The Lockheed Martin F35

[Marco]

I don't think a bunch of engineers on the internet are really qualified to pass judgement on the F-35.  There are a lot of really, really smart people working on this project.

I trust their judgement, I don't trust their intentions.

[Marco]

I think most missions are best done by drones and I'd argue that the future of air supremacy is likely to be a mix of manned and unmanned AC.

What's the point in being in close proximity to the drones doing the work? Do you need low latency? No. Does proximity make it easier to maintain communication? No, the manned plane couldn't do anything a relay drone couldn't (if the enemy can take those out you wouldn't want to be there with a manned plane either).

[coppice]

I don't think a bunch of engineers on the internet are really qualified to pass judgement on the F-35.  There are a lot of really, really smart people working on this project.

Lockheed is a company. It's purpose is not to make planes. It is to make money. The smart people are focused on that. Making things on time, on spec, and on budget is a very poor way to work as a company trying to make money out of weapons. History has taught them that no matter how hard they bleed their customer, the repurcussions are minor.

[tggzzz]

Do you need low latency?

The vehical and the operator form a control system. The bandwidth required dictates the maximum allowable latency. No surprises there.

Where the "next step/action" requires operator intervention or decision, the latency is important.

[retrolefty]

I think most missions are best done by drones and I'd argue that the future of air supremacy is likely to be a mix of manned and unmanned AC.

What's the point in being in close proximity to the drones doing the work? Do you need low latency? No. Does proximity make it easier to maintain communication? No, the manned plane couldn't do anything a relay drone couldn't (if the enemy can take those out you wouldn't want to be there with a manned plane either).

  I agree. The limiting factor for the Air Superiority role is the G force a human can maintain before blanking out. Drones will have a huge advantage both offensively and defensively in the future. The F-35 is just an interim step and probably the last with a human on board. Drones won't require an oxygen system, ejections system, etc.

[MK14]

  I agree. The limiting factor for the Air Superiority role is the G force a human can maintain before blanking out. Drones will have a huge advantage both offensively and defensively in the future. The F-35 is just an interim step and probably the last with a human on board. Drones won't require an oxygen system, ejections system, etc.

This is sounding a bit like world war 1 (and later). Where the British, thought that mighty battleships were the king of the sea.
Then found that they were being sunk by submarines (U-boats).

Also when battleships were thought to be king of the sea. The Aircraft carriers said "NO", we are the king of the sea. E.g. Bismarck losing out to an aircraft carrier.

So these days we have mighty aircraft carriers as king of the seas. (Pretty much no massive battleships anymore).

At some point (which we may have already reached), drones will be superior (which is basically what you were saying).

Until maybe fully AI autonomous drones come along ...

[Marco]

Where the "next step/action" requires operator intervention or decision, the latency is important.

Describe me a situation where it would be. With long range missiles I don't see any situations where 0.1 vs 1 second would make a big difference (and a small difference doesn't matter, not having men in danger already being such a massive advantage).

Maybe if you made a drone to strafe ground targets with guns, but the ground troops near it could handle firing control in that case.

[tggzzz]

Where the "next step/action" requires operator intervention or decision, the latency is important.

Describe me a situation where it would be. With long range missiles I don't see any situations where 0.1 vs 1 second would make a big difference (and a small difference doesn't matter, not having men in danger already being such a massive advantage).

Maybe if you made a drone to strafe ground targets with guns, but the ground troops near it could handle firing control in that case.

Air-to-air combat is the canonical example, but there are many others. Even drones and their munitions aren't cheap, so you don't want to lose them to something the local militia or airforce has.

As for "local control", the latency depends on the propagation path, not on the point-to-point distance. You don't know what the propagation path is.

The "long range missile" argument was promulgated in the 60s and 70s, and lead to embarrassing loss of manned aircraft when the missiles didn't work as advertised - and crews found themselves in dogfights. Don't believe the adverts.

As for the difference between 0.1 and 1s being unimportant - you've just plucked those figures and the conclusion out of thin air. Life isn't that simple.

[Marco]

As for "local control", the latency depends on the propagation path, not on the point-to-point distance. You don't know what the propagation path is.

LoS, either through satellite or relays. Because that's easiest to make resistant to jamming with a high bandwidth.

[Nauris]

If you want top shelf equipment, it will hurt financially. These days top shelf means foremost stealth, sensors and connectivity.

Yeah, and when you actually need to get shit done in modern warfare, you send in AC130's, A-10's and few B-52 to support.
Fifty years of warplane development gone amiss, perhaps?

[Ice-Tea]

If you want top shelf equipment, it will hurt financially. These days top shelf means foremost stealth, sensors and connectivity.

Yeah, and when you actually need to get shit done in modern warfare, you send in AC130's, A-10's and few B-52 to support.
Fifty years of warplane development gone amiss, perhaps?

You're not taking into account "the enemy". Those work fine for low tech bogies. Neither of those would last against any kind of modern fighter.

[tggzzz]

As for "local control", the latency depends on the propagation path, not on the point-to-point distance. You don't know what the propagation path is.

LoS, either through satellite or relays. Because that's easiest to make resistant to jamming with a high bandwidth.

That reason is only a small part of the necessary system; there are many many other considerations!

Now do the calculation for the minimum possible latency and variation in latency (vital for a control loop); not pretty.

[raptor1956]

I think most missions are best done by drones and I'd argue that the future of air supremacy is likely to be a mix of manned and unmanned AC.

What's the point in being in close proximity to the drones doing the work? Do you need low latency? No. Does proximity make it easier to maintain communication? No, the manned plane couldn't do anything a relay drone couldn't (if the enemy can take those out you wouldn't want to be there with a manned plane either).

Local, real-time, command and control augmented with remote capabilities. 


Brian

[raptor1956]

I think most missions are best done by drones and I'd argue that the future of air supremacy is likely to be a mix of manned and unmanned AC.

What's the point in being in close proximity to the drones doing the work? Do you need low latency? No. Does proximity make it easier to maintain communication? No, the manned plane couldn't do anything a relay drone couldn't (if the enemy can take those out you wouldn't want to be there with a manned plane either).

  I agree. The limiting factor for the Air Superiority role is the G force a human can maintain before blanking out. Drones will have a huge advantage both offensively and defensively in the future. The F-35 is just an interim step and probably the last with a human on board. Drones won't require an oxygen system, ejections system, etc.

Yes, the drones will have much higher G-tolerance and that's one of the main factors for using them.  But, there is still an advantage to having eyes on the action when dealing with highly dynamic events -- for bombing fixed assets -- not so much.


Brian

[Marco]

That's like saying there are many other considerations when I say it needs wings, yes there are other considerations. They're just not allowed to interfere with getting the highest jamming resistance possible if you're going to design drones as a complete replacement for autonomous manned planes.

Which is obviously LoS, combined with small aperture aimed antennas.

[tggzzz]

That's like saying there are many other considerations when I say it needs wings, yes there are other considerations. They're just not allowed to interfere with getting the highest jamming resistance possible if you're going to design drones as a complete replacement for autonomous manned planes.

Which is obviously LoS, combined with small aperture aimed antennas.

Earlier today for position was via satellites, now it is LoS. You still need to calculate the satellite latency.

Do you realise how limited true line of sight is on a battlefield? Unless you are very exposed sitting on a hilltop, I suppose.

Doubly so if you have small aperture antennas!

[EEVblog]

Frankly, the manned missions that makes sense to me are more along the F-22 lines and if we were looking to command the skies into the future we should probably be looking at a successor to the F-22 as it's already closing in on 30 years old.

The F-35 *is* designed to be the successor to the F-22. It's also designed to be the successor for every other plane in existence, and that's it's problem.

[LabSpokane]

I don't think a bunch of engineers on the internet are really qualified to pass judgement on the F-35.  There are a lot of really, really smart people working on this project.

A lot of the criticisms are based on ignorance (not specifically here, but in general).  How it sucks in dogfighting, for example.  With current missile technology and the way wars are prosecuted and the way information flow works, dogfighting just isn't a thing anymore.  Much of the rest of the criticism is the cost - yep, not much to defend there, however it really is multiple planes in one.  The fact that they share a name is marketing wank.  A lot of the other criticisms are things like the lack of weapons it can use or how it can only carry 2 bombs.  Much of that is because there are weapons that are being built around this plane, and until they are ready, the plane is stuck working with what is currently out there.  It's unfair to use this as a criticism of the plane... it's really no different than the silly criticism of electric cars.

The people that are flying the plane like it and its performance.  There is huge discussion on professional pilots forums on this plane and the people who really know what they are talking about like the plane and its capabilities.  The only criticisms are the costs, really. 

Overall, it is a fantastic piece of technology that is head and shoulders above anything else out there.  And that's really the point.  The PAK-FA is a joke.  It's been in development for years, and even when (if) it ever comes out, it will be behind the F-22, which is behind where the F-35 is.  The J-20 is about the same - it's years behind and they have literally a handful of them.  It's not about guys in the desert shooting AK's at them.  It's about military superiority over your competitors - and right now that's China and Russia.

As a U.S. taxpayer, I feel perfectly entitled to question the bang for the buck of yet another fantastically opulent weapons program.   I do not need to fly the plane in order to read the dollar figures and performance reports then come to my own conclusions. 

[raptor1956]

Frankly, the manned missions that makes sense to me are more along the F-22 lines and if we were looking to command the skies into the future we should probably be looking at a successor to the F-22 as it's already closing in on 30 years old.

The F-35 *is* designed to be the successor to the F-22. It's also designed to be the successor for every other plane in existence, and that's it's problem.

Not quite ... The main role of the F-22 is to command the sky -- air supremacy, whereas the F-35 is more of a jack of all trades master of none but biased towards the attack role.  It will not serve the role of air supremacy like the F-22 though with newer avionics its limitations are somewhat offset by avionics that are better at some things.  They don't freeze the tech in military AC and the nearly 60 year old B-52 is still updated -- the F-22 is going to be upgraded throughout its lifetime.

The Chinese are working on stealth and there J-20 looks aimed at naval attack, probably to deploy anti-ship cruise missiles then turn around before being noticed.    I would think the NATO/USA long term plans need to include something qualitatively superior to the J-20 and while the F-22 is no doubt still ahead of the best the Chinese have the margins are less.

So, I would argue that the F-35 is not the ideal platform to deal with an emerging Chinese threat and the F-22, though still ahead and being upgraded, is still a 30 year old design. 


Brian

[Marco]

Earlier today for position was via satellites, now it is LoS.

Why are you putting these in opposition? Satellites are the easiest method for LoS communication, you generally have them in LoS from a plane.

Otherwise you'd use relay drones, there are already tethered communication drones for instance which ground troops can use.

[EEVblog]

I don't think a bunch of engineers on the internet are really qualified to pass judgement on the F-35.  There are a lot of really, really smart people working on this project.

Having worked at military companies working with lots of really really smart people on leading edge projects, I can assure you that those really really smart people can't magically fix problems that are inherent in the specification itself that dooms the project to failure or general mediocrity.
I'm sure they will produce a fantastic plane, but there is only so much you can do when your hands are tied and you are trying to please half a dozen different customers with differing requirements with the same product.

[EEVblog]

Frankly, the manned missions that makes sense to me are more along the F-22 lines and if we were looking to command the skies into the future we should probably be looking at a successor to the F-22 as it's already closing in on 30 years old.

The F-35 *is* designed to be the successor to the F-22. It's also designed to be the successor for every other plane in existence, and that's it's problem.

Not quite ... The main role of the F-22 is to command the sky -- air supremacy, whereas the F-35 is more of a jack of all trades master of none but biased towards the attack role.  It will not serve the role of air supremacy like the F-22 though with newer avionics its limitations are somewhat offset by avionics that are better at some things.  They don't freeze the tech in military AC and the nearly 60 year old B-52 is still updated -- the F-22 is going to be upgraded throughout its lifetime.

But they aren't building any more, so good luck with upgrading them when you only have 187 operational airframes. The B-52 had 744 airframes to work with.

[denverpilot]

long story short... every big corporation is doomed because of the pressure from the finance guys... and that's why Dell decided to go private.

For us electronics buffs, it's also why Bourns is private.

Disclaimer and background: Father, deceased, used to work for them. After talking to him over the years about his lifetime selling electronic components both for publicly-traded companies, and then later for Bourns, the business side differences in what drove quality and customer service decisions (especially when something got fouled up) were night and day.

The much more positive responses for doing what was "the right thing to do" for customers, fell squarely on the privately held side of that. A privately held business could take a much longer term view of customer relationships beyond "this quarter's numbers".

[raptor1956]

Frankly, the manned missions that makes sense to me are more along the F-22 lines and if we were looking to command the skies into the future we should probably be looking at a successor to the F-22 as it's already closing in on 30 years old.

The F-35 *is* designed to be the successor to the F-22. It's also designed to be the successor for every other plane in existence, and that's it's problem.

Not quite ... The main role of the F-22 is to command the sky -- air supremacy, whereas the F-35 is more of a jack of all trades master of none but biased towards the attack role.  It will not serve the role of air supremacy like the F-22 though with newer avionics its limitations are somewhat offset by avionics that are better at some things.  They don't freeze the tech in military AC and the nearly 60 year old B-52 is still updated -- the F-22 is going to be upgraded throughout its lifetime.

But they aren't building any more, so good luck with upgrading them when you only have 187 operational airframes. The B-52 had 744 airframes to work with.

Well that's kind of my point -- they do not have very many F-22's and the F-35 is not the best design for air supremacy so that's why they need to be working on a replacement for the F-22.

The selling point for the F-35 is that it will be in service for 50 years or some nonsense.  I'd bet the F-35 will start being phased out within 20 years unless the global economy collapses first.  Touch call...


Brian