Jump to content

F-35 poll.


Air Hockey Propellers

The F-35 augmentation nobody talks about?  

52 members have voted

  1. 1. Did you know that the F-35 is supposed to control and be supported by drones?

    • Yes, I read about it all the time everywhere.
      5
    • Yes, but I've rarely come across that information.
      19
    • Nope, didn't have a clue.
      28


Recommended Posts

On 2/22/2018 at 1:31 PM, Mr Bowcat said:

"The F-35 will soon be equipped with artificial intelligence to control drone wingmen" (http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-artificial-intelligence-drone-wingmen-2017-1?IR=T)

LOL - how long before we get the first reports of Aircraft being targeted by their own drone wingmen????

 

Cynical Quack:tease:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-35 was not meant to have a great payload capacity or be highly maneuverable. It was meant to be a Forward Air Control of sorts for Artificially Intelligent drone wingmen that would supplement and augment it. Imagine different wingmen with missiles, bombs, buddy refueling, sensors, ECMs, decoys, etc... In this sense, the "code" the jet has in it is the most important part. The pilot selects the target and this is automatically assigned to an AI wingman. The weapon's bay of the F-35 would be more appropriate for missiles that turn 180 degrees to defend the jet's six (French-style?).

 

This is why so much money has disappeared in Skunkwork's labs. They are using it to develop the AI drones in secrecy just as they've developed other technology like the F-117 in secrecy.

 

Not trying to sound facetious, this, however, makes me wonder why this little known fact is seldom stated in the news. Why are they trying to hide this from us. Or rather, why don't they defend their product by reminding us it's true nature and purpose.

 

 

On 2/23/2018 at 11:20 PM, Dr. Quack said:

LOL - how long before we get the first reports of Aircraft being targeted by their own drone wingmen????

 

Cynical Quack:tease:

Whoa, that link is slightly over a year old. I saw some reference to this I think in articles from October. 

 

What do you reckon an AI wingman hitting it's leader will be called? Grey on Blue?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AlbertoYagi said:

Not trying to sound facetious, this, however, makes me wonder why this little known fact is seldom stated in the news. Why are they trying to hide this from us. Or rather, why don't they defend their product by reminding us it's true nature and purpose.

The 'P' word old bean, the subject of drones is a very hot potato in some quarters and maybe the fact that our abilities are going to be more reliant on this form of combat, this is the thin end of the wedge.

To be fair I like the idea although in my mind(my pedestrian mind) if you knock out the mother ship you can(potentially) knock out all the drones with it unless they are also slaved to a second tier of command.

Interesting topic though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Head in the clouds. said:

The 'P' word old bean, the subject of drones is a very hot potato in some quarters and maybe the fact that our abilities are going to be more reliant on this form of combat, this is the thin end of the wedge.

To be fair I like the idea although in my mind(my pedestrian mind) if you knock out the mother ship you can(potentially) knock out all the drones with it unless they are also slaved to a second tier of command.

Interesting topic though.

Well, I'd have a hard time understanding how it would be politically better to let news about how bad the aircraft is go on and on. However, I do remember almost the exact moment when the media stopped criticizing the jet.

 

When it comes to our abilities, it's been known for years that aircraft are cheaper if designed not to sustain life, since life support systems do take a lot of money and space. Actually, a same aircraft without cockpit and life support could cost less than half? The study has been made and it has been determined to be substantially cheaper. Moreover, these aircraft would be able to sustain more G forces than what the pilots can withstand, hence out-turning even the Flanker.

 

However, you do point out an interesting issue, if the mothership is knocked down. The point of "controlling" the drones from an F-35 would be to have instant communication with them. Anyway, I'm sure this contingency has been looked into. An F-35 would be supported by the drones nearest to him with the required capabilities. If that F-35 gets shot down, either they'll support the next nearest jet or linger over the ejected pilot providing cover. The possibilities are endless.

 

I do have this nagging feeling, however, that the drone support will only be available for the US, UK, and Israel and that that is why it's not talked about. Once the countries that ordered the jet get them, we'll see the launch of the support AI wingmen and the US persuading the countries that don't get it that the "interoperability" and the "situational awareness" enhancements are enough for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, AlbertoYagi said:

When it comes to our abilities, it's been known for years that aircraft are cheaper if designed not to sustain life, since life support systems do take a lot of money and space. Actually, a same aircraft without cockpit and life support could cost less than half? The study has been made and it has been determined to be substantially cheaper. Moreover, these aircraft would be able to sustain more G forces than what the pilots can withstand, hence out-turning even the Flanker

You are correct Alberto, this has been known for a long time, the carbon based unit is the "weak link".

 

The way the world is becoming interconnected with everything from Televisions to F35's makes me feel a little uneasy, it offers criminals and foe alike so many potential pathways to attack via a 'back door' as was recently seen by the release of the virus that started in Ukraine but nearly shut down half the western world and then some, the NHS here was heavily affected. While I know this is the way we are proceeding much more needs to be invested in the boring element of security for these systems, so much fanfare about how it will enlighten our life but very little on it's security or short comings.

I think you may have stated an interesting debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lord Riot said:

Modern aircraft are rubbish. 

 

I wish we still had about 60 squadrons of Hunters, Canberras, Vulcans and Buccaneers! 

I wish too, i wish we had beaten the Scots yesterday as well. Stuffed always round.:mellow:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Head in the clouds. said:

The way the world is becoming interconnected with everything from Televisions to F35's makes me feel a little uneasy, it offers criminals and foe alike so many potential pathways to attack via a 'back door'

Speaking of which, I read on a magazine that the latest cockpit of the SuperHornet can be connected to a Windows 10 tablet. That's worrying.

 

If we evaluate this issue, we come across the example the operating systems in ICBM which are programmed to self destruct the missile if any modification is made upon launch, preventing the missile from turning toward friendlies. Good. But then that kill switch can be exploited to kill jets in the air, too so they would have to take it away.

 

Another example of cyber security are chromebook operating systems that are extremely small and therefor can check the entire OS every time you turn on the computer to see if it has been modified and revert to the original backup copy if such were the case. The operating systems of F-35 are humongous making such anti-tampering verification upon booting unfeasible. I've read it can take days to update an F-35's operating system.

 

I'm actually starting to get concerned. 

 

3 hours ago, Lord Riot said:

Modern aircraft are rubbish. 

 

I wish we still had about 60 squadrons of Hunters, Canberras, Vulcans and Buccaneers! 

Well, I actually prefer the 3rd generation jets. Fourth and fifth generation jets in models look like toys to me.

 

Third generation look like real machines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That the F-35 was designed to be integrated with a anumber of other resources, including drones, is something that has been known from the very beginning of the program and a number of commentators have noted as this capability is actually more important and revolutionary than the stealthness of the aircraft. At the same time the F-35/drone integration is not necessarily something like "one F-35 acts as a mother-ship for a squadron of drones" but is more something where the F-35 and the drones are part of a system that is continuously sharing information between all parts.

A number of statements are also not correct, for example that the F-35 was not meant to have a large weapon load. The F-35 can carry a relatively limited load in internal bays, but a fully internal load is only meant to be used in those situations where a degree of stealthiness is required. For missions that don't require stealth, the load capability is incremented with external pylons. Considering that the F-35 does not need the external fuel tanks commonly seen on F-16s and F-18s, the load carrying capability is superior to what is commonly carried today by older fighters.

 

 

On 25/2/2018 at 10:39 AM, Lord Riot said:

Modern aircraft are rubbish. 

 

I wish we still had about 60 squadrons of Hunters, Canberras, Vulcans and Buccaneers! 

 

I'd love it, it would make for a great sight at airshows. As long as they don't have to go to war against those boring looking modern aircrafts :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

I wish we still had about 60 squadrons of Hunters, Canberras, Vulcans and Buccaneers! 

Yes I agree 110%. However modern mentality would still have them all painted boring “GREY”.

Edited by Corsairfoxfouruncle
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Corsairfoxfouruncle said:

Yes I agree 110%. However modern mentality would still have them all painted boring “GREY”.

They would still look better than an F-35.  No matter what colour that thing is painted, it would still look like a broken wheelie-bin.

 

Chris

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F-35 is designed to perhaps do many things just as Typhoon has been designed to perhaps do many things , real question is will either ever actually do them?   

 

Coming up for 11 years since the RAF withdrew the Jaguar and the Typhoon still has not fully replaced it.

Edited by Des
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, PLC1966 said:

Tinfoil Hat shipment for Japan please............

Jajajaja!

 

23 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

Considering that the F-35 does not need the external fuel tanks commonly seen on F-16s and F-18s, the load carrying capability is superior to what is commonly carried today by older fighters.

Can you tell us more about this? I know the Raptor can carry two drop tanks for long haul flights.

 

And by the way, the F-35 looks so bloated already that it would be funny to see it with conformal fuel tanks and drop tanks!

 

Anyhow, I saw an article somewhere about the achilles heel of these stealth jets, their (so far) inevitably non stealth tankers. To this I say hurry up MQ-25 tanker. However, that's so far only for the Navy.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, AlbertoYagi said:

Can you tell us more about this? I know the Raptor can carry two drop tanks for long haul flights.

 

And by the way, the F-35 looks so bloated already that it would be funny to see it with conformal fuel tanks and drop tanks!

 

 

I have never mentioned external fuel tanks or similar, I'm simply referring to the capability of the F-35 of carrying an external weapon load, something already planned from the start and that is now being implemented on the current aircrafts, see for example these two links

 

https://theaviationist.com/2014/01/18/f-35c-full-load/

 

http://www.luke.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1253721/external-pylon-training-increases-f-35a-weapons-payload-capability/

 

The internal fuel capacity of the F-35 is quite impressive compared to earlier aircrafts, with the 18,000 lbs of fuel more than double the 7,000 of the F-16C. For this reason the F-35 will not require external fuel tanks but will be able to use most or all pylons for armament. This means that the F-35 will be able to carry more weapons in any mission compared to older aircrafts.

 

 

Anyhow, I saw an article somewhere about the achilles heel of these stealth jets, their (so far) inevitably non stealth tankers. To this I say hurry up MQ-25 tanker. However, that's so far only for the Navy.......

 

I feel that there's a bit of misunderstanding of what stealthiness means... a "stealth" aircraft enjoys the advantage of a reduced radar signature to operate with less risks in high threat areas. Operations like tanking are generally not carried out  in such areas so there's no real need for a stealth tanker. Any stealth attack aircraft will simply refuel before entering areas with strong air defences. Having a good range on internal fuel is therefore more important than having a stealth tanker.

In any case, considering how much attention to details is devoted in the design of stealth aircrafts, I seriously doubt that a tanker-receiver combination would be invisible to radars during the refueling phase.

And more, not only tankers are not stealthy but so are all the other air assets supporting the fighters, like AEW and similar platforms. Yet this is not really a problem as long as these assets are far enough from the higher threat areas

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...