Why is the F-35 replacing the A-10?

From SANDIA URL above Dis Is De Trackin'.... Dis Mountie.

:roll: From SANDIA URL above Dis Is De Trackin'.... Dis Mountie.

There was a video on the old site, I would need to look for it, but they show the tracking of the dismounts even though the photo doesn't do it justice. But I assure you SAR can do it. We killed a lot of ISIS with radar guided hellfires...

Here we go. Video of them tracking dismounts.

https://www.sandia.gov/radar/_assets/videos/victr.mp4

Salute!

Thanks, kim

Good stuff to scare our bad guys with, heh? and I assume you are hinting at MMW Hellfires and not the laser guided ones.

Those who do not realize how good some of the U.S. stuff is and was years ago, then ponder this..... the original Viper radar had the doppler beam sharpening that morphed into synthetic aperture radar and then.... hmmmm, won't say it. We used the DBS for radar deliveries as well as non-precision approaches, You had to hed 20 or 30 degrees from the tgt or base to get the best image, but it was like a photo compared to the older dars. So you refined aim, designated and turned in for the drop or landing. It was also a good tactic to confuse the enema air defense prediction of your actual tgt.

After over twenty years, I feel O.K. talking about some of the sensors USAF was considering for the JDAM, even though the thing was not completely operational and had never been employed in combat. The goal was a terminal guidance system to expand the launch envelope and defeat any terminal GPS jamming. The original JDAM had a shaped trajectory that was literally straight down from a bit ofer 10,000 feet. This was good for accuracy, as GPS vertical errors were and still are the biggest. It also helped if the bad guys were jamming, as the antenna faced up and by the time jamming worked the sucker was using the inertial and time of flight was maybe 10 or 15 seconds.

We evaluated EO, IR, LIDAR, MMW radar and SAR. Non-disclosure may diminish the details, but I can talk in certain areas. One of the SAR systems briefed to us and USAF had resolutions of 5 or 6 inches from more than 100 miles away. So that type of sensor is real player for a orbiting drone in the convoy escort role. The jungle and heavy forest terrain will still be a challenge, and I wanna see a picture before making an opinion.

Gums sends...

Salute!

Thanks, kim

Good stuff to scare our bad guys with, heh? and I assume you are hinting at MMW Hellfires and not the laser guided ones.

Those who do not realize how good some of the U.S. stuff is and was years ago, then ponder this..... the original Viper radar had the doppler beam sharpening that morphed into synthetic aperture radar and then.... hmmmm, won't say it. We used the DBS for radar deliveries as well as non-precision approaches, You had to hed 20 or 30 degrees from the tgt or base to get the best image, but it was like a photo compared to the older dars. So you refined aim, designated and turned in for the drop or landing. It was also a good tactic to confuse the enema air defense prediction of your actual tgt.

After over twenty years, I feel O.K. talking about some of the sensors USAF was considering for the JDAM, even though the thing was not completely operational and had never been employed in combat. The goal was a terminal guidance system to expand the launch envelope and defeat any terminal GPS jamming. The original JDAM had a shaped trajectory that was literally straight down from a bit ofer 10,000 feet. This was good for accuracy, as GPS vertical errors were and still are the biggest. It also helped if the bad guys were jamming, as the antenna faced up and by the time jamming worked the sucker was using the inertial and time of flight was maybe 10 or 15 seconds.

We evaluated EO, IR, LIDAR, MMW radar and SAR. Non-disclosure may diminish the details, but I can talk in certain areas. One of the SAR systems briefed to us and USAF had resolutions of 5 or 6 inches from more than 100 miles away. So that type of sensor is real player for a orbiting drone in the convoy escort role. The jungle and heavy forest terrain will still be a challenge, and I wanna see a picture before making an opinion.

Gums sends...

They included the terminal guidance kit with the JDAM. The CEP for the inertial guidance on the JDAM, while not as accurate as laser or GPS, is still well within lethal radius for a 500lb. even if the enemy manges to jam it.

They included the terminal guidance kit with the JDAM. The CEP for the inertial guidance on the JDAM, while not as accurate as laser or GPS, is still well within lethal radius for a 500lb. even if the enemy manges to jam it.

JDAM and other often so called GPS guided munitions are actually using inertial guidance (INS) as the main guidance method and GPS (or other satellite navigation systems) is aiding system. Since all INS systems have tiny measurement errors the measured position will drift away from real position. GPS is used to reset the errors periodically as the munition flies towards target. Munitions use rather cheap and fairly inaccurate INS systems as good ones are far too expensive for expendable munitions. Having GPS is very cheap way of providing high level of accuracy. Of course the downside is the possibility that it gets jammed, but it's rather difficult and will lower the accuracy somewhat. Like you said, even if the GPS is jammed the whole time the munition flies by itself, it will still hit pretty close.

Could This New Quantum 'Compass' End Satellite Dependency?

(Source: British Forces News; issued Nov 30, 2018)

Satellites are vulnerable to interference from external forces, navigating without them would negate this risk. A new quantum accelerator that could allow for navigation without satellites is being developed by scientists at Imperial College London. The new standalone quantum accelerometer is untraceable and does not need external signals for navigation.

Funded by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory’s Future Sensing and Situational Awareness Programme, scientists hope it will be a commercially viable alternative to GPS. “This is a device for navigating,” explains Professor Edward Hinds. “But it’s a way of navigating without needing talk to any satellites or external parties. ...

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... cy%3F.html

That's not the only new chip-based guidance option that I've read about for nav or precision-guidance use. INS will always be there of course as a backup and cross-check, if one system stops working or degrades from damage, but it's clear there are now a lot of jam-free redundant nav options available, to integrate within these new sensor targeting systems.

And I do wounder how many short and long-range precision-guided weapons (or aircraft) today if any, would be degraded or spoofed by a GPS outage or jamming. Whatever the percentage, it's probably going to shrink quickly with the next nav and guidance iterations, if they haven't already. Frankly, I doubt we'd be hearing much about it if it was not already in use. Which is another nice disquieting and deterring thought for opposing forces to fret about.

Here we go. Video of them tracking dismounts.

https://www.sandia.gov/radar/_assets/videos/victr.mp4

WOW!

Thanks very much for the info and sources, kimjongnumbaun!
I really and honestly didn't know that SAR had such capability.
In the video that you shared one can clearly watch three "dismounts" keeping up with the moving vehicle. I'm really, really impressed!

Salute!

Wow! Some folks around here are learning more about guidance and target acquisition/ tracking and such.

First of all, the INS doofers for the last 30 years ( that's three zero) do not have the old spinning gyros and synchros and repeaters of phase referenced signals and..... and..... They have moved to RLG's and then to completely fixed strapdown sensors on a chip and so forth. With good starting vectors ( position, attitude and velocity), they can be aligned within seconds better than the best ones I flew with in the 70's and 80's. So an INS on chip is passe. The AMRAAM strapdown chip back in the early 90's was more accurate than the one I had in the SLUF and Viper, boit of which had drift rates in the 1 knot or less range. It could be aligned in seconds and provide super "turn on" position for the Slammer's homing dar.

Both the newer INS chips and the GPS systems use very sophisticated Kalman filters and other techniques to refine all the parameters they are supposed to provide to other systems. The wind corrected dispenser we worked on back in early 90's could hit within 10 meters after 30 seconds ToF all by itself with no GPS updates enroute. That's less than 1 knot of drift ( 1.6878 x knot equals feet/sec). Secondly, for A2G we do not need GPS for many profiles once the system is aligned and targeted, especially with the SDB and terminal seekers. The MMW Maverick I worked on around 1991 worked! You told it ToF to a range gate maybe 2 clicks from the tgt, it looked, acquired and wham! The two ops concept ones here hit the tanks/trucks! I am sure that the recognition sfwe now is way better than 30 years ago, ya think?

GPS jamming is a problem,for sure, but not as much of a problem as taking out the satellite constellation members. So that is the biggest threat. With good alignment from the Stubbie sensors as far as relative tgt position, you don't need GPS, you just go with your own navigation frame of reference.

Gums sends...

She's BACK!!!!…..

McSally Gets McCain’s Senate Seat
18 Dec 2018 Jennifer-Leigh Oprihory

"Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey on Tuesday said he will appoint USAF veteran Rep. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) to the late Sen. John McCain’s Senate seat....

...“She served 26 years in the military; deployed six times to the Middle East and Afghanistan; was the first woman to fly in combat and command a fighter squadron in combat; and she’s represented Southern Arizona in Congress for the past four years. With her experience and long record of service, Martha is uniquely qualified to step up and fight for Arizona’s interests in the US Senate.” Her appointment is also a tentatively good omen for future funding of the A-10 program, for which she’s been a long-time advocate. Keeping the A-10 in the fight is on McSally’s shortlist of priority issues…

...McSally currently serves on the House Armed Services Committee and two of its subcommittees—Tactical Air and Land Forces, and Oversight and Investigations. She’s also on the House Homeland Security Committee, chairing its border and maritime security subcommittee, and serving on its emergency ​preparedness, response, and communications subcommittee...."

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... enate.aspx

First Female Air Force F-35 Test Pilot Marks Mission Milestone
08 Jan 2019 Oriana Pawlyk

"...Last July, close-air support tests between the F-35 and A-10 Warthog finished up at Edwards as part of a congressionally mandated requirement that the two aircraft go up against each other. The stipulation was included as a provision in the fiscal 2017 National Defense Authorization Act amid congressional concerns over plans to retire the A-10 and replace it with the F-35.

A Project on Government Oversight report slammed the "skewed" testing, saying at the time the flights overwhelmingly favored the F-35. But aviation enthusiasts and pilots have also said putting the two aircraft side-by-side remains an apples-to-oranges comparison. It's why the Air Force consistently avoided calling the highly anticipated test a "fly-off."

After Winiecki's flight, the Air Force stressed that the stealth jet has air-to-ground capabilities, even if they don't exactly mirror the A-10. Winiecki said keeping officials in the loop when comparing testing techniques is important...."

Source: https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2019/0 ... stone.html

Pentagon Finishes F-35, A-10 Comparison Testing
02 May 2019 Rachel S. Cohen​

"Comparative testing of the Air Force’s F-35 and A-10 to measure their performance in combat search-and-rescue, close air support, and airborne forward air control missions wrapped up earlier this spring, and should spur conversations about how best to partner fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft in combat, the Pentagon’s top weapons tester said Thursday....

...About two-thirds of the testing was done last year, and the aircraft returned in March for a final look, according to Robert Behler, the Defense Department’s director of operational test and evaluation. While the flights were intensive and instructive, he noted the tests were not a fly-off.

Testers pitted the planes against anti-aircraft weapons, man-portable air defense systems, and moving targets like radar-guided surface-to-air missiles, Behler told the House Armed Services tactical air and land forces subcommittee. Each aircraft flew during the day and night, and were vetted in urban environments. One segment involved a downed crew member and required collaboration with other platforms like the HH-60.

As anticipated, the F-35 proved to be a valuable close air support asset, according to prepared testimony submitted by Air Force Acquisition Executive Will Roper. “The F-35, as we expected, has a big advantage in a high-threat scenario where the stealth and sensor fusion really help,” Behler added. “In a lesser threat environment, we were able to put more weapons on the wings of the F-35, so we were able to get much better loads on the aircraft.”

Comparatively, the A-10 performed well with more fuel and more weapons in a low-threat environment. “One thing that can’t be overlooked is that there’s 40 years of experience close to the ground with the A-10,” Behler said. “Training really matters. We had, in the second part of the testing in March, we had former A-10 pilots that are now part of the F-35 force.”...

...The full report is due to Congress at the end of the year." [best read at source]

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... sting.aspx

[best read at source]

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... sting.aspx

[/quote]

A-10 was good in a permissive while the F-35 excelled in a non-permissive environment... who would have thought.

It good to see that they are learning and developing new tactics to have better effects. At this point the phasing out of the A-10 is inevitable. I'll be sad to see the end of a era but so long as we keep the pilots and their experience to train the next generation, I would not be worried that the close air support mission will be exceedingly more effective and capable.

Of course when the report does come out and made public, I'll be thoroughly entertained by the circus of stupidity.

Source: http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... sting.aspx

A-10 was good in a permissive while the F-35 excelled in a non-permissive environment... who would have thought.

It good to see that they are learning and developing new tactics to have better effects. At this point the phasing out of the A-10 is inevitable. I'll be sad to see the end of a era but so long as we keep the pilots and their experience to train the next generation, I would not be worried that the close air support mission will be exceedingly more effective and capable.

Of course when the report does come out and made public, I'll be thoroughly entertained by the circus of stupidity.

But, but ...BRRRRTTT..BRRRRTTT...