Without wires?
Science fiction !
The United States Air Force has successfully networked its F-22 Raptor and F-15 Eagle aircraft under the “Talon HATE” program. The F-15 first flew in 1972 and has been in service since the late 1970s, while the F-22 entered service two decades later. The latter aircraft had some data networking capabilities, but the F-15's …
Strange... I've been reading the F-35's latest tests have been impressive.
Especially when pared with the old jets, increasing their effectiveness also. The data capabilities of the F-35 seem to be a large part of it...
The problem of course is building enough F-35's to make an impact. So, it makes sense they're upgrading the existing ones (in the meantime). It's also very cost effective, if the expectation is to keep them in the air for another decade.
>The problem of course is building enough F-35's to make an impact.
Especially building them before that whole thing of having a meat sack that great reduces the g forces an aircraft can operate under makes the kit completely obsolete. Not to mention what could go wrong politically with a pilot shot down (Gary Powers, Jordan pilot IS got a hold of, etc.).
I wouldn't claim to be an expert, but I thought that the F35 was designed more for having lots of angles so that most radar signals bounce off the aircraft in directions other than back towards a hostile RADAR array, giving it a reduced Radar Cross Section so that it can get somewhat closer to a RADAR array than an "unstealthy" aircraft without being detected and having Radar guided missiles tossed at it.
In fact, I seem to recall that because it compromised aerodynamics for stealth and also has a very low thrust to weight ratio it has pretty poor manoeuvrability resulting in a relatively compromised ability to engage in Ariel Combat Manoeuvres (aka dogfighting) compared to other aircraft such as the F15, Eurofighter, Sopwith Camel, Supermarine Spitfire and the Boeing 747.
'has a very low thrust to weight ratio'
Yeah, that whole vertical take-off and landing thing is done with magnets.
As to manoeuvrability, that's generally limited by max g-loading which is model dependent but slowly being increased with software updates. Of course in the tests referred to it never got into a dogfight because the other aircraft didn't see it coming.
"'has a very low thrust to weight ratio'
Yeah, that whole vertical take-off and landing thing is done with magnets.
As to manoeuvrability, that's generally limited by max g-loading which is model dependent but slowly being increased with software updates. Of course in the tests referred to it never got into a dogfight because the other aircraft didn't see it coming
Ah. I thought that when making radical manoeuvres with an airframe you massively increase drag, resulting in losing speed quickly, and the power of your engine(s) then determines how much you can speed up enabling you to manoeuvre without losing so much speed that you either end up stalling and falling like a brick, or getting stuck in a predictable flight envelope because you can't turn hard.
Still, if the F35 can avoid this because despite only having one engine and therefore a thrust to weight ratio of 0.7 to 0.8, (model dependant) compared to ~1.1 for 1970's aircraft, and ~1.2 for the modern multi engine aircraft like the Eurofighter or F22 because it's got "magical magnets" then that's good to know. How do they work then?
Also good to know that our air defence posture has changed to arbitrarily shooting down any unidentified radar contacts on detection instead of making visual contact first to make sure we aren't going to shoot down an airliner, as that used to make stealth irrelevant. When did this change happen?
'But I haven't seen any mention of ramps on F35 aircraft carriers... It's all catapults.'
http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/queenelizabeth
It's quite subtle, but if you look at the picture at the link you can just make out a ramp at the bow.
Ultimately you're always going to be able to lift more with a short running take-off than a vertical one, and with a ramp more so, it's basic physics. Similarly you may design a combat aircraft with T/W ratio greater than 1 but it's nigh on impossible to resist the urge to take advantage of that and hang more weapons/fuel on it.
'They had to dump unused weaponry to achieve that though.'
Not totally true, for instance the Sea Harriers operating over the Former Republic of Yugoslavia didn't have to jettison stores when returning to the carrier but they were carrying air-to-air missiles so probably around 1200lb total. It would vary by air temperature and pressure what the max weight for VTOL was so the being back would vary by location. If it's the Persian Gulf in summer probably just the pilot in his underwear.
'Also good to know that our air defence posture has changed to arbitrarily shooting down any unidentified radar contacts on detection instead of making visual contact first to make sure we aren't going to shoot down an airliner, as that used to make stealth irrelevant.'
Who said it's changed? There are multiple levels of identification, visual contact is very Vietnam era, you can generally tell from what a contact is emitting whether it's civil or military, which depending on your posture may be all you need to shoot something down.
That Eurofighter T/W ratio, what's it carrying? Because that and the F-22 are generally less than 1.0 if they've got a useful payload.
<quote>here are multiple levels of identification, visual contact is very Vietnam era, you can generally tell from what a contact is emitting whether it's civil or military, which depending on your posture may be all you need to shoot something down.</quote>
Visual confirmation is what its all about, as what its emitting could be a fabrication or a software glitch.
Anyway, even with visual confirmation the good old USA cant tell the difference between enemies and Allies, let alone civilians. Note multiple instances of "Frendly" fire and collateral damage (hospital accidently destroyed)
'Visual confirmation is what its all about, as what its emitting could be a fabrication or a software glitch.'
Not strictly true, an expensive radar military radar will produce a more consistent signal than an off the shelf weather radar for instance, e.g. pulse repetition frequency, scan rate etc.. So although you couldn't assume a contact was civil because its radar signal was a bit variable, you could assume it was military if it was consistent. Which you'd then add to other evidence, such as speed, height, manoeuvring etc. to give a classification along with a level of confidence. It's just the F-35 does most of the hard work for you.
And by visual identification are you planning to get within Mk1 eyeball range, or do you think modern optics might allow that to happen a bit further out? Or there's Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar which can provide enough of an image to distinguish an airliner from a fighter.
" it has pretty poor manoeuvrability resulting in a relatively compromised ability to engage in Ariel Combat Manoeuvres (aka dogfighting) compared to other aircraft such as the F15, Eurofighter, Sopwith Camel, Supermarine Spitfire and the Boeing 747."
It could probably down a Goodyear Blimp though. If the wind was blowing just right.
You're thinking of the F-117A Nighthawk. F-35 doesn't have the angular shape of the F-117A, which was a first generation stealth aircraft. Everything you describe fits the F-117A but has nothing to do with F-35.
F-35 is capable of supersonic flight while the F-117A is not.
The problems with the F-35 is that the carrier and Air Force variants compromised their design to retain commonality with the Marine Short Take Off/Vertical Landing (like a AV-8A/B Harrier)
'Especially building them before that whole thing of having a meat sack that great reduces the g forces an aircraft can operate under makes the kit completely obsolete.'
To be honest the big saving removing a human from the aircraft is the weight saved in not having all the life support systems. Although unmanned aircraft could pull more g than a manned one you then have to build a stronger aircraft structure to withstand the greater load, which makes it heavier so you have to build it stronger just to support itself, which is a game of rapidly diminishing returns.
There's also the issue of the engines, due to having a mass spinning at high speed they act like gyroscopes and applying a force creates all sorts of issues with the bearings, not to mention bending of the shaft, so having them work reliably at high g is a non-trivial exercise. I think part of the issue with the F-35 engine a few years ago was bending of the shaft had led to blades rubbing against the casing more than was expected.
I did read at least a decade back that LM expect the latter F-35 production run to be unmanned though.
"The data capabilities of the F-35 seem to be a large part of it..."
If you're flying the F35 to be a data truck, you're better off putting that capability on an AWACs aircraft or some kind of ELINT drone. It's a lot cheaper to fly and likely to be a lot more likely to actually be flyable when needed.
That's a huge pod. In a day when cellphones are a couple of ounces, why is that so big?
They probably just bought some surplus Mig-25 valve-based equipment from the russians, and covered it with a pod to hide the hammer-and-sicle marks chiseled into the wooden cabinet it came with.
"They probably just bought some surplus Mig-25 valve-based equipment from the russians, and covered it with a pod to hide the hammer-and-sicle marks chiseled into the wooden cabinet it came with"
but where did the Mikoyan equipment come from? :-)
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/creatures/pages/russians.html
Good question. Possible explanations would be.
1)Chose a standard size pod and ensured it's got lots of room in case the development programme went sideways or future additional mods were needed. I note we know about the comms, but not what additional "sensors" have been added. Could be the 10cms of the pod length is the whole comms package, the rest for the sensor suite (which can also have high electricity and cooling needs, IE running a small APU in there).
2) 3 sets of triply redundant comms perhaps?
3)Better spacing for the phased array aerial elements?
One thing I've never understood. In an era of increasing satellite comm needs why don't more combat aircraft have a) Upper wing surface areas available for sky pointing aerials. b)Why they don't have at least one hard point for mounting a pod above the wing for upward looking "stuff"?
> Good question. Possible explanations would be.
> 1)Chose a standard size pod and
I'm guessing it's still a test system so a standard pod is being used. The requirement to use a standard pod is not the size but the known aerodynamic behaviour.
Once the tests are done, they'll make a decision on what to throw out internally to make space and it will be mounted internally. (Presumably what will go is the existing radio which the new system will replace as well as providing networking.)
One thing I've never understood. In an era of increasing satellite comm needs why don't more combat aircraft have a) Upper wing surface areas available for sky pointing aerials. b)Why they don't have at least one hard point for mounting a pod above the wing for upward looking "stuff"?
My (basic) understanding of how wings generate lift, is that the air moves more slowly underneath them than above them, thus generating increased pressure on the lower surface. Sticking things on the top of the wing would therefore decrease the lift, increase the stall speed, and make the aircraft less aerodynamic and efficient in general. I guess they stick such things in the top of the canopy instead.
'My (basic) understanding of how wings generate lift'
NASA disagrees: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/airplane/wrong1.html
worth reading through to get to the correct explanation which isn't even taught on Commercial Pilot's Licence courses. Because the syllabus is also wrong.
Incidentally some aircraft have had pylons above the wing, notably the Jaguar and Lightning, with a well designed pylon there shouldn't be much effect on the airflow over the wing. You may be able to make it a positive effect if you can get it to work as a fence to reduce span wise flow.
@SkippyBing,
"the Jaguar and Lightning"
<Obligatory Queen Quote>
Very very frigthening Gallileo Gallileo etc.
</Obligatory Queen Quote>
On the Lightening they put the pylons above because there was no where else to put anything. The underside of the wing was taken up by the main landing gear, the fuselage was all fuel and engines without so much as a cubic inch left over for anything else (including maintenance engineer's fingers...). Awesome plane, still holds some records that will likely remain unbeaten.
Who Needs AWACS?
With networking like this you don't need AWACS quite so much. It's a trick the RAF did a lot of early work on with Link 16 on Tornados, and were embarassed at least some parts of the USAF in a joint exercise until the USAF asked them to go home and stop doing it...
'On the Lightening they put the pylons above because there was no where else to put anything. '
Valid point, although BAC did eventually manage to squeeze a pylon under each wing for the Saudi Mk.53 which let them operate in the ground attack role. Because that's what you want for a ground attack aircraft, a Mach 2 interceptor with poor endurance!
Or you could just build the aerials in the form of a phased array into the upper surface of the plane.
Who knows maybe they already have done this after all you do not want to be doing loads of comms stuff so that all unsundry can pick it up esp if you are trying to be, well, stealthy.
" Sticking things on the top of the wing would therefore decrease the lift"
That depends how you do it.
Conformal shoulder-mounted auxiliary tanks on F16s can increase lift whilst not appreciably increasing drag.
The A4 Skyhawk's dorsal hump was an extremely useful place to stuff a lot of skyward-looking electronics.
"One thing I've never understood. [...] Why they don't have at least one hard point for mounting a pod above the wing for upward looking "stuff"?"
Dunno... because fighter jocks are used to looking down on anything else?
Because military grade systems are designed to be rugged - not small. Granted, many civilian systems are also fairly rugged, but they aren't going to be dealing with the stresses of being mounted to a aircraft designed to be maneuverable (which are different constraints to cargo and passenger planes) as well as experiencing many more g's than most civilian hardware ever will.
These systems are also not using state of the art hardware. Most of it is at least 4-5 years old and all of it has to be backwards compatible (i.e. emulate) with older systems still in service.
Militaries are incredibly conservative and will keep something that they KNOW works long after newer things have come along.
For now we can enjoy the fact that forty-something-year-old aircraft can be retrofitted for this at all,
I suggest you view the last 9th of May parade on the red square, aviation section while listening carefully to the comments and/or peruse the relevant Jane Defense report on what the Russians did to their existing Su-24, Su-25, Mig-29 fleet. These 40 year old have been retrofitted to today's standard already and are in service.
Makes a lot of sense for today (mostly counterinsurgency and interventionist) wars.
USA is a bit late to the party here. By 5+ years (if ever).
You might care to take a look at the B52
There is a world of difference in upgrading the avionics in a monster that can carry a mainframe and not notice it and a fighter jet. You do not have the weight and the power budget to play silly digital upgrade buggers.
That is doubly so when you take into account that for fighter jets the radar and some of the ECM are usually designed day one together with the airframe. Replacing them with something modern is a non-trivial task, ditto for communications, cockpit avionics, etc.
What the Russians have done in terms of avionics upgrades to their fighter, battlefield bomber and close in support aircraft is an amazing technical achievement and I will stand by what I said - USA is late to the party here. This is for political reasons too - less pork in it.
another nice juicy target for the hackers.
Because these things are by design 'air gapped' makes them more secure. now they want to network them. Probably a prelude to getting rid of the crew entirely. Then the target of the hackers will be so nice an juicy that it will be hard to resist.
Imagine the kudos in the black hat world to the first one to take over a combat aircraft and drop its payload on some General's back yard? (when he's not there naturally).
Who thought that this was a good idea? Come on now. Show yourself?
Imagine the kudos in the black hat world to the first one to take over a combat aircraft and drop its payload on some General's back yard? (when he's not there naturally).
I doubt networking the sensors on an aircraft would allow you to do that. You might be able to spoof sensor readings to fool them into colliding mid-air, but even then, I reckon you'd be more likely to be identified by your RF emissions and find yourself the recipient of some targeted explosives.
Do you know what, I reckon they might even have considered this sort of thing, not being entirely inexperienced in the field of warfare.
@AC,
That largely depends on your available supporting assets, things like tankers and such.
Realistically, the pod will probably weigh less than an equivalent fuel pod when even half full. It may affect the top speed and turn rate, but probably not as much as it's already limited by the squishy component in the middle.