F-35 Fifth Gen and new way of thinking

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.

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?

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).

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.

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).

.... 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).

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."

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.

.... 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

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

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.

Comms undersea via raw TUNA may be relevant: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=52659&p=359852&hilit=underwater#p359852

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.

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.

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?).

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

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

More 5Gen thinking.

http://www.sldinfo.com/an-update-on-the ... hter-wing/

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?

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.