F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

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

nathan77

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 65
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2015, 07:21

Unread post08 Sep 2017, 06:36

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.
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1222
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post08 Sep 2017, 08:03

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
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1349
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post08 Sep 2017, 11:10

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.
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 854
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post08 Sep 2017, 11:37

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.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2301
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post08 Sep 2017, 13:20

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.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7703
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post08 Sep 2017, 14:02

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
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post08 Sep 2017, 14:27

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.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post08 Sep 2017, 14:44

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.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post08 Sep 2017, 14:49

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...
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post08 Sep 2017, 14:56

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.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2170
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post08 Sep 2017, 16:20

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.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Online

bayernfan

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 37
  • Joined: 20 Aug 2013, 20:30

Unread post08 Sep 2017, 16:58

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?
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post08 Sep 2017, 17:05

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.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2177
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post08 Sep 2017, 17:32

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.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8391
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post08 Sep 2017, 18:25

The only thing Israel is doing is whiting their own "app" and will not be changing anything that is already in the F-35.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bayernfan and 5 guests