I blow their head off they do not need to surrender. If I keep doing that, the ones with their head still on, will decide sooner or later, that they may like to surrender instead.

You will be ordered to WIN.

Wagon wheel concept looks good, in conjunction with F-35s over NORK proper.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 08:34
by blindpilot
element1loop wrote:...Open systems must take a back seat to ensuring data security, in my (defensive conservative) view. I am all for maximising hitting, but let's not lose sight of the big picture.


Good summary, IMHO. These are exactly the questions that have to be washed, rinsed and dried, to decide how we use the new potential. That will take time, "what if" 'ing, and actual experience in trying approaches, including approaches that "Well that didn't work!"

The best we can say in that regard, is that we have been trying to mix and match F-15s F-16's and F-117s, implement F-22s, using JSTARS etc. for a fairly long time now, the US does have a significant head start in trying to wade through those questions. Building a model airplane(ie. PAK FA, J-20) does not a CONOPS make. You have to fly it ... a lot.

MHO,
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 11:00
by popcorn
element1loop wrote:
Superficially it looks like a great idea, except you are duplicating an expensive and adequately functioning capability in SM3 ... in a Joint engagement force - why? It works, and the debris end up in space, then the sea.

If you are suggesting the SM-3 will have the ability to do boost phase intercepts, then I'd appreciate a source stating this is feasible. It was designed for mid-course intercept using a kinetic impactor that has no propulsion and only has thrusters to steer it into the path of an oncoming warhead. Not something you would use to chase down a BM accelerating away from you.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 15:42
by wrightwing
popcorn wrote:
element1loop wrote:
Superficially it looks like a great idea, except you are duplicating an expensive and adequately functioning capability in SM3 ... in a Joint engagement force - why? It works, and the debris end up in space, then the sea.

If you are suggesting the SM-3 will have the ability to do boost phase intercepts, then I'd appreciate a source stating this is feasible. It was designed for mid-course intercept using a kinetic impactor that has no propulsion and only has thrusters to steer it into the path of an oncoming warhead. Not something you would use to chase down a BM accelerating away from you.

SM3 is exo-atmospheric only. The SM6 on the other hand, might be able to be used.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 15:49
by steve2267
How close would the SM6 launch platform have to be to the missile launch site to be able to make a boost-phase intercept?

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 18:14
by blindpilot
steve2267 wrote:How close would the SM6 launch platform have to be to the missile launch site to be able to make a boost-phase intercept?


Close enough that it would be a tail chase, even at 100-200 miles away. I'm not sure a Standard Missile could pull off a tail chase intercept, considering the speed of the BM by the time the targeting data is available. At the least you've lost the "boost" part of the boost phase and might as well wait till it reaches "mid-course," top of the arch.

I read element's comment as saying that if the current mid course anti-missile tech works (an if that needs examining) then creating an alternate "boost" approach may be redundant. Redundancy brings with it costs and risks. I lean with Popcorn here, in that the costs should be close to zero. We have the data whether we respond or not. The AMRAAMs likely can do the job right "out of the box." That doesn't mean that we don't look at the risk of what I called "Pushing data into the cloud," and over tasking resources unnecessarily. Element is right about that.

But these are all exactly the type questions I opened the thread for, and frankly "we" (current Air Force's/Navy/Joint) don't have all those answers "Yet." But folks like the USMC are running full speed to find the answers.

MHO,
BP

PS- Long ago in a galaxy far away, I was a mission qualed Missile Warning Officer (and other jobs) in Cheyenne Mountain. (That's how I ended up in Colorado). Initial first look launch information, second sensor confirmation, and targeting data resolution is not instantaneous. It's an evolving information flow. Yes we knew the instant a launch happened, and yes we could cue secondary sensors, and yes we knew it PROBABLY was a missile launch. "Probably" is the operative word here. And we also have set off alarms for Sunrises and Moon rises, in the past. The BM is going pretty fast by the time you are sure, even with rapid computing.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 19:00
by wrightwing
steve2267 wrote:How close would the SM6 launch platform have to be to the missile launch site to be able to make a boost-phase intercept?

I'm not sure if it could. I was merely pointing out that the SM3 absolutely can't, rather than trying to speculate about the SM6. The best option is orbiting aircraft with AMRAAM/NCADE.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 19:50
by blindpilot
Full disclosure.
blindpilot wrote:PS- Long ago in a galaxy far away, I was a mission qualed Missile Warning Officer (and other jobs) in Cheyenne Mountain. (That's how I ended up in Colorado).

Note: From Wiki (FWIW) "In the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force, ... Award of the MSM to company grade officers in pay grades O-1 through O-3 (2d lieutenant, 1st lieutenant, captain),... is rare and typically by exception."

This noted. My background on the question, along with other US Space Command, blue suit and contractor work, includes.
MSM BP- -.jpg
Rare perhaps but O-3 MSMs do exist

FWIW per MHO,
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 19:53
by blindpilot
wrightwing wrote:... The best option is orbiting aircraft with AMRAAM/NCADE.


I would tend to agree but Element's cautions are not to be lightly taken. Which is the heart of 5th Gen discussion. We are only beginning to understand what the capabilities can mean, and wonder what that should look like.

I'd like to see a basic AMRAAM 120D test before committing to NCADE. Money spent on hit-to-kill might bring next to no additional benefit. see the SM-6 testing they did. https://news.usni.org/2016/12/15/mda-co ... nched-sm-6 “The SM-6 missile uses an explosive warhead to defeat ballistic missile threats, differing from other missile defense interceptors, such as the Standard Missile-3, which use non-explosive hit-to-kill technology”

MHO,
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 14 Sep 2017, 19:58
by spazsinbad
blindpilot wrote:Full disclosure.
blindpilot wrote:PS- Long ago in a galaxy far away, I was a mission qualed Missile Warning Officer (and other jobs) in Cheyenne Mountain. (That's how I ended up in Colorado).

Note: From Wiki (FWIW) "In the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force, ... Award of the MSM to company grade officers in pay grades O-1 through O-3 (2d lieutenant, 1st lieutenant, captain),... is rare and typically by exception."

This noted. My background on the question, along with other US Space Command, blue suit and contractor work, includes.
FWIW per MHO,
BP

:mrgreen: :applause: Colorado - what a nice place it is too - glad you are not in Kansas anymore ChemoSavvy (Ke-mo sah-bee) :notworthy: :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 00:19
by popcorn
wrightwing wrote:
steve2267 wrote:How close would the SM6 launch platform have to be to the missile launch site to be able to make a boost-phase intercept?

I'm not sure if it could. I was merely pointing out that the SM3 absolutely can't, rather than trying to speculate about the SM6. The best option is orbiting aircraft with AMRAAM/NCADE.

F-35/F-22/AMRAAM solution for BMD exists today and in the not-so-distant future could integrate with a UAV-based system for greater redundancy/coverage.
https://www.hudson.org/research/12321-t ... oost-stage

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 01:57
by blindpilot
popcorn wrote:...
F-35/F-22/AMRAAM solution for BMD exists today ...


As above, I don't know if it's ready "today," but it should be easily (cheaply) checked out (say by tomorrow afternoon :D ) before engaging an expensive NCADE option. Boost phase doesn't need high speed hit to kill.

MHO,
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 02:04
by popcorn
blindpilot wrote:
popcorn wrote:...
F-35/F-22/AMRAAM solution for BMD exists today ...


As above, I don't know if it's ready "today," but it should be easily (cheaply) checked out (say by tomorrow afternoon :D ) before engaging an expensive NCADE option. Boost phase doesn't need high speed hit to kill.

MHO,
BP

Yep, a blast-fragmentation warhead would do quite nicely. The primary impetus to exploring NCADE would be the larger intercept window. Possibly a nice joint program with Japan/Korea.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 02:28
by steve2267
Boost phase intercept of launches from more-or-less known missile launch facilities, or launch areas, could be feasible technically, but sounds to me like there would be a tremendous wear and tear on men and machine to have a 24/7 CAP of the missile fields in place. This CAP would be strenuous enough during wartime, but even more stressful if it has to be maintained 24/7/365. Dear Leader Numnutz doesn't show any signs of slowing down his sabre rattling or missile launching.

You could try to play "games" by CAPing the missile fields only part of the time, and playing the "are they really out there" game. But if they are heading towards putting nukes on their missiles, do you really want to risk a leaker?

And you are going to have to fly the CAP withing what, about 100nm if not closer, to the missile launch fields? Yeah, Romulan cloaking devices should keep you invisible... but it only takes one maintenance (or other?) slip up.

This idea would seem to scream for something like an X-47B or X-47C loitering between 50-60k feet. A GlobalHawk might be able to perform the launch platform aspect (i.e. carry enough weight, high enough, for long enough), but I don't think anyone has mistaken the GH for having a cloaking device.

With the X-47{B/C} (or whatever) you could always mix in manned flights every now and then, but you'd potentially be able to keep up a 24/7/365 missile CAP.

Still, for how long would you want to do this? How long could you keep doing this? A year? Five? Ten? A hundred? It's a bandaid for the NORK situation. That problem will have to be solved some other way, somehow, sometime (possibly soon).

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 03:12
by blindpilot
element1loop wrote:... to create a global sim to create a massively parallel Global Joint Operations Paradigm, Global Joint Experimentation sim environ, Global Joint Allied Training tool, Global Battle Planning tool, and Weapon Requirement development tool, to test concepts of operations before building an implementing them in the real world.
...
Why insert a few people in an F-35B? To mess with their heads? Make a headline? NAH!

etc.
Along with the current NK/Iran situations. Some may ask, "Why we don't just 'stop' any more test launches?"
I think element1loop touches on this. Fifth Gen is an ISR "Intel" explosion. What was it, 1 terabyte of data per sortie? So our concept has to deal with what is, or might become, normal practice in Intel as well as operations.

I can provide some input there, generically speaking. "Intel" might have the ability to know, for example whether a launch is a serious threat, from sources and methods apart from the immediate sensor reports. The military is reluctant to waste kinetic responses on non-threats. Every time you do, you risk revealing something you'd rather not reveal. This is true for example with the "sniper in the church bell tower." Said sniper can provide a tremendous advantage to the team on the ground, for as long as he is unknown. Just knowing, forget knowing where, just knowing that a sniper is in play, changes the enemy behavior. Wasting that exposure on a "no immediate-threat" enemy action, can put the team at unnecessary risk.

This is a part of deciding how to exploit the new paradigm. It brings an advantage that we need to think through on many levels. All in all, however, I'd rather be the one with the sniper in the bell tower, than the one who is in his scope... even if he doesn't shoot, and I have to slug it out hand to hand.

Dang .. 1 terabyte a sortie ... can that be right? ... that's a lot of data .... the F-35 is apparently a lot more than a fighter aircraft.

Just thinking out loud,
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 03:31
by blindpilot
steve2267 wrote:Boost phase intercept of launches from more-or-less known missile launch facilities, or launch areas, could be feasible technically, but sounds to me like there would be a tremendous wear and tear on men and machine to have a 24/7 CAP of the missile fields in place. ....
Still, for how long would you want to do this? How long could you keep doing this? ... That problem will have to be solved some other way, somehow, sometime (possibly soon).


Well I agree that an Operation Southern Watch type thing is problematic. But if you get to "Shock and Awe," it could probably stay up till all the SDBs had found a home, mitigating the threat considerably for the other methods to deal with.

MHO,
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 03:50
by Dragon029
blindpilot wrote:Dang .. 1 terabyte a sortie ... can that be right? ... that's a lot of data .... the F-35 is apparently a lot more than a fighter aircraft.

Just thinking out loud,
BP


I'm not that surprised - to give an example:

Let's just for a moment assume that every camera, from individual DAS imagers to the ISIE-11 HCAM in the HMDS all run at 1080p HD, at 30 frames per second.

If just those cameras are running for 2 hours, and if they're using something like H.264 encoding / compression (probably the most common video compression codec used in consumer devices today), then each camera is generating about 87GB of footage over those 2 hours. With a HCAM, FCAM, EOTS and 6 DAS cameras, that would add up to 783GB of video footage.

Some of the cameras in this jet (like the ISIE-11 sensor in the HCAM and FCAM) run at 60fps though, so each of those cameras would record double the data; around 170GB of video, per sensor, per 2 hour sortie.

Now I don't expect the F-35 to encode its video with H.264, nor do I think every imaging sensor in the F-35 is 1080p (the ISIE-11 cameras are a tiny bit lower in total resolution, the EOTS is considerably lower, the DAS sensors are unknown, etc), but it goes to show where that data can come from. This also assumes that the radar, ESM, maintenance telemetry, etc aren't recording anything. That stuff could potentially amount to hundreds of GB as well.

Also for comparison's sake - if you don't compress the footage at all; just 1 hour of 1080p, 30fps footage equates to about 626GB.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 05:09
by element1loop
popcorn wrote:
element1loop wrote:
Superficially it looks like a great idea, except you are duplicating an expensive and adequately functioning capability in SM3 ... in a Joint engagement force - why? It works, and the debris end up in space, then the sea.

If you are suggesting the SM-3 will have the ability to do boost phase intercepts, then I'd appreciate a source stating this is feasible. It was designed for mid-course intercept using a kinetic impactor that has no propulsion and only has thrusters to steer it into the path of an oncoming warhead. Not something you would use to chase down a BM accelerating away from you.


True. But it will get them on the way out, not necessarily near apogee, but still rising out.

And as you will have no doubt realised, AMRAAM is -1G (plus drag) verses >> +1G.

I came to the view some time back that only a hypersonic hit-to-kill was going to work early, so it's better to focus on F-35 detection up close 24/7 and deliver a pre-boost weapon before the TEL can ready the missile to fire, then use the earlier data to find and kill its magazine. The F-35 can carry 2 x 5000lb GBU 28 simultaneously, so don't even need a bomber or to expose an F-15E/K/J. The limitation though is the number of F-35s available currently, 24/7 (and the number of SDBs available).

//

I hear you, BP, about current and recent experience, that's why I said, "i.e. like what probably already exists - right now". I expect what is there is on the money now, and needs little architecture change. I was in a hurry when I wrote that, it's more just a personal concern about the rush to distribute data everywhere, without thinking through the physical opportunities to exploit it. I just don't want the iPhone or windows mentality to data 'security', such as build it, distribute it, then fix it after your bank account is empty, or drive locked, or auto-reformatting. I know I react strongly to this stuff, but I think limiting connection and air-gapping for significant periods, for small units with specific tasks, that don't require continuous updates, is still the way to go. Cards close to chess when the computer's and their data are target #1.

(I've never thought that mentality was good for iPhone or Windows either ...)

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 05:30
by element1loop
popcorn wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
steve2267 wrote:How close would the SM6 launch platform have to be to the missile launch site to be able to make a boost-phase intercept?

I'm not sure if it could. I was merely pointing out that the SM3 absolutely can't, rather than trying to speculate about the SM6. The best option is orbiting aircraft with AMRAAM/NCADE.

F-35/F-22/AMRAAM solution for BMD exists today and in the not-so-distant future could integrate with a UAV-based system for greater redundancy/coverage.
https://www.hudson.org/research/12321-t ... oost-stage


As you know AMRAAM has range with loft and 1G acceleration past apogee via converting altitude loss to speed maintenance (gliding actually), but range uphill under -1G deceleration plus drag? I have no idea what range it would get with PN intercept course but not enough to be worth considering in range or altitude performance unless you were already close to the launch site.

If you're in and F-35 in the area already, you will see it early, so just kill before the launch. It's a non-problem (and maybe why NCADE has not been the priority). That RQ-4 Laser BPI approach may end up being a full spectrum multirole platform (in practical real-world service ... it'll just end up being very, very useful ... like the RQ-1 was).

Keep the AMRAAMS in the F-35s for other more viable multirole high-value popup ground and air targets, and in the F-22As for Chinese and Russian border watch (yes I know this is not about the NORK situation per-sec, but it sort of is also).

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 05:45
by element1loop
Dragon029 wrote: This also assumes that the radar, ESM, maintenance telemetry, etc aren't recording anything. That stuff could potentially amount to hundreds of GB as well.


I would be extremely surprised if that were not scrupulously recorded for instant ACM type playback and storage.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 05:47
by element1loop
popcorn wrote:
blindpilot wrote:
popcorn wrote:...
F-35/F-22/AMRAAM solution for BMD exists today ...


As above, I don't know if it's ready "today," but it should be easily (cheaply) checked out (say by tomorrow afternoon :D ) before engaging an expensive NCADE option. Boost phase doesn't need high speed hit to kill.

MHO,
BP

Yep, a blast-fragmentation warhead would do quite nicely. The primary impetus to exploring NCADE would be the larger intercept window. Possibly a nice joint program with Japan/Korea.


I'm just going to pre-emptively say that I agree, with exploring NCADE, but simply because of the low numbers of both F-35 and SDBs for the next few years, which makes pre-boost-phase intercept operations difficult to sustain, or far from a given.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 06:07
by element1loop
blindpilot wrote:Well I agree that an Operation Southern Watch type thing is problematic. But if you get to "Shock and Awe," it could probably stay up till all the SDBs had found a home, mitigating the threat considerably for the other methods to deal with.

MHO,
BP


Other than the need to up the SDB production line speed, I like the wagon-wheel approach, except you have it orbiting in a location filled with tube and rocket artillery shots of both sides. Now that would look interesting in helmet view!

But you could have instead race-course slots running north south for lofting SDBs or cruise/glide weapons in between the artillery line(s)-of-fire and displace the wagon wheel(s) left and right (West and East, mostly over water, where the "C" would be nice) of the south side of the DMZ (to preserve the B-1Bs) out of artillery exchange zone.

Then move them north and even in land as the artillery effects, on the North, culminate in a trail-off of their fire intensity (of course you can always fly higher, over a lot of it too).

In addition you could set up two concentric contra-rotating Wagon-wheels at the same altitude but NAV line radially displaced by 10 nm or so, with 8 F-35 and 2 B-2 per 'wheel' (2 x F-35 per quadrant and 1 B2 per semicircle), and have them pass over central NK then central SK on return leg.

If not able to maintain continuously available wheels, do them as often as you can obtain the flights to put them up.

Plus maintain an uninterrupted Johnny-on-the-spot F-35s, prowling near 50 K ft, with F-22s above them over the North.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 06:31
by element1loop
SIM-based and tested dynamic auto-prioritisation is the way to go. Dynamic in the sense that the priority-mix changes at every point in a massively parallel Joint operations paradigm's 'campaign'. Dynamic prioritization and re-prioritization (based on prior simulation thresholds), to maximise effects and maximum suppression, and maximum rate of reduction of return fire, compatible with ROE.

Airpower can not do that without massively-parallel coordinated Joint attack operations and the right weapons and numbers.

I love the idea of SDB and BLU-109 type capability on MLRS and ATACMs with the "DataPower" approach, as it is not optimal to await air delivery of bombs against a high-end threat, or even many lower threats, or close support needs.

I prefer a modular GPS parachute self-righting container with VLS multirole missile with serious range and speed. And the ability for chooks or V-22 to pick up empties and reload them and C-17A to re-deliver them to another location in a battle.

In joint naval terms I would love to see VLS missile containers on fast catamarans that can also be replaced underway using V-22A to get it on board, and empties off, and put in place and locked down with a gantry on the Cat. One or two per fleet and are used preferentially, thus keeping the destroyer and Cruiser magazines full, if a bigger and longer fight develops. As the cat empties, it is replaced on station by another cat, then the first returns to a harbour to reload and refuel, then goes back out to relieve or back up the second cat. That way real fire power can be sustained, without the combat ships dwindling their magazines and becoming exposed.

And no part of it is any longer dependent on the satellites still working, to sustain the firepower and precision data.

Precision de-confliction tech must be automated and pushed to the limit, and auto pilots follow those de-confliction paths precisely, and military airspace controllers must stack the jets and bombs closer and denser than ever before, out of the line of fire.

If this occurs and works and rapidly suppresses and attrites, leading to an undisputable shockingly fast low-casualty 'WIN', this will result in a strong global deterrence, and a more stable and reasonable as well as realistic attitude in diplomacy, with all varieties of geopolitical and territorial opportunists sure of what will happen to them, and adjust/reverse their position.

There's a lot riding on this being done 'right'.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 15 Sep 2017, 10:54
by kimjongnumbaun
I think the next step will be the development of weapons and platforms to take advantage of net centric warfare. I think things will move to concepts such as the B-21 acting as an arsenal ship which relies on the F-35 to provide telemetry. Warfare continues to evolve to the point of us being able to hit them at stand off distances. I think platforms and weapons will be made to take advantage of our information superiority. Why have the F-35 fire an AIM-120 when a Zumwalt destroyer can hit the same fighter with a rail gun for $5000?

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2017, 00:52
by popcorn
The advent of 5gen combat systems has to be causing quite a churn in the thinking and planning of potential adversaries. One wonders to what extent their war planners and specially their pilots are being briefed on the capabilities of the 5Gen platforms and how they would hope to counter these.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2017, 05:13
by blindpilot
popcorn wrote:The advent of 5gen combat systems has to be causing quite a churn in the thinking and planning of potential adversaries. One wonders to what extent their war planners and specially their pilots are being briefed on the capabilities of the 5Gen platforms and how they would hope to counter these.


I don't know if you have ever tried to play a multi player online game with unbearable latency, but when we're talking about SA in the 5th Gen environment, that's close to the problem even closely competitive approaches will face and honestly, when that happens to me in an online game ... I just quit, because I can't play. They'll have to go asymmetric in any counter planning. You can't play half a step behind. Almost as good with a well trained pilot for example will not cut it.

MHO,
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2017, 05:40
by element1loop
BP:
"All 4th gen ideas ... ... are strictly forbidden!"


I realised after I said, "... this is where the 'C' would be nice ... ", that you could achieve the same wagon-wheels and effects with:

4 x Shornets (DEAD and JSOW)
1 x Growler (DEAD)
1 x B-1B (SDB)
1 x F-35C (SDB or JSOW)

Per wagon-wheel, plus added flexibility.

You get the same sort of firepower, some less weapon numbers on wing, but replacements are sustainable 24/7, plus you need the Growler out there in that area anyway, so you use just one ISR-role F-35, instead of 4, per wagon-wheel.

In other words, you don't and can't know how to use the limited number of F-35s, until you task them with 4th gens and a noise maker as well, thus making them effective, and almost a useful.

As the force-mix changes via more F-35s being built. the 5th gens, as actual Airpower (as opposed to ISR role) emphasis must change also. But for now, without the 95% non-LO 4th gens integrated, how can you develop 5th gen CONOPS in any practical way?

I realised you have to understand how to make the entire joint force operate, else your options become very limited fast, and F-35s used inefficiently. And if you don't include navy Shornets, you're missing out on a lot of clout and E-noise that can allow you to use the F-35s that you do have, to the best effect(s).

With the limited number of F-35C used in SA/ISR target prioritisation roles this frees the B for coastal and hinterland attacks plus smashing naval bases, and the A for interior pre-PBI task and suppressing SAMs and COMs. Thus allowing F-15s and F-16s to smash the airfields and kill logistics and rotor-wing. While F-15s and F-16s also occupy the N-S race tracks south of DMZ.

That way you can make the most out of every F-35 you have available, 24/7, until operational numbers rise, past say 500, at which point their baseline strike Airpower starts to be felt also, whilst getting even better at DataPower coverage.


An aside - best to keep in mind that B-2, and future B-21, are night time only for availability to cover NK, thus limiting their suitability in a 24/7 boost-phase solution, leaving just the weapons on the F-35 as the only abailable 24/7 'solution' platform (for now), simply because there are not enough F-22As (120 or less available globally, at any given time) to be splitting their dominance role to include BPI.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2017, 08:48
by popcorn
blindpilot wrote:
popcorn wrote:The advent of 5gen combat systems has to be causing quite a churn in the thinking and planning of potential adversaries. One wonders to what extent their war planners and specially their pilots are being briefed on the capabilities of the 5Gen platforms and how they would hope to counter these.


I don't know if you have ever tried to play a multi player online game with unbearable latency, but when we're talking about SA in the 5th Gen environment, that's close to the problem even closely competitive approaches will face and honestly, when that happens to me in an online game ... I just quit, because I can't play. They'll have to go asymmetric in any counter planning. You can't play half a step behind. Almost as good with a well trained pilot for example will not cut it.

MH
BP



That's a great analogy. Should prettty much mirror the results from F-22 vs 4gen exercises where the mismatch was so lopsided in favor of the Raptor. Any pilots that survive a combat encounter with a 5gen figjter may need some serious counselling and medication. :devil:


http://www.businessinsider.com/psycholo ... ter-2017-5

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2017, 17:10
by blindpilot
popcorn wrote:
blindpilot wrote:I don't know if you have ever tried to play a multi player online game with unbearable latency, but when we're talking about SA in the 5th Gen environment, that's close to the problem even closely competitive approaches will face and honestly, when that happens to me in an online game ... I just quit, because I can't play. ..
BP

That's a great analogy. Should pretty much mirror the results from F-22 vs 4gen exercises where the mismatch was so lopsided ...
http://www.businessinsider.com/psycholo ... ter-2017-5


I found that insider article interesting because of the type of "counter strategy" Russian/Chinese/critics etc. always talk about. Using secret low freq/microphones/triangulation of mach wakes ... whatever .... to find the stealth fighter.

Major Flatley points out that this can actually be a negative. "KNOWING" there is an F-22/35 out there can actually be a negative as your focus and situational management gets sucked into tunnel visioned panic. You see/hear a stealth fighter at every blip and burp of your sensors. You see him when you drop your pen to the floor. IE. - "What was that!" Rather than methodically using whatever tools you have, including a calm attentive focus, you go chasing rabbits.

Things like low freq radars are not necessarily the answer. The AWACS calling out the presence somewhere of an F-22 for the F-18 only made it worse. It won't help if you can't exploit it with your own resources, including Mark 1 eyeballs, and ability of your missiles to lock on and engage. You are chasing ghosts on a screen that already happened a second ago. That's deadly.

FWIW,
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2017, 17:33
by blindpilot
element1loop wrote:BP:
"All 4th gen ideas ... ... are strictly forbidden!"


I realised after I said, "... this is where the 'C' would be nice ... ", that you could achieve the same wagon-wheels and effects with:

4 x Shornets (DEAD and JSOW)
1 x Growler (DEAD)
....

In other words, you don't and can't know how to use the limited number of F-35s, until you task them with 4th gens and a noise maker as well, thus making them effective, and almost a useful.
...


Ok, I'm going to call out a warning, if not a foul here. Certainly Red Flag etc. has shown that the F-35 makes the 4th gen aircraft more effective. I'll not even argue that. But that is not the subject of this thread.

To help frame it. let's look at the discussion Popcorn and I am having above. Using an AWACS with sensors that can "detect but not track," the F-22 creates a dangerous trend away from the reality of 5th gen.

In the example above Major Flatley discusses the disruptive effects (also in another dogfighting article linked at that page) and how the rules change.

Sooooo ... how I look at that in this thread is ...
You can't just jump into a 5th gen furball, like a Kodiak bear grabbing at jumping salmon in a river, .. if you want your 4th gen to have a chance, or for that matter if you want to maximize your 5th gen advantages. The rules changed. So for both the 5th gen and 4th gen adversary, you have to imagine and create a different environment. Think Killer Whales herding fish into a trap managing the situation rather than diving into it. Flatley points out that this is where the F-35 started eating Red Flag adversaries for lunch. Now the Red F-15/16's are going to have to figure out how they might herd possible contacts instead of lighting burners and pulling 9 Gs. (and slapping at salmon) Because that isn't going to work. It doesn't mean you won't light burners, or pull 9G's. You will. But for totally different reasons.

MHO,
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 18 Sep 2017, 18:02
by blindpilot
blindpilot wrote:...
You can't just jump into a 5th gen furball, like a Kodiak bear grabbing at jumping salmon in a river, .. The rules changed... have to figure out how they might herd possible contacts instead of lighting burners and pulling 9 Gs. (and slapping at salmon) Because that isn't going to work. It doesn't mean you won't light burners, or pull 9G's. You will. But for totally different reasons.
MHO,
BP

element1loop wrote: ... how can you develop 5th gen CONOPS in any practical way?


So let's take this and look at 5th gen technique defending a CTF from J-20's I AM NOT going to use my E2C/Ds,F18 E/Gs to set a picket fence. I'm not going to try and "Jam" anything. If I use a Growler (remembering the AF said they didn't want them anywhere near their F-35As) it will be as the wall of a funnel, creating a bubble of RF nudging "any" J-20's that might be out there down the pipe to an escorting Aegis Destroyer. My 4th Gen will be that. Simply RF pop up noise makers nudging the J-20 down a pipe of my own making. Now they will have teeth. They will certainly be cleared to shoot down any J-20s that get in range and that their missiles can get a lock on. That's why the J-20 won't go there.

I am not going to go chasing contacts and tracks. That's 4th gen thinking, and it may not work. I will feed that info into the SA web that says, "There's at least one heading down the pipe. Head's Up!" I will circle other 4th gen RF bubbles behind and on the other side of the possible contact.
5th gen stealth funnel.jpg
5th Gen Defensive Funnel

My F-35Cs and NIFC-CA Aegis ships will be trap setters at the apex of the funnels. And the apex of those funnels will not be anywhere near the CVNs. It will be at a kill zone outside the Carrier group, at a place of my choosing. If I am flying F-35Cs into a target area, I'm going to have that possible enemy tactic in the back of my mind, watching where and how I go. I'm not going to worry about big old WWII radars that cruise missiles can take out.

That's "Thinking Fifth Gen"!

Will it work. I don't know,
but that is how we have to start thinking, working out procedures and ops, testing and exercising, and tweaking into effective CONOPS.

MHO
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2017, 06:11
by element1loop
blindpilot wrote:My F-35Cs and NIFC-CA Aegis ships will be trap setters at the apex of the funnels. And the apex of those funnels will not be anywhere near the CVNs. It will be at a kill zone outside the Carrier group, at a place of my choosing. If I am flying F-35Cs into a target area, I'm going to have that possible enemy tactic in the back of my mind, watching where and how I go. I'm not going to worry about big old WWII radars that cruise missiles can take out.

That's "Thinking Fifth Gen"!

Will it work. I don't know,
but that is how we have to start thinking, working out procedures and ops, testing and exercising, and tweaking into effective CONOPS.

MHO
BP


What's the role and mission of the J-20 out there? Very unlikely it's there to kill jets, or E-2s, etc.

The aim in any fight is to knock the other guy down and flatten his nose out, to be left laying unconscious, or in so much pain he can not effectively fight anymore. Capitulation not required - that's a 'win'.

That J-20 guy wants to win that fight, so is the J-20 pilot going to cooperatively fly (take a preferred swing) in the direction where you electronically 'suggest'?

I don't think so.

I'm always focused on what's actually needed, here and NOW, and soon (i.e. to not be the guy on the bar floor, at the end of the fight). That comes from having to think about a small force that does not have an excess of options or assets, nor the latitude to experiment theoretically in less than ideal ways, to take a big risk of being hit first, or to take less than a sure-footed focused swing (or concept of swinging).

I'm happy to switch to observer mode after this 2-cents if I'm missing the point of your topic BP, no problem.

To me the J-20 in your figure is not out there to tangle with combat or support aircraft, it wants to be effective via hitting the CNV, on the metaphorical nose, in a knock-out punch. That's what the Chinese investment in the J-20 was for (in my estimation). They are not going to muck about chasing electronic phantoms, or stumbling about into predictable trap attempts.

Above all that J-20 wants to remain unseen and undetected, to get in that big surprise hit, so what is a wall of noise or even limited and directed noise going to do to change that? Put him off his game a bit maybe.

Detection and tracking is what matters (well, duh!).

So where is he going to fly? What will be his approach? What tactics? What weapon? What targeting data or Intel?

He will have a waypoint to go to and a search area, and 'good-enough' Intel, and possibly some rather questionable sensor data or chirps, which he will presume are probably decoys/distractions. He needs to isolate where the CNV is and go towards there and fire, unseen, and vamoose (instead of where you electronically suggest he should fly).

And how long are you going to be waiting around with that 'funnel'? What's your real imperative? Catch J-20s that way, if it's combat ops already? Or blow up its shelters and runways?

The J-20 closes and fires unseen or else he will get a round-house King-hit instead, and end up on the floor. But he will believe he can win, and the state has provided a tool to do it, and he's not going to be side-tracked so easily.

Such propositions can get much too clever, and just over-think it, loosing sight of the point of why that enemy 5th-gen is out there.

A sub, or Sat, or non-combatant 'ally's' civil flight, or hydrophones thrown off a trawler, could have the CNV located, if not tracked, and providing good-enough current attack Intel to the J-20 pilot.

So I would attempt to disrupt his comms with EA, if possible.

The motive and objective of the J-20 are more-or-less known. The weapon load of the J-20 is not, but can be deduced, or even presumed. Its pilot's Intel quality is unknown. It's sensor data is going to be limited and questionable to the pilot, as he will expect deceptions. But in the end it will probably be a bit of a stab in the dark with a volley of quasi-LO missiles.

Thus certain options are available, and certain actions must be taken to get a 'surprise' 5th-gen hit using an unknown 5th-gen-ish passive ASM weapon.

Yes, I'd make noise to frustrate or negate active sensors and comms, limiting recon and C&C, as this is not just about using air combat between 5th gen jets, in a Joint operational context. The regional EA has more than one Joint purpose and imperative.

I would not make active ship or intercept-able aircraft emissions (nothing new there), even the E-2 is not desirable, except as a mostly passive command platform.

I might however investigate the potential of creating an EW very-long-baseline VHF radar interferometer network using barges placed across a region, or islands, or even on unmanned ships to defeat J-20 LO approach, and tactical movement, thus allowing vectored F-35B/C DAS and EOTs interceptions, detection, tracking and passive engagement (and of course provide an alert to the ships).

i.e. see the first punch coming, side step it, get in the first punch yourself ... then smash its airbase and J-20 shelters with the second punch.

That would have been my preferred first move, but the reality of events and diplomacy constrain that safer pre-emption option, so my first combat action had better be the most effective and the least, "... Will it work. I don't know ...", type option.

I understand your desire to explore the intriguing options here. To me it requires focused reality-checks, like the observation a wagon-wheel approach with Shornets, rather than F-35 works just as well, and frees up many F-35s in each 24hr period, for more 5th-gen oriented combat leverage. i.e. I can do more with the limited number of 5th-gens, once I determine how I can free up the still very limited numbers of 5th gens available.

In other words, I am thinking of here and NOW. For as you also said at the beginning of thread, the F-35 is here now, not later, so now is the time for the discussion of concepts for its operation. Does that not imply a context of examinations of operating actually NOW?

In future (five years from now) the limited numbers of now will not be a consideration, hence the statement of how can I practically develop CONOPS if I don't know how many F-35s I'll have available for 5th gen tasks, and opportunities? Hence the need to not assign them to roles or tasks that other jets can do, using other existing assets - now.

As I see it the US does not have a full-blown pending problem of 5th-gen CONOPS to the same extent some of its allies do. The US is using the same basic F-35, in three services, hence JOINT strike fighter. And your force does not become 5th-gen dominated until well after 2030 (about a decade after some allies).

To me it's a more immediate factor, it has to be practical, it can not be theoretical flourishes, it has to take into account limited resources corralled to maximise the biggest, most timely and most precise punch achievable, in the shortest possible time.

If J-20s show-up, adjust, no biggie - as you said, manage the flow, not all claw.

So I can't practically ignore the existing Joint force of now, especially if 95% of the available JOINT force is neither LO or 5th gen, if we're really considering the operation of F-35 that has arrived in operation.

That also is part of "Thinking Fifth Gen", at least in a context that's meaningful to me.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2017, 17:14
by blindpilot
element1loop wrote:
blindpilot wrote:That's "Thinking Fifth Gen"!
Will it work. I don't know,
but that is how we have to start thinking, working out procedures and ops, testing and exercising, and tweaking into effective CONOPS.
MHO
BP


What's the role and mission of the J-20 out there? ... That J-20 guy wants to win that fight, so is the J-20 pilot going to cooperatively fly (take a preferred swing) in the direction where you electronically 'suggest'? ... I'm always focused on what's actually needed, here and NOW, and soon (i.e. to not be the guy on the bar floor, at the end of the fight). That comes from having to think about a small force that does not have an excess of options or assets, nor the latitude to experiment theoretically in less than ideal ways, to take a big risk of being hit first, or to take less than a sure-footed focused swing (or concept of swinging). .....So where is he going to fly? What will be his approach? What tactics? ... The motive and objective of the J-20 are more-or-less known. ... But in the end it will probably be a bit of a stab in the dark with a volley of quasi-LO missiles.... I might however investigate the potential of creating an EW very-long-baseline VHF radar interferometer network using barges placed across a region, or islands, or even on unmanned ships to defeat J-20 LO approach, and tactical movement, ... In other words, I am thinking of here and NOW. For as you also said at the beginning of thread, the F-35 is here now, not later, so now is the time for the discussion of concepts for its operation. Does that not imply a context of examinations of operating actually NOW? .....So I can't practically ignore the existing Joint force of now, especially if 95% of the available JOINT force is neither LO or 5th gen, if we're really considering the operation of F-35 that has arrived in operation.

That also is part of "Thinking Fifth Gen", at least in a context that's meaningful to me.


Actually your post is the type of back and forth that needs to be shaken out BEFORE we implement a CONOPS exploiting the new system of systems. So I see your answer as a part of that discussion. So your post seems on target to me for that reason. I would also consider that if you have a world class sniper, you don't necessarily say that you would rather send in a Tank Platoon to an urban battlefield. You might use the tank for other purposes, and have the sniper set the kill zone.

As to the bar fight analogies, my training was in Judo, Jujitsu, and natural stance Isshin Ryu styles, not boxing or Taekwondo-type power styles, soooo ... I may be a bit slanted that way. However, to the point of the thread, the best Mixed Martial Arts guys, train and use both. :D :D

MHO
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2017, 18:10
by blindpilot
element1loop wrote:What's the role and mission of the J-20 out there? ...

Above all that J-20 wants to remain unseen and undetected
... And how long are you going to be waiting around with that 'funnel'? What's your real imperative? ... So where is he going to fly? What will be his approach? What tactics?


As to the specifics of the example proposal above, perhaps it's better not to characterize it as waiting around in a "well laid trap," and see it rather as what is typically known in land warfare as terrain exploitation, or setting the battlefield.
Classic Stealth penetration.jpg
Normal stealth penetration flight

So what is the J-20 going to do? Well we have the classic "weave between the diminished radar coverage ingress" to the target. That is a classic stealth attack from the F-117 to the up coming B-21. So in the example we have a typical fleet deployment above. The element we add is how to exploit the F-35C. I propose we have him exploiting the Blue X kill zones where we pretty much know the J-21 will be trying to take. Now hopefully our (and I'm guessing the near peer adversary also hopes) our radar coverage circles, and alternative ISR (Satellite, DAS etc.) will actually be able to track the J-21 as he weaves through the radars. But the point is you set the battlefield for where the enemy will go and insert the 5th gen F-35C with DAS etc. into the kill zones ... ie. down the valley between the mountains, and create ambush points rather than climb over the mountains trying to find the enemy to attack face to face. I'd rather smack him on the back of the head, where he doesn't even see me coming. "Mano a Mano" has a habit of getting hit by the lucky shot.

These type of land battle techniques are emerging in 5th gen tactics. The idea of out ranging with sensors and weapons, as a way to "see first, shoot first, kill first" (4th gen thinking) needs to be fine tuned into a SA battlefield management philosophy, where you do in fact "see first," and then manage a "best shot," and "no escape zone" assured kill. That's the dialogue that needs to evolve in our CONOPS.

MHO,
BP

PS NOTE: This (fleet defense) is just an example case of using fifth gen thinking. It is not meant to imply ignoring other mission sets, interdiction, SEAD/DEAD, CAS, A2A CAP, etc. Those also need to be thought through similarly.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2017, 20:39
by wolfpak
5th gen operations may evolve to pair F-35’s with stealthy recce assets like the RQ-170 to have persistent surveillance and stealthy strike capabilities along with the ability to hit time critical targets regardless of weather or time of day. The F-35 by using stand-off weapons like AGM-158 will have the ability to hold leadership targets at risk during daylight. Nothing like hitting a capital city unannounced at high noon. This pairing would be great for finding the TEL’s of the ballistic missiles as well. Reassigning the target selection of inbound JASSM’s, Tomahawks and JSOW C-1’s could also be a role F-35’s can play using its sensors to determine if a target has already been destroyed and freeing assets for other aim points. Finally, although a bit fanciful, the teaming above could be used to destroy the bad guys boomers in the shallow littoral that are too protected by airpower and ASW assets to risk P-8’s or an SSN. It would take work to modify the RQ-170 to act as a sonobuoy radio relay and provide a means of dropping them along with a torpedo or CASTOR mine from the F-35 but why not?

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 26 Sep 2017, 23:55
by neptune
wolfpak wrote:5th gen operations may evolve to pair F-35’s with stealthy recce assets like the RQ-170 to have persistent surveillance and stealthy strike capabilities ... It would take work to modify the RQ-170 to act as a sonobuoy radio relay and provide a means of dropping them along with a torpedo or CASTOR mine from the F-35 but why not?


....RQ-170 or ....MQ-25 Stingray (just hanging around the area, CVN and all)????
:)


.....QS-3 Viking; sonobuoys, mines, torpedoes, etc. CVN certified; long range, persistence. Flying 2019.
...later upgrades; MADL, AESA, EODAS, JPALS, etc.
:twisted:

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 27 Sep 2017, 00:43
by popcorn

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2017, 07:37
by element1loop
Given the aircraft carries no external tanks (no use of weapon payload or pylons), and can potentially carry as many a 24 PGMs, I don't see why it can't operate as F-111s did:

1 x BOMBER (lone-wolf striker)

(Per load-out in this link: viewtopic.php?p=376825#p376825 )

So who needs the wingman, if you have LO and DAS, to keep from being surprised/jumped, plus has integrated CAP nearby, for example, operate a 24-aircraft squadron effort in this form:

15 x F-35 BOMBERS (lone-wolf but MADL connected)
4 x F-35 CAP
1 x F-35 Command and control

For 20 jets ... or as many as are available on that day, to act in BOMBER ROLE.

15 F-35 x 24 PGMs = 360 PGM Standoff weapons per sortie with the weapons able to fly from 15 distinct geographical locations simultaneously. Plus they have their own airborne strike command interfacing with HQ.

Thus 360 PGMs within a decentralised geographically distributed, but highly-connected and coordinated attack sortie, per squadron, per day, with self-provided CAP, per squadron.


EDIT: "to fly from 12 distinct geographical locations", ... to ... "to fly from 15 distinct geographical locations"

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2017, 15:05
by steve2267
element1loop wrote:Given the aircraft carries no external tanks (no use of weapon payload or pylons), and can potentially carry as many a 24 PGMs, I don't see why it can't operate as F-111s did:

1 x BOMBER (lone-wolf striker)

(Per load-out in this link: viewtopic.php?p=376825#p376825 )

So who needs the wingman, if you have LO and DAS, to keep from being surprised/jumped, plus has integrated CAP nearby, for example, operate a 24-aircraft squadron effort in this form:

15 x F-35 BOMBERS (lone-wolf but MADL connected)
4 x F-35 CAP
1 x F-35 Command and control

For 20 jets ... or as many as are available on that day, to act in BOMBER ROLE.

15 F-35 x 24 PGMs = 360 PGM Standoff weapons per sortie with the weapons able to fly from 12 distinct geographical locations simultaneously. Plus they have their own airborne strike command interfacing with HQ.

Thus 360 PGMs within a decentralised geographically distributed, but highly-connected and coordinated attack sortie, per squadron, per day, with self-provided CAP, per squadron.


I'm a little slow this morning. Coffee hasn't kicked in yet I guess. So please pardon the question...

which F-35 variant carries 24 precision guided munitions internally? I count eight (8) SDBs... or eight (8) SPEARs (UK, eventually). I can't figure out how you get to 24, internal only?

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 28 Sep 2017, 15:58
by SpudmanWP
I think what he meant was that since the F-35 carries it's fuel internally then all of it's external wing stations can be dedicated to PGMs.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2017, 00:37
by rheonomic
Would be interesting to wargame some of these ideas in something like Command (probably the best option for public domain)...between all the people on F-16.net we could probably come up with some pretty good scenarios.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2017, 02:25
by popcorn
SpudmanWP wrote:I think what he meant was that since the F-35 carries it's fuel internally then all of it's external wing stations can be dedicated to PGMs.

Yeah, though LO is a crucial enabler for the F-35 to operate in lone wolf mode and hanging all that ordnance under the wings negates hat advantage. Maybe he can bring along a friend eg. an additional F-35 or some of those Kratos drones.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2017, 03:32
by element1loop
steve2267 wrote:
element1loop wrote:Given the aircraft carries no external tanks (no use of weapon payload or pylons), and can potentially carry as many a 24 PGMs, I don't see why it can't operate as F-111s did:

(Per load-out in this LINK: viewtopic.php?p=376825#p376825 )



I'm a little slow this morning. Coffee hasn't kicked in yet I guess. So please pardon the question...

which F-35 variant carries 24 precision guided munitions internally? I count eight (8) SDBs... or eight (8) SPEARs (UK, eventually). I can't figure out how you get to 24, internal only?



:doh:

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2017, 04:19
by element1loop
popcorn wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:I think what he meant was that since the F-35 carries it's fuel internally then all of it's external wing stations can be dedicated to PGMs.


Yeah, though LO is a crucial enabler for the F-35 to operate in lone wolf mode and hanging all that ordnance under the wings negates hat advantage. Maybe he can bring along a friend eg. an additional F-35 or some of those Kratos drones.


Yes to both, flog-out IADS sensors, comms and SAM network with DEAD weapons - first. Goes without saying.

i.e. second to third wave, where 4.5 types are currently envisioned to be progressively useful as viable striker platforms, and where the LO imperative is fading.

The difference in this case is you can drop the external stores fast if there's a tactical imperative to reclaim LO immediately. Such as if a SAM pops-up inside its tracking radius (i.e. not just to reduce drag and improve agility, range and endurance performances, when under threat).

It's a reasonable estimate that the occasional need to jettison remaining externals, to reclaim LO advantage, would be rare enough to not impinge (almost at all) on the effectiveness of a lone-wolf BOMBER strategy, which aims to maximise +70 km standoff PGM hitting power at the earliest possible phase of the attack, thus far more rapidly attriting and degrading the quality and quantity of opposing counter fire opportunities, and to generally suppress every aspect of any quasi-Joint opposing force.

There's no reason why one of the outer pylons can not be dedicated to suitable DEAD weapon, if the tactical situation suggests that would be a good idea, thus providing the option to immediately fire on that popup SAM, putting it defensive and distracting, well before resorting to jettisoning externals, to break track, or missile lock (if they're feeling lucky).

No panic ... get 'agro' instead.

Main point being, there's no need for an F-35 to even be in an open formation, with a designated 'wingman'. We could (from here) engineer/procedure-away the need for a wingman, via LO, DAS, SA, Coop-Engagement and open 4-ship escort from same squadron, plus each F-35's own 2 x AMRAAM (which could also be used to kill/suppress a SAM radar mast or comms vehicle fast, perhaps sufficient to not need to jettison at all ... thus attack the SAM with weapons you didn't in fact, jettison).

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2017, 04:54
by element1loop
Further to that lone-wolf distributed attack, if you have ~20 F-35 in a squadron-level attack flying all over the country (or a region of the country, and altitude range) in 20 different geographical locations within it, can you imagine what would occur if a flight of the dreaded 4 x Su-35 popped-up in the middle of such a distributed and decentralised 5th gen attack squadron?

There's immediately no need to use fuel (and create heat) to flank them, or to excessively plan and think it out, in order to get into an ideal relative ambush position/location, almost immediately.

With no F-35 flight formations at all, the Su-35s are going to innately be pre-surrounded from the moment they lift off. At least 2 or 3 F-35s are going to be at or close to an ideal launch position for a shock, sudden and early ambush opportunity (before Su pilots are cleaned-up at altitude with speed and SA ready to attempt to find and fight).

Plus there will be more F-35s along in a few minutes from multiple axis of approach and multiple firing directions (so no escape option) if there were a residual 'fight', thereafter.

That's more-or-less an ideal situation for coop-engagement tactics.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2017, 05:37
by element1loop
A further 4th gen to 5th gen transition 'clarifying' point.

If the above F-35x tactics were adopted the implications become very compelling fast, particularly for naval aviation. For example, if a single CVN holds 48 F/A-18E/F the potential PGM strike weapon load per sortie/ per CVN is:

48 SHornets x 4 PGM = 192 weapons

But if you carry BOMBER pimped-out F-35C's, you potentially get:

48 F-35C x 24 PGM = 1,152 weapons

1,152 weapons / 192 weapons = 6 times more

Thus the single CVN can increase its current attack firepower (and thus deterrence) by six times if it carries a fully developed BOMBER ROLE F-35C.

Consequently, if 4 x CVN with thus configured F-35Cs sail up to NORK land this would be equivalent to 24 CVNs with Shornets parking in the immediate region.

That's a compelling reason to get into F-35C earlier, no? Would it not provide a compelling military option for almost any near-ish future situation?

Taking this thought a step further, suppose a middle-power like Australia built a third LDH to operate 10 x F-25B, that would equate to:

10 F-35B x 24 PGM = 240 PGM weapons

So a USN CVN with 48 x SHornets can strike with 192 PGMs per sortie, but a Canberra-Class LHD so equipped could potentially equal or exceed a current CVN's typical firepower!

So LHDs are quite a good investment for a middle-power F-35 operator (if ASW capability is not impinged on the other two LHDs).

So are Chinese carriers a problem then, for even for a middle-power? Not so much.

But the further point is that a near-peer adversary has then a maximum imperative to invest in a sub-launched LRASM-type weapon and 5th gen air to surface standoff LO platform with LRASM-type capabilities (including land attack).

So the tactics depicted and emphasised by BP become more important, as does VHF detection of J-20/21 approach/movement (in peace or combat). As does the comment by 'wolfpac' regarding the need for littoral 5th-gen ASW capabilities, both of which I firmly agree with (except that the 'boomers' per-sec will spend almost no time over a littoral, but SSGN and SSG threats will become sufficient enough to justify developing that - as carriers become so much more pivotal to both deterrence and power-projection, than ever before).

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2017, 06:17
by blindpilot
element1loop wrote:.... As does the comment by 'wolfpac' regarding the need for littoral 5th-gen ASW capabilities, both of which I firmly agree with (except that the 'boomers' per-sec will spend almost no time over a littoral, but SSGN and SSG threats will become sufficient enough to justify developing that - as carriers become so much more pivotal to both deterrence and power-projection, than ever before).

wolfpak wrote:5th gen operations may evolve ... Finally, although a bit fanciful, the teaming above could be used to destroy the bad guys boomers in the shallow littoral that are too protected by airpower and ASW assets to risk P-8’s or an SSN. It would take work to modify the RQ-170 to act as a sonobuoy radio relay and provide a means of dropping them along with a torpedo or CASTOR mine from the F-35 but why not?


Concerning the ASW issues,

I hadn't pursued it, but the Navy is rapidly moving towards a subsurface mesh interface 5th Gen approach with small UUVs, deployed out of the "old timey" sonobuoy tubes. No more sonobuoy deployments. These inexpensive baby drones persist for long self charging periods (at the least days, if not weeks), just laying a sonar/mad/thermal/laser net over the area with dozens to hundreds of these. Actual tracking of subs can become so efficient, that the "silent" service may be at some risk in such littoral setups. P8s will shoot these drones out instead of sonar bouys.
http://csbaonline.org/research/publicat ... a-warfare/ "today sensor, processing, power, and communication technologies are on the verge of breakthroughs that could revolutionize the capabilities of undersea platforms."
uuv drones.jpg
Raytheon Coyote, Silver Fox, et al

If a few of these, integrated into the underwater net, maintain surface radio/satellite contact, that web will flesh out an SA view of the underwater zone as well for such aircraft as the F-35 to pick up. General 5th Gen Situational Awareness is on the verge of an explosion of possibilities. The MQ-25 Stingray may end up with an ASW variant to replace old 4th gen ASW S-3 type purposes. (mama drone dumping baby drones out over the sea, and linking that web into the NIFC) If the "S"Q-25 can do that, then it's child's play to make it a TALD carrier/deployer for the F-35 to control in the air war. I see that before a penetrating UAV bomber.

This too is 5th Gen stuff.
element1loop wrote:.... as carriers become so much more pivotal to both deterrence and power-projection, than ever before).


I'd agree with that. Kinda like a big old mother ship spewing out lotsa nasty locust swarms.

MHO,
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2017, 10:22
by popcorn
blindpilot wrote:

I hadn't pursued it, but the Navy is rapidly moving towards a subsurface mesh interface 5th Gen approach with small UUVs, deployed out of the "old timey" sonobuoy tubes. No more sonobuoy deployments. These inexpensive baby drones persist for long self charging periods (at the least days, if not weeks), just laying a sonar/mad/thermal/laser net over the area with dozens to hundreds of these. Actual tracking of subs can become so efficient, that the "silent" service may be at some risk in such littoral setups. P8s will shoot these drones out instead of sonar bouys.
BP


The oceans, specially in the littorals, is gonna be a crowded place relatively speaking if the Navy has it;s way. Everyone has experienced their cellphone dying at the most inopportune time and the Navy is studying seeding underwater charging stations that it's submerged robot fleet will tap into for a quick charge.

https://defensesystems.com/articles/201 ... v.aspx?m=1

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2017, 15:27
by wolfpak
Coincidently the Navy has just activated it's first undersea drone unit:

http://navaltoday.com/2017/09/27/us-nav ... -squadron/

Larger drones will go far in seeding these mesh networks and possibly providing connectivity.
Think the logistics of the F-35 Bomber will be daunting for carriers. Lots of weapons to store, unpack and load. Only boomers I think would be close in shore would be the one or two of a state like the DPRK.
If you could find a sensor that will detect the J-20 and can be carried by redundant MQ-9's you could use them to set up a picket line to shield CVN's etc.. Another platform for this would be the MQ-4C.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 29 Sep 2017, 15:39
by spazsinbad
Comms undersea via raw TUNA may be relevant: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=52659&p=359852&hilit=underwater#p359852

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2017, 04:35
by element1loop
wolfpak wrote:Think the logistics of the F-35 Bomber will be daunting for carriers. Lots of weapons to store, unpack and load.


Palletised fast-catamaran delivery is a clear option, it has a large innately stable (and actively stabilisable) deck, with a helicopter pad and sling loading deck and hoist from storage deck, for pallets or containers of PGM weapons. If most PGMs are <500 lb you could replenish with a lot of weapons with just 3 to 4 helicopters, for sling-load transport.

Max daily weapon sortie load out (lb)
1,152 weapons * 500 lb = 576,000 lb

External payloads rotor-wing:
V-22B = 15,000 lb (up to 22,000 lb over short distances)
CH-53E = 36,000 lb

For V-22B this equates to 29 max-payload slings from fast-catamaran to CVN-21.
For CH-53E this equates to 16 max-payload slings from fast-catamaran to CVN-21.

Keep in mind that if you clobber and supress the enemy's force properly on the second wave, there will be a lot less need for weapons use in the third and forth waves, so a lot more bring-back.

wolfpak wrote:Only boomers I think would be close in shore would be the one or two of a state like the DPRK.


That means all their eggs are in a geographically small sliver of the available NW Pacific hiding space (and depth). I can't see their navy doing that as it's the role of the mobile TEL missiles to hide locally. While for the boomer it's to widen the area for stealth and evasion options, spread your enemy's forces thinner, and to get closer to targets for less warning time, and thus increase deterrence level (from their perspective).

Plus closer is best for an H-EMP style attack, on civil and mil infrastructure, which is NORK's declared preferred use of nuke payloads.

wolfpak wrote:If you could find a sensor that will detect the J-20 and can be carried by redundant MQ-9's you could use them to set up a picket line to shield CVN's etc.. Another platform for this would be the MQ-4C.


Not such a bad idea either, as the longest-axis of any 5th gen jet design is generally approximately level with the horizon, so why not use a horizontally polarised VHF array emitter/receiver on the drone?

i.e. one in the fuselage and one per extended wing tip, or pod (extendable and retractable), to thus form a 3 antenna horizontally polarized array, per drone.

Its highest gain levels would then be in beam aspect, so race-course regional picket would work. And if they actually work, as advertised, they're thus rendered defendable. There's also the possibility of VHF antenna in each wing and elevator structure to improve polarisation directionality (if flying away from a detected 5th gen threats).

The main factor is it would need a suitable source of electron/watts, payload and structural strength and this seems to imply a turbine-powered drone ('BAMS' extension?).

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 22:07
by wolfpak
From Naval today:

GA-ASI’s MQ-9 Predator B remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) demonstrated its capability to remotely detect and track submerged contacts during a US Navy exercise on October 12, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems announced.
Sonobuoys were deployed by US Navy helicopters and acoustic data gathered from the sonobuoys were used to track underwater targets.
The data was transmitted to the MQ-9 and processed onboard, then relayed to the MQ-9’s ground control station (GCS) several hundred miles away from the target area.
According to GA, the event successfully paired sonobuoy receiver, supplied by Ultra Electronics, and data processing technology, provided by General Dynamics Mission Systems-Canada, onboard the MQ-9. A track solution was calculated and transmitted from the aircraft to the Ground Control Station (GCS) via SATCOM. This technology will provide long-range patrol and relay capabilities to the MQ-9 to augment maritime mission sets.
“This test demonstrated the ability of our RPA to detect submarines and provide persistent tracking of submerged targets,” said Linden Blue, CEO, GA-ASI.
The MQ-9 was also equipped with GA-ASI’s Lynx Multi-mode Radar. The Lynx radar featured its Maritime Wide-area Search (MWAS) mode, which detects maritime surface targets over a wide area with Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar (ISAR) for target classification. The aircraft’s Electro-optical/Infrared (EO/IR), high-definition Full-motion Video (FMV) camera supports the identification of surface vessels. These sensor contacts are correlated with the Automatic Identification System (AIS) to verify target identity. Additionally, the MQ-9 can be fitted with a centerline pod that can house a longer-range, 360-degree field of regard maritime surface search radar for enhanced surveillance over water.
The flight test was conducted over the Southern California Offshore Range (SCORE) west of San Clemente Island.
Share this article

Follow Naval Today

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2017, 22:28
by spazsinbad
GA-ASI’s MQ-9 Used in Successful Anti-Submarine Warfare Demonstration 14 Nov 2017
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ga-asi-m ... 00132.html


Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 03 Dec 2017, 11:40
by popcorn

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2018, 23:28
by steve2267
The "F-35 is a PITA to North Korea" thread got me thinking...

IF (a big if) it was determined that AIM-120's could take down an IRBM or ICBM early in flight, and you have assets (e.g. F-35's, maybe F-22's, maybe 4th gen assets if they are wired into the combat cloud sufficiently) in the area, perhaps conducting CAP or strike, ISR, or whatever... and "the cloud" determines that Olds Three can intercept...

  1. How long do you think it would take a typical driver to receive the "shoot this thing NOW" order, orient to the order, react to it, and shoot the AIM-120? That is, what would the OODA time be for a driver to respond to a (potentially wholly unexpected) order to fire one of his(or her) AIM-120s at a target he may not yet be cognizant of? 5 seconds? 10? 20?
  2. If response time is critical in order to effect a ballistic missile shootdown... what would the driver community say to an automated launch? That is... you're flying along, preparing to execute a fragged strike, when in your F-35 godhed (HMDS) and on your flat panel display, you are alerted that your aircraft has been tasked with launching on a just detected BM, and then your plane, on electronic orders, opens a weapons bay door and launches an AIM-120, without you doing anything.

Is this a possible outcome of 5th gen thinking / fighting? Could this ever happen? Or would the pilots push back so hard this would never happen with them in the cockpit? Perhaps a compromise? A max of only ONE (1) AIM-120 is available for "community" sourcing per aircraft? Or "no more than half" of any given aircraft's A2A loadout may be fired automagically?

Perhaps resistance would be diminished if a pilot is credited with an A2A kill if a missile automagically dispatched from his aircraft takes out another airborne (aircraft, or missile) bogey?

Or am I just all wet?

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2018, 23:43
by tailgate
I think we were discussing this in another thread too. My thoughts are even if the "order" was sent out (3 secs), pilot stuff (5 secs), I mean unless you are orbiting the launch site, it would be tough. I agree with you that the t+30 sec window is accurate, after that that bad boy is gone or the parameters for a shot are opening faster than you can close them.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2018, 23:51
by steve2267
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.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2018, 01:17
by blindpilot
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

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2018, 01:41
by blindpilot
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

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2018, 02:21
by steve2267


Thanks for your insights BP!

(Only nine more to go!) :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2018, 02:27
by spazsinbad
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?

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2018, 02:51
by steve2267
Spaz,

Aren't you describing the optionally manned B-21 Raider?

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2018, 07:16
by element1loop
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?

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2018, 04:38
by steve2267

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.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2018, 05:12
by spazsinbad
"...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).

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2018, 09:33
by neptune
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.
:)

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2018, 09:36
by neptune
[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:

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2018, 10:02
by spazsinbad
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

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2018, 10:51
by element1loop
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.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2018, 13:58
by popcorn
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.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2018, 15:18
by steve2267
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.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2018, 17:32
by white_lightning35
A few issues come to mind when thinking about the B-21 concepts being described here. Numero uno is a glaring one: MONEY! Remember what the USAF big-wigs said: affordability is a very high priority for this program. They don't want a "muh 1.5 trillion dollar plane" debacle all over again. I would love if all these very cool ideas floating around were implemented, but they are all very expensive-sounding, so let's not get ahead of ourselves.

My second question is about the supposedly unmanned missions the B-21 might be doing. Say IOC is in 2028; will AI be capable enough by then? Or perhaps even more importantly, will politicans be okay with sending a strategic bomber out on strike missions without anyone on board?

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2018, 17:57
by steve2267
white_lightning35 wrote:A few issues come to mind when thinking about the B-21 concepts being described here. Numero uno is a glaring one: MONEY! Remember what the USAF big-wigs said: affordability is a very high priority for this program. They don't want a "muh 1.5 trillion dollar plane" debacle all over again. I would love if all these very cool ideas floating around were implemented, but they are all very expensive-sounding, so let's not get ahead of ourselves.


Money is obviously an issue. My thought was along the line of... if it can carry 40,000lbs of bombs (a number I plucked out of thin air), why couldn't it carry 40,000lb of extra gas , or 30,000lb of gas and 10,000lb of AIM-120D's. I think the bigger problem to my hairbrained idea is the refueling hardware. How would that work? If it means messing with the B-21 OML, that is probably a VERY big and VERY expensive deal.

Here's an even hairier brained idea: Make the re-fueling portion of the B-21 out of flyback tank(er)s. In each B-21 weapons bay is a large fuel tank that happens to have foldable wings (ala MALD / LRASM) and a small turbofan plus refueling kit. Well outside known or projected threats, open weapon bay doors, extend refueling kit & re-fuel F-22's, F-35's. Then retract refueling kit and eject tank(er) to have it fly back home. Optionally, eject tank(er)s, have them deploy wings etc, and re-fuel F-22's / F-35's apart from the B-21, so the B-21 is not flying with bay doors open for an extended period.

white_lightning35 wrote:My second question is about the supposedly unmanned missions the B-21 might be doing. Say IOC is in 2028; will AI be capable enough by then? Or perhaps even more importantly, will politicians be okay with sending a strategic bomber out on strike missions without anyone on board?


High risk, deep strike mission to which you are committed but that has a high risk the aircraft is not coming back and you are willing to risk that $550M airframe? Send the B-21 unmanned.

Deep strike mission where you want a thinking human on board to make real time, in-the-know decisions? Send the B-21 manned.

Accompany F-35's, and F-22's on a long range strike / offensive air mission as a large magazine shooter, sensor, data-relay, maybe even a tanker? No AI required. Send it unmanned. Accompanying F-35's / F-22's could remote fly / re-program it mid-flight.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2018, 18:01
by blindpilot
steve2267 wrote:...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..


Actually I don't think it's too cute, but reflects the "mesh network" web of shooters/sensors, that result from the fifth gen tech. We will less and less think of platforms/nodes, and more and more look at CONOPS as the system. It's possible that an AI algorithm is used to pick the "next shooter," from a distributed web. This is the type of new thinking that's emerging.

MHO,
BP

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 24 Feb 2018, 07:36
by element1loop
blindpilot wrote:
Actually I don't think it's too cute, but reflects the "mesh network" web of shooters/sensors, that result from the fifth gen tech. We will less and less think of platforms/nodes, and more and more look at CONOPS as the system. It's possible that an AI algorithm is used to pick the "next shooter," from a distributed web. This is the type of new thinking that's emerging.

MHO,
BP


Network algo selection of shooter is what has already been enabled in RAAFs Project Jericho's developing 5th-gen integration based cooperative-engagement capabillity, mediated via E-7A Wedgetail. Which is a jointly manned [person-ed?™... Justin?] multirole platform that has Army and Navy directly involved in operating it, via a "virtual wedgetail" approach, so that every service can see what the system can do for every service, and they develop joint conops and the system of systems further from that joint focus.

In other words, ADF wanted a complete joint culture change, and systems integration change before F-35 arrives (late this year).

The initial development of joint coop-engagement was scheduled for testing in Q1 2016, specifically for F-35A plus growler application, but software implementation tested with SH and classic first (for A2A mode). There are scores of phased integrations like that scheduled within Jericho, to get a real headstart on integrating F-35 data and operating concept within the ADFand network software, well before F-35 arrives.

A system of systems develops alongside the conops ideas, until they validate, or else invalidate each other in testing, to identify the most effective applications of the linked data in all services.

I suppose it remains a software framework until there's 12 or so F-35A available in Aust to keep filling it out and validating it.

" ... 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. ..."

Yes, that was what I was thinking too, not so much for ingress, but as an emergency pitstop on egress, that gives them just enough fuel buffer to get back to a KC-30A, further back.

That would certainly make a big difference if the fight needed more fuel than was anticipated at the outset of the fight. You wouldn't need many of them to make a big difference.

If unmanned the KC-30A can tank the KC/E-21 tankers, and they can stay near the fight for days, making sure the 5th-gens can hold the air, uninterupted.

The 5th-gens lower drag, longer range, and larger tanks make large numbers of support tankers less necessary, same to JSTARS, and old-school AWACS approach (E-7A is much better and cheaper to operate).

With money saved you can capitalise a dedicated automated B-21 derived tactical VLO boom tanker.

That idea really appeals.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2018, 03:04
by popcorn

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2018, 14:19
by mixelflick
B-21 as envisioned here is a swiss army knife of sorts. I'm not sure that's realistic. Just getting the cost down to make an affordable strike platform where we can afford 100+ is going to be difficult IMO. Real difficult. You start layering in all these other capabilities/roles and cost goes up - that's just the reality of the situation. Last thing the AF wants is to get into another B-2/20 plane production run fiasco..

Dunno. It's just starting to sound like the B-21 is being asked to be an F-35: A strike platform. An ISR platform. A tanker. And arsenal plane for air to air. A laser platform.

A lot of mission creep...

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2018, 14:36
by popcorn
The former CSAF mandated he personally approve any changes to the LRSB requirements/specs precisely to prevent mission creep. Lots of wild and creative ideas on B-21 variants floating around but the USAF is focused on the bomber role.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 08 May 2018, 02:03
by count_to_10
Just had a thought on this topic: maybe one way of “5th gen thinking” will be to have pilots within a given squadron specialize in different aspects or forms of combat, even while flying identical aircraft. A four ship could fly out with one guy trained heavily in CAS, another trained in close air to air, a third with extensive EW knowledge, and maybe the wing leader trains more heavily in tactics and coordination. Or maybe the split will be completely different.
Training might actually be the limiting factor.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2018, 00:28
by kostas29
element1loop wrote:
blindpilot wrote:
Actually I don't think it's too cute, but reflects the "mesh network" web of shooters/sensors, that result from the fifth gen tech. We will less and less think of platforms/nodes, and more and more look at CONOPS as the system. It's possible that an AI algorithm is used to pick the "next shooter," from a distributed web. This is the type of new thinking that's emerging.

MHO,
BP


Network algo selection of shooter is what has already been enabled in RAAFs Project Jericho's developing 5th-gen integration based cooperative-engagement capabillity, mediated via E-7A Wedgetail. Which is a jointly manned [person-ed?™... Justin?] multirole platform that has Army and Navy directly involved in operating it, via a "virtual wedgetail" approach, so that every service can see what the system can do for every service, and they develop joint conops and the system of systems further from that joint focus.

In other words, ADF wanted a complete joint culture change, and systems integration change before F-35 arrives (late this year).

The initial development of joint coop-engagement was scheduled for testing in Q1 2016, specifically for F-35A plus growler application, but software implementation tested with SH and classic first (for A2A mode). There are scores of phased integrations like that scheduled within Jericho, to get a real headstart on integrating F-35 data and operating concept within the ADFand network software, well before F-35 arrives.

A system of systems develops alongside the conops ideas, until they validate, or else invalidate each other in testing, to identify the most effective applications of the linked data in all services.

I suppose it remains a software framework until there's 12 or so F-35A available in Aust to keep filling it out and validating it.

" ... 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. ..."

Yes, that was what I was thinking too, not so much for ingress, but as an emergency pitstop on egress, that gives them just enough fuel buffer to get back to a KC-30A, further back.

That would certainly make a big difference if the fight needed more fuel than was anticipated at the outset of the fight. You wouldn't need many of them to make a big difference.

If unmanned the KC-30A can tank the KC/E-21 tankers, and they can stay near the fight for days, making sure the 5th-gens can hold the air, uninterupted.

The 5th-gens lower drag, longer range, and larger tanks make large numbers of support tankers less necessary, same to JSTARS, and old-school AWACS approach (E-7A is much better and cheaper to operate).

With money saved you can capitalise a dedicated automated B-21 derived tactical VLO boom tanker.

That idea really appeals.





Refueling aircrafts for sustained operations is a big challenge. Current platforms are too vulnerable (USAF tankers) or barely sufficient (USN tankers). Given that the biggest challenge remains China and most of its important targets are close to the coast, the solution can be maritime: Pre-position low cost unmanned underwater vehicles that can elevate a hose out of the water. Send a couple of V22 to be refueled with more than 20.000lbs of fuel (payload capacity of V22) from the UUV and then refuel a formation of aircrafts. The UUV then moves to a different location unknown to the enemy. The formation of aircrafts can be refueled again either by the same UUV (that has now relocated) or from another UUV. This solution allows you with a much smaller number of tankers (V-22s) to refuel a much higher amount of fuel than any current (F/A-18) or future (MQ-25) solution. These tankers have limited refueling capacity (14.000lbs at 500nm). The proposed solution offers multiple rounds of refueling 20.000lbs of fuel at practically unlimited distances (ferry range of V-22 is like 2000nm)

What do you think of that?

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2018, 01:44
by wrightwing
At least a few of the proposed MQ-25 designs can offload >15,000lbs at 500nm. How much more hasn't been said, and some design changes are being incorporated, to carry even more. The ability to provide 4 F-35s with 4k to 5k pounds of fuel at 500nm (or 8 aircraft with 2k to 2.5k), greatly extends their reach. The USN will have enough for 10+ tankers per deployed carrier.

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2018, 01:52
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2018, 04:40
by steve2267
LOL.

Since no sane sub skipper of current boats would want to be conducting such a refueling where they become highly visible to surface radars... such a UUV needs to be designed from scratch, no?

Might as well then make it a totally robotic affair... design said UUV to house some number of unmanned V-22s (UV-22?) or maybe the new V-280? Store the UV-22 / UV-280 onboard the UUV where it is fueled / refueled. Float the boat, uncover / unhangar the UV-22, it takes off to conduct refueling ops. Meanwhile, the UUV re-submerges and moves to some other location where it will recover the UV-22/280. UUV lands, is covered/hangared, UUV submerges and moves to a new launch point, whilst the UUVs are re-fueled underwater, out of sight.

Not going to be cheap. Not going to be easy. But I'd say cheaper and easier than trying to pop a hose out from the UUV and re-fuel a V-22 in flight.