F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

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

blindpilot

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 961
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 01:57

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
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6938
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 02:04

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

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1139
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 02:28

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).
Take an F-16, stir in a little A-7, bake, then sprinkle on a generous helping of F-117. What do you get? An F-35.
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 961
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 03:12

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
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 961
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 03:31

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
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1086
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 03:50

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.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 05:09

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 ...)
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 05:30

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).
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 05:45

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.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 05:47

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.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 06:07

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.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 184
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 06:31

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'.
Offline

kimjongnumbaun

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: 08 Dec 2016, 21:41

Unread post15 Sep 2017, 10:54

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?
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6938
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post18 Sep 2017, 00:52

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

blindpilot

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 961
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post18 Sep 2017, 05:13

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
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests