F-35 and X-47B

[mixelflick]

Why on earth isn't a strike capability fielded with this?

Is the tech just not there yet? Or would it take too long?? Or perhaps the Navy wants to put the $ to use elsewhere???

[spazsinbad]

'mixelflick' you seem to be always deficient in knowledge about the F-35. Why is this so? Have you just joined the forum or have you just become interested in the F-35 but gaining information as you go? There is something amiss for sure.

This NEW sat antenna has just been developed. A Sat Antenna will be fitted to the F-35 in a Block Four upgrade AFAIK - this has been a long standing aim of the program for a decade. Canadian interests used to MOAN about this lack for ages.

viewtopic.php?f=62&t=19268&p=225435&hilit=satellite+communication+block#p225435

"...Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 17 Jun 2012
...Q 3.15 When will the F-35 be capable of SATCOM?
A 3.15 SATCOM is currently planned to be included in the Block 4 of the F-35 follow-on development program, currently scheduled in the 2020 timeframe. Canadian F-35As are therefore currently forecasted to be equipped with BLOS communication in time for Canada’s declaration of Initial Operational Capability (IOC).

Q 3.16 Why was the installation of SATCOM in the F-35 intentionally delayed?
A 3.16 Although originally intended to be included in earlier versions of the F-35, a conscious decision was made within the JSF Partnership to delay upgrading the F-35 with SATCOM until later in the program. The aim of this deferment was to await emerging satellite constellation/capability developments and the maturing of associated enabling technologies, and to thereby avoid the investment of funds into waning technologies/capabilities.

Q 3.17 Can the F-35A communicate in the Arctic?
A 3.17 Yes, the F-35A will be fully capable of communicating in the Arctic. Recent reports concerning delays in the F-35’s SATCOM system has led to public misinformation, which has implied that a lack of SATCOM constitutes an inability to maintain communications in the Arctic. The F-35 is capable of multiple alternate forms of communication, all of which contribute to maintaining reliable communications in the Arctic...."
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro- ... ng.asp#f35

EXAMPLE of new ANTI-JAM Satellite Constellation Abuildin': https://www.c4isrnet.com/c2-comms/satel ... satellite/

[usnvo]

Why on earth isn't a strike capability fielded with this?

Is the tech just not there yet? Or would it take too long?? Or perhaps the Navy wants to put the $ to use elsewhere???

It appears that the adults have asserted themselves at NAVAIR. Lets consider, adding a strike capability (if it doesn't just duplicate the autopilot like capability of the X-47 to fly to a spot and drop a JDAM) is multiple orders of magnitude more difficult than just refueling.

- Start with the fact that your UCAV has to navigate autonomously is a GPS denied environment, avoiding surface and airborne radars (which they had to detect, so add an LPI Radar and F-35 type EW system).
- Locate the target using a variety of sensors in a GPS denied and EW environment (So beyond your LPI Radar, add something like the F-35s EOTS sensor)
- Have the ability to attack the target with weapons that can be utilized in GPS and communications denied environments.
- Maneuver around manned aircraft and avoid enemy aircraft (going to need something like a multi-spectral DAS)
- Don't forget a LPI satellite link so they can communicate but in the chance they can't communicate via satellite, they would also need some stealthy communications capability like MADL as well as to operate in an intelligent fashion in a communications denied environment.
- Can't forget countermeasures to maximize survival.

What could be easier. Notice that the software requirement is already as complex as the F-35 and that is before you do any programming to replicate what a highly trained human pilot does, so add maybe another order of magnitude in complexity.

And all of this is for the first ever CV capable UAV. Yeah, that is where I would start if I wanted to keep costs down while delivering relevant capability to the fleet and learn a whole lot about UAVs.

Just a note, the aircraft may look "stealthy", but the same attributes (minimum wetted surface, good body lift, and long thin wings) are also the same thing one would expect on a long endurance aircraft.

[mixelflick]

'mixelflick' you seem to be always deficient in knowledge about the F-35. Why is this so? Have you just joined the forum or have you just become interested in the F-35 but gaining information as you go? There is something amiss for sure.

This NEW sat antenna has just been developed. A Sat Antenna will be fitted to the F-35 in a Block Four upgrade AFAIK - this has been a long standing aim of the program for a decade. Canadian interests used to MOAN about this lack for ages.

viewtopic.php?f=62&t=19268&p=225435&hilit=satellite+communication+block#p225435

"...Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 17 Jun 2012
...Q 3.15 When will the F-35 be capable of SATCOM?
A 3.15 SATCOM is currently planned to be included in the Block 4 of the F-35 follow-on development program, currently scheduled in the 2020 timeframe. Canadian F-35As are therefore currently forecasted to be equipped with BLOS communication in time for Canada’s declaration of Initial Operational Capability (IOC).

Q 3.16 Why was the installation of SATCOM in the F-35 intentionally delayed?
A 3.16 Although originally intended to be included in earlier versions of the F-35, a conscious decision was made within the JSF Partnership to delay upgrading the F-35 with SATCOM until later in the program. The aim of this deferment was to await emerging satellite constellation/capability developments and the maturing of associated enabling technologies, and to thereby avoid the investment of funds into waning technologies/capabilities.

Q 3.17 Can the F-35A communicate in the Arctic?
A 3.17 Yes, the F-35A will be fully capable of communicating in the Arctic. Recent reports concerning delays in the F-35’s SATCOM system has led to public misinformation, which has implied that a lack of SATCOM constitutes an inability to maintain communications in the Arctic. The F-35 is capable of multiple alternate forms of communication, all of which contribute to maintaining reliable communications in the Arctic...."
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/2/pro- ... ng.asp#f35

EXAMPLE of new ANTI-JAM Satellite Constellation Abuildin': https://www.c4isrnet.com/c2-comms/satel ... satellite/

I was referring to the X-47B...

[spazsinbad]

'mixelflick' said: "I was referring to the X-47B..." Why not make that clear? SIMPLES.

[marauder2048]

Why on earth isn't a strike capability fielded with this?

Is the tech just not there yet? Or would it take too long?? Or perhaps the Navy wants to put the $ to use elsewhere???

It appears that the adults have asserted themselves at NAVAIR. Lets consider, adding a strike capability (if it doesn't just duplicate the autopilot like capability of the X-47 to fly to a spot and drop a JDAM) is multiple orders of magnitude more difficult than just refueling.

- Start with the fact that your UCAV has to navigate autonomously is a GPS denied environment, avoiding surface and airborne radars (which they had to detect, so add an LPI Radar and F-35 type EW system).
- Locate the target using a variety of sensors in a GPS denied and EW environment (So beyond your LPI Radar, add something like the F-35s EOTS sensor)
- Have the ability to attack the target with weapons that can be utilized in GPS and communications denied environments.
- Maneuver around manned aircraft and avoid enemy aircraft (going to need something like a multi-spectral DAS)
- Don't forget a LPI satellite link so they can communicate but in the chance they can't communicate via satellite, they would also need some stealthy communications capability like MADL as well as to operate in an intelligent fashion in a communications denied environment.
- Can't forget countermeasures to maximize survival.

Translation: the well known remaining high-risk areas that the Navy was supposed to address since the 2006 QDR
(after DARPA UCAV retired risk for many of them) weren't addressed. And the Navy can't blame
funding since Congress was authorizing money for X-47b continued development (amongst other efforts)
that the Navy didn't want.

There's no evidence that these areas have low TRLs otherwise GAO would have screamed about it after
JROC validated the high-end UCLASS effort back in 2011.

The Navy has spent the intervening eight years diverting, deflecting and repurposing an unmanned
effort with intent and with but one beneficiary: FA-XX.

Pretty much the entire MQ-25 reason for existence was tenuous at best and vanished once they got new build Super Hornets with conformals.

[mixelflick]

'mixelflick' said: "I was referring to the X-47B..." Why not make that clear? SIMPLES.

To be honest, I assumed everyone on this board knows the F-35 has a robust air to ground capability. That is after all, its reason for being.

However, in the future I'll try and make it clear(er).

[spazsinbad]

'mixelflick' said: "I was referring to the X-47B..." Why not make that clear? SIMPLES.

To be honest, I assumed everyone on this board knows the F-35 has a robust air to ground capability. That is after all, its reason for being. However, in the future I'll try and make it clear(er).

Your post in question is at top of this page. At bottom of previous page is this post about 'broadband satnav': (why would not I assume your post was about that fielding?) viewtopic.php?f=55&t=20468&p=419143&hilit=broadband#p419143

[spazsinbad]

Navy Has No Plans Develop Lethal Carrier UAV Before MQ-25A Hits Flight Decks
22 May 2019 Sam LaGrone

"WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Navy won’t pursue the development of a lethal carrier-based unmanned aircraft before it fields its unmanned MQ-25A Stingray tanker sometime in the 2020s, the service’s requirements chief said last week. The service is taking a deliberate approach to adding unmanned aviation assets to carrier decks, ensuring it successfully integrates the MQ-25A into the airwing before it studies adding new, armed UAVs into the mix, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Systems (OPNAV N9) Vice Adm. Bill Merz said at an event co-hosted by the U.S. Naval Institute and the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

“The MQ-25, we think, is just a fantastic program. Integrating an unmanned aircraft into the carrier airwing will be a significant step forward for the Navy, no question about it,” he said. “We are just compelled to be somewhat pragmatic in how well they work before we over-commit. We have a limited budget; we also have real lives at stake. Unmanned isn’t really unmanned, you just don’t have a body sitting in the platform. There’s a lot of support. You have deck handling, a lot of things you have to come through to bring these things aboard a maritime environment.”…

...The Navy wants to introduce the aircraft quickly to reduce the refueling burden on the service’s F/A-18F Super Hornet fighter that are now responsible for the tanking mission. Based on the success of the first set of missions – tanking and limited intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions – the Navy could look to other capabilities.

“It’s a big aircraft, it’s robust, it’s built as a tanker, but it’s probably a stepping-stone to other capabilities,” Merz said. “[Future aircraft] are conceptual right now until we get this thing into the fleet and see how it survives in a sea environment and how it integrates with the airwing.”... [other la de dah]

...Navy officials have backed away from a clear time horizon for the follow-on to MQ-25A. “We’re very excited about it, and we’re leaning into it as hard as practical,” Merz said."

Source: https://news.usni.org/2019/05/22/navy-h ... ight-decks

[mixelflick]

'mixelflick' said: "I was referring to the X-47B..." Why not make that clear? SIMPLES.

To be honest, I assumed everyone on this board knows the F-35 has a robust air to ground capability. That is after all, its reason for being. However, in the future I'll try and make it clear(er).

Your post in question is at top of this page. At bottom of previous page is this post about 'broadband satnav': (why would not I assume your post was about that fielding?) viewtopic.php?f=55&t=20468&p=419143&hilit=broadband#p419143

Jesus dude, I told you in the future I'll try and make it clearer.

That's not enough for you though, you need to keep bitching. Keep it up. Because it reflects poorly on you, not me.

[spazsinbad]

STINGRAY What’s next 2019 for Boeing MQ-25 DefenseNews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVDFjCMTOA4

[spazsinbad]

MQ-25 First Flight Slated This Summer
17 Jun 2019 Lee Hudson

"PARIS—Boeing has revealed that the U.S. Navy MQ-25A Stingray carrier-based unmanned refueling tanker company-funded prototype will achieve first flight later this summer. The announcement was made at the Paris Air Show, being held here June 17-23.

The prototype is dubbed “T1” and will complete a 200-hr. flight hour test program to reduce risk and assess the possibility of program acceleration, Leanne Caret, Boeing Defense, Space & Security president and chief executive, said here June 17.... The MQ-25 engineering, manufacturing and development (EMD) phase aircraft is slated for first flight in roughly 18 months.

The T1 first flight will inform design decisions before the company releases the MQ-25 EMD configuration to the supply chain in early 2020. T1 will be capable of making dry and wet refueling contacts with receiver aircraft...."

Source: https://aviationweek.com/defense/mq-25- ... ted-summer

[blain]

STINGRAY What’s next 2019 for Boeing MQ-25 DefenseNews https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVDFjCMTOA4

I wonder what's the spot factor on that thing. It looks much larger than the SH, but maybe that's just because it has a larger volume. I thought that they should try and build a tanker the largest they could for a carrier - a modern day version of the KA-3. Maybe they did.

[quicksilver]

A bit of illusion in the still image. Go to the 40 second mark in the video and notice size comparison.

[blain]

A bit of illusion in the still image. Go to the 40 second mark in the video and notice size comparison.

I did. The SH does still appears smaller.