F35 - superfighter or lame duck?

[there4eyeM]

America may well find out the truth of this the hard way.

 

[DrainBamage]

The country that spearheaded military use of unmanned aircraft, produces/uses/sells more large combat drones than any other, has accomplished more military strikes from unmanned aircraft by a massive margin, and is currently working on fielding a carrier based unmanned tanker/recon aircraft will find out the hard way about the benefits of unmanned aircraft?

 

[WorldWatcher]

.>

This isn't aimed at being negative, just a quest for understanding.

On the plus side of the F-35 is it's integration and information management with other aircraft and service units. If I understand this correctly it can provide targeting data to other weapons systems functioning as a force multiplier.

On the negative side of unmanned aircraft under remote control is the danger of taking the on-board human out of the loop because drones jamming or spoofing control of the remote signal.



How does this jive between the two? Either the types of protections that ensure the security of the F-35 data communications could be used with unmanned OR the F-35 would be susceptible to the same problems in an integrated environment.

(I've been out of the Naval Aviation field for about 20 years so I'm interested in how this aspect of the technology has changed.)


.>>>>

 

[Daryl Hunt]

.>

This isn't aimed at being negative, just a quest for understanding.

On the plus side of the F-35 is it's integration and information management with other aircraft and service units. If I understand this correctly it can provide targeting data to other weapons systems functioning as a force multiplier.

On the negative side of unmanned aircraft under remote control is the danger of taking the on-board human out of the loop because drones jamming or spoofing control of the remote signal.



How does this jive between the two? Either the types of protections that ensure the security of the F-35 data communications could be used with unmanned OR the F-35 would be susceptible to the same problems in an integrated environment.

(I've been out of the Naval Aviation field for about 20 years so I'm interested in how this aspect of the technology has changed.)


.>>>>

Those are some really good questions. Let's take a look at some of them.

I don't remember when, but a bunch of years ago, they installed a system on a test F-18 that would take over the AC and ensure the survivability of the aircraft in the event of the pilot blacking out and losing control. They intentionally did a manuever that blacked out the pilot during a combat training exercise. The system took over. The problem ended up being, the system worked too well. It kept the pilot blacked out and attacked everything in sight. They finally had to clear all air space to allow the pilot time to come out of it and resume control. This system was abandoned fast.

AI has to be a lot smarter than it was back then. In order to work well, due to the jamming factor, the AI has to be able to take control and operate as if it were controlled by a human pilot. It has to be able to determine if it's a threat or not and now to defend or attack against the actual threats. And it has to know when to bug out if it's not able to do any of the above actions. It has to be able to protect against it's own survival. We are not to that point yet as far as I know. Until we are, the Human Pilot is going to have to be in that seat making those decisions sooner or later in any battle.

 

[WorldWatcher]

.>

This isn't aimed at being negative, just a quest for understanding.

On the plus side of the F-35 is it's integration and information management with other aircraft and service units. If I understand this correctly it can provide targeting data to other weapons systems functioning as a force multiplier.

On the negative side of unmanned aircraft under remote control is the danger of taking the on-board human out of the loop because drones jamming or spoofing control of the remote signal.



How does this jive between the two? Either the types of protections that ensure the security of the F-35 data communications could be used with unmanned OR the F-35 would be susceptible to the same problems in an integrated environment.

(I've been out of the Naval Aviation field for about 20 years so I'm interested in how this aspect of the technology has changed.)


.>>>>

Those are some really good questions. Let's take a look at some of them.

I don't remember when, but a bunch of years ago, they installed a system on a test F-18 that would take over the AC and ensure the survivability of the aircraft in the event of the pilot blacking out and losing control. They intentionally did a manuever that blacked out the pilot during a combat training exercise. The system took over. The problem ended up being, the system worked too well. It kept the pilot blacked out and attacked everything in sight. They finally had to clear all air space to allow the pilot time to come out of it and resume control. This system was abandoned fast.

AI has to be a lot smarter than it was back then. In order to work well, due to the jamming factor, the AI has to be able to take control and operate as if it were controlled by a human pilot. It has to be able to determine if it's a threat or not and now to defend or attack against the actual threats. And it has to know when to bug out if it's not able to do any of the above actions. It has to be able to protect against it's own survival. We are not to that point yet as far as I know. Until we are, the Human Pilot is going to have to be in that seat making those decisions sooner or later in any battle.

That's an autonomous unmanned vehicle, I was asking about remotely piloted vehicles.



.>>>>

 

[Daryl Hunt]

.>

This isn't aimed at being negative, just a quest for understanding.

On the plus side of the F-35 is it's integration and information management with other aircraft and service units. If I understand this correctly it can provide targeting data to other weapons systems functioning as a force multiplier.

On the negative side of unmanned aircraft under remote control is the danger of taking the on-board human out of the loop because drones jamming or spoofing control of the remote signal.



How does this jive between the two? Either the types of protections that ensure the security of the F-35 data communications could be used with unmanned OR the F-35 would be susceptible to the same problems in an integrated environment.

(I've been out of the Naval Aviation field for about 20 years so I'm interested in how this aspect of the technology has changed.)


.>>>>

Those are some really good questions. Let's take a look at some of them.

I don't remember when, but a bunch of years ago, they installed a system on a test F-18 that would take over the AC and ensure the survivability of the aircraft in the event of the pilot blacking out and losing control. They intentionally did a manuever that blacked out the pilot during a combat training exercise. The system took over. The problem ended up being, the system worked too well. It kept the pilot blacked out and attacked everything in sight. They finally had to clear all air space to allow the pilot time to come out of it and resume control. This system was abandoned fast.

AI has to be a lot smarter than it was back then. In order to work well, due to the jamming factor, the AI has to be able to take control and operate as if it were controlled by a human pilot. It has to be able to determine if it's a threat or not and now to defend or attack against the actual threats. And it has to know when to bug out if it's not able to do any of the above actions. It has to be able to protect against it's own survival. We are not to that point yet as far as I know. Until we are, the Human Pilot is going to have to be in that seat making those decisions sooner or later in any battle.

That's an autonomous unmanned vehicle, I was asking about remotely piloted vehicles.



.>>>>

I can see a real problem with remotely piloted armed vehicles in hot areas. We can already scramble the other sides RPVs and I imagine they can do the same with ours. There is currently a need for RPVs both armed and recon but how long that will lost I don't know. At some point, there will have to be some form of AI added if nothing else, to get it to return to base and to protect itself.

 

[WorldWatcher]

.>

This isn't aimed at being negative, just a quest for understanding.

On the plus side of the F-35 is it's integration and information management with other aircraft and service units. If I understand this correctly it can provide targeting data to other weapons systems functioning as a force multiplier.

On the negative side of unmanned aircraft under remote control is the danger of taking the on-board human out of the loop because drones jamming or spoofing control of the remote signal.



How does this jive between the two? Either the types of protections that ensure the security of the F-35 data communications could be used with unmanned OR the F-35 would be susceptible to the same problems in an integrated environment.

(I've been out of the Naval Aviation field for about 20 years so I'm interested in how this aspect of the technology has changed.)


.>>>>

Those are some really good questions. Let's take a look at some of them.

I don't remember when, but a bunch of years ago, they installed a system on a test F-18 that would take over the AC and ensure the survivability of the aircraft in the event of the pilot blacking out and losing control. They intentionally did a manuever that blacked out the pilot during a combat training exercise. The system took over. The problem ended up being, the system worked too well. It kept the pilot blacked out and attacked everything in sight. They finally had to clear all air space to allow the pilot time to come out of it and resume control. This system was abandoned fast.

AI has to be a lot smarter than it was back then. In order to work well, due to the jamming factor, the AI has to be able to take control and operate as if it were controlled by a human pilot. It has to be able to determine if it's a threat or not and now to defend or attack against the actual threats. And it has to know when to bug out if it's not able to do any of the above actions. It has to be able to protect against it's own survival. We are not to that point yet as far as I know. Until we are, the Human Pilot is going to have to be in that seat making those decisions sooner or later in any battle.

That's an autonomous unmanned vehicle, I was asking about remotely piloted vehicles.



.>>>>

I can see a real problem with remotely piloted armed vehicles in hot areas. We can already scramble the other sides RPVs and I imagine they can do the same with ours. There is currently a need for RPVs both armed and recon but how long that will lost I don't know. At some point, there will have to be some form of AI added if nothing else, to get it to return to base and to protect itself.

This ex-E2|EP-3|ES-3 in-flight tech, radar operator, & EWOP thanks you for your thoughts.


.>>>>

 

[Daryl Hunt]

.>

This isn't aimed at being negative, just a quest for understanding.

On the plus side of the F-35 is it's integration and information management with other aircraft and service units. If I understand this correctly it can provide targeting data to other weapons systems functioning as a force multiplier.

On the negative side of unmanned aircraft under remote control is the danger of taking the on-board human out of the loop because drones jamming or spoofing control of the remote signal.



How does this jive between the two? Either the types of protections that ensure the security of the F-35 data communications could be used with unmanned OR the F-35 would be susceptible to the same problems in an integrated environment.

(I've been out of the Naval Aviation field for about 20 years so I'm interested in how this aspect of the technology has changed.)


.>>>>

Those are some really good questions. Let's take a look at some of them.

I don't remember when, but a bunch of years ago, they installed a system on a test F-18 that would take over the AC and ensure the survivability of the aircraft in the event of the pilot blacking out and losing control. They intentionally did a manuever that blacked out the pilot during a combat training exercise. The system took over. The problem ended up being, the system worked too well. It kept the pilot blacked out and attacked everything in sight. They finally had to clear all air space to allow the pilot time to come out of it and resume control. This system was abandoned fast.

AI has to be a lot smarter than it was back then. In order to work well, due to the jamming factor, the AI has to be able to take control and operate as if it were controlled by a human pilot. It has to be able to determine if it's a threat or not and now to defend or attack against the actual threats. And it has to know when to bug out if it's not able to do any of the above actions. It has to be able to protect against it's own survival. We are not to that point yet as far as I know. Until we are, the Human Pilot is going to have to be in that seat making those decisions sooner or later in any battle.

That's an autonomous unmanned vehicle, I was asking about remotely piloted vehicles.



.>>>>

I can see a real problem with remotely piloted armed vehicles in hot areas. We can already scramble the other sides RPVs and I imagine they can do the same with ours. There is currently a need for RPVs both armed and recon but how long that will lost I don't know. At some point, there will have to be some form of AI added if nothing else, to get it to return to base and to protect itself.

This ex-E2|EP-3|ES-3 in-flight tech, radar operator, & EWOP thanks you for your thoughts.


.>>>>

Well, you are more the expert here than I am. How about let's hear your thoughts on this subject.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well, you are more the expert here than I am. How about let's hear your thoughts on this subject.

My first thoughts as an ELINT guy (admittedly from many years ago) was...

If it transmits I can find it.

If I can find it I can track it.

If I can track it I can kill it.


.>>>>

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Well, you are more the expert here than I am. How about let's hear your thoughts on this subject.

My first thoughts as an ELINT guy (admittedly from many years ago) was...

If it transmits I can find it.

If I can find it I can track it.

If I can track it I can kill it.


.>>>>

Well said. If someone comes up with a method just use a dirty jamming method like the Soviets used in the 60s and 70s. If you don't need to use it and your enemy does, jam it all. Yes, you can see the dirty jammer but little else. It becomes a IR search war at that point. And all your links, radios, radars and such become worthless. It takes it almost back to the 1930s. Right now, the Russians have an advantage with IR tracking so they just might benefit from doing this.

 

[DrainBamage]

It's not quite as simple as "hah I've jammed everything in the area" because emitting noise over a wider range reduces the power at any given frequency, and it's always a matter of at what range the power of the radar is stronger than the power of the jammer. If you're using sweep jamming it won't be as effective against AESA radars that are changing freqs hundres/thousands of times per second.

You're also screaming out to everyone where you are, and modern versions of HARM, AMRAAM, and even SDB can home on jam.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It's not quite as simple as "hah I've jammed everything in the area" because emitting noise over a wider range reduces the power at any given frequency, and it's always a matter of at what range the power of the radar is stronger than the power of the jammer. If you're using sweep jamming it won't be as effective against AESA radars that are changing freqs hundres/thousands of times per second.

You're also screaming out to everyone where you are, and modern versions of HARM, AMRAAM, and even SDB can home on jam.

You don't just jam one freq. You jam them all. The Soviets had a hopped up Mig-23 with suped up generators on board that did exactly that. It played hell with everyones Radar including theirs. Of course, one would be okay behind it but ahead of it, it jammed everything. It reduces the Air Battle to WVR only on both sides. I wonder if the Russians still have a couple or three of those things still around. You don't hear too much about them anymore.

What makes the F-35s Radar so powerful is that it does have more electric power than any other fighter. This is also why it can overload the other guys radar as of Block 4. This is also why the F-35A is the be the most likely to receive the Military Laser they are developing for a fighter. In the 60s and 70s, the Mig-23Jammer had the most juice of all the fighters. Not so anymore. But who is to say that the Russians can't hop up a SU-35 with the hotter engines increasing the generator power and remake a modern version of the old Mig-23 Jammer.

 

[DrainBamage]

You don't just jam one freq. You jam them all.

I know this, that's why I said jam everything. You can jam everything by either barrage on all frequencies or by a constant sweep across all of them, but for the former since you're spreading your power across all frequencies at the same time it's effectiveness drops much more sharply with changes in range. Modern AESA radars are far too powerful and with too much range for a barrage jam from another aircraft to reduce the entire airspace into a WVR fight, since the point where radar can burn through the jam, i.e. enough signal to overcome the noise, can be at BVR and just makes the jamming source a target for an AMRAAM going HOJ.

Jamming also doesn't eliminate passive detection, a plane throwing all that RF noise out is screaming "here I am" to a plane with good passive RF detection, and radars like APG-77 and APG-81 can function in passive mode to further analyze and attempt to get range data on an RF source and again an AMRAAM could be coming up the jammer's tailpipe from a pair of F-22s it never saw.

What makes the F-35s Radar so powerful is that it does have more electric power than any other fighter.

It's more than generated power of the plane, it's the nature of AESA radars where there are many small power sources for the individual modules instead of a massive high voltage power supply for a single emitter.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You don't just jam one freq. You jam them all.

I know this, that's why I said jam everything. You can jam everything by either barrage on all frequencies or by a constant sweep across all of them, but for the former since you're spreading your power across all frequencies at the same time it's effectiveness drops much more sharply with changes in range. Modern AESA radars are far too powerful and with too much range for a barrage jam from another aircraft to reduce the entire airspace into a WVR fight, since the point where radar can burn through the jam, i.e. enough signal to overcome the noise, can be at BVR and just makes the jamming source a target for an AMRAAM going HOJ.

Jamming also doesn't eliminate passive detection, a plane throwing all that RF noise out is screaming "here I am" to a plane with good passive RF detection, and radars like APG-77 and APG-81 can function in passive mode to further analyze and attempt to get range data on an RF source and again an AMRAAM could be coming up the jammer's tailpipe from a pair of F-22s it never saw.

What makes the F-35s Radar so powerful is that it does have more electric power than any other fighter.

It's more than generated power of the plane, it's the nature of AESA radars where there are many small power sources for the individual modules instead of a massive high voltage power supply for a single emitter.

It actually takes less power to jam than the power from the Radar. And the Aim-120 has a problem with the jamming like that. Shoot, the SU-35 is able to jam X number of them coming in so you will have to send in quite a few to get a kill. So, all the jammer has to do is degrade your radar range until it's within WVR which is close to 20 miles. A good pilot can pick up another AC inside of 20 miles visually and the IR sensors can do it at up to 35 miles depending. The F-22 will be shorter than that as it's heat signature is low but the F-35 heat signature isn't any better than any other fighter so it's going to get picked up passively at 35 miles. It's now an IR missile fight and all things are equal on both sides. The only Fighter with the advantage is the F-22.

The F-35A is designed to have more generator power than any other fighter and most bombers. It automatically finds your Radar Transmitter Frequencies and sends a real powerful pulse back down the tube and it can silence or, in some cases, burn out the radar site or radar on the other fighters. It does it by POWER by using it's AESA radar to transmit on their frequencies. It will be less affective against other AESA radars but the PESA radars and ground radar are in serious jeopardy. This is a threat right now but in time, it won't be as the Russians and Chinese harden against it. But for now, their crappy radar can be knocked out by the F-35A. And when they get the F-35C in service, it will have that capability. And when they upgrade the F-35B to the Block 4 then it will have that capability.

 

[DrainBamage]

It actually takes less power to jam than the power from the Radar. And the Aim-120 has a problem with the jamming like that. Shoot, the SU-35 is able to jam X number of them coming in so you will have to send in quite a few to get a kill. So, all the jammer has to do is degrade your radar range until it's within WVR which is close to 20 miles. A good pilot can pick up another AC inside of 20 miles visually and the IR sensors can do it at up to 35 miles depending. The F-22 will be shorter than that as it's heat signature is low but the F-35 heat signature isn't any better than any other fighter so it's going to get picked up passively at 35 miles. It's now an IR missile fight and all things are equal on both sides. The only Fighter with the advantage is the F-22.

Correct, it takes less power to jam than the power from the radar. However for a more powerful radar source there is always a range where the radar burns through, and an aircraft mounted jammer spreading it's signal across the entire freq band will weaker than a modern fighter jet's radar at the narrow frequency it's broadcasting. There are a lot of variables that go into the equation (many of which are classified) but there is always a point where radar wins and attemtping to barrage jam makes the range at which the radar wins that much greater due to advantages in power spread. For example, someone in the backseat of a Growler can jam an opposing radar at much greater distance by focusing their energy to match the radar freq of an opposing emitter than he could by just spreading it over the entire spectrum.

SU-35 isn't jamming the AMRAAMs because they are using HOJ not active radar, the very fact it's jamming is what is guiding the missiles to it. That's like saying a IADS radar will be jamming the incoming HARMs, they don't try to jam passively guided missiles they have to shut off or die. It would be like trying to shine the flashlight in the face of someone with a gun at night. A pair of F-35s would very quickly triangulate a jamming source at BVR and have AMRAAMs in the air homing in on that energy.

The F-35A is designed to have more generator power than any other fighter and most bombers.

And AESA radars, by their very fundamental design nature, can output more power in relation to the generating capacity of their power source. Simply put, an aircraft with a certain power generation ability would be able to send stronger signals with an AESA radar than a PESA. The PESA radar has a single high power amplifier that is heavy and requires extensive cooling, whereas AESA has thousands of smaller solid state modules that are more efficient power-wise and don't have the same cooling requirements drawing power.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It actually takes less power to jam than the power from the Radar. And the Aim-120 has a problem with the jamming like that. Shoot, the SU-35 is able to jam X number of them coming in so you will have to send in quite a few to get a kill. So, all the jammer has to do is degrade your radar range until it's within WVR which is close to 20 miles. A good pilot can pick up another AC inside of 20 miles visually and the IR sensors can do it at up to 35 miles depending. The F-22 will be shorter than that as it's heat signature is low but the F-35 heat signature isn't any better than any other fighter so it's going to get picked up passively at 35 miles. It's now an IR missile fight and all things are equal on both sides. The only Fighter with the advantage is the F-22.

Correct, it takes less power to jam than the power from the radar. However for a more powerful radar source there is always a range where the radar burns through, and an aircraft mounted jammer spreading it's signal across the entire freq band will weaker than a modern fighter jet's radar at the narrow frequency it's broadcasting. There are a lot of variables that go into the equation (many of which are classified) but there is always a point where radar wins and attemtping to barrage jam makes the range at which the radar wins that much greater due to advantages in power spread. For example, someone in the backseat of a Growler can jam an opposing radar at much greater distance by focusing their energy to match the radar freq of an opposing emitter than he could by just spreading it over the entire spectrum.

SU-35 isn't jamming the AMRAAMs because they are using HOJ not active radar, the very fact it's jamming is what is guiding the missiles to it. That's like saying a IADS radar will be jamming the incoming HARMs, they don't try to jam passively guided missiles they have to shut off or die. It would be like trying to shine the flashlight in the face of someone with a gun at night. A pair of F-35s would very quickly triangulate a jamming source at BVR and have AMRAAMs in the air homing in on that energy.

The F-35A is designed to have more generator power than any other fighter and most bombers.

And AESA radars, by their very fundamental design nature, can output more power in relation to the generating capacity of their power source. Simply put, an aircraft with a certain power generation ability would be able to send stronger signals with an AESA radar than a PESA. The PESA radar has a single high power amplifier that is heavy and requires extensive cooling, whereas AESA has thousands of smaller solid state modules that are more efficient power-wise and don't have the same cooling requirements drawing power.

You buld it, I can build to jam it. It's been like that ever since the invention of Radar and Radio.

 

[DrainBamage]

You buld it, I can build to jam it. It's been like that ever since the invention of Radar and Radio.

Walk me through it.

You're in a fighter with a big jamming pod making all kinds of RF noise. A pair of F-35s pick up all this RF from way far away using passive sensors and triangulate your location, then launch a pair of AMRAAMs since F-35s can cue missiles with passively derived data instead of their radar, and the missiles use HOJ so they don't need their active seeker either.

Now you have AMRAAMs coming that you can't see because you're made the battlespace around you non-permissive for radars, but they can see you because they are passively homing in on the source of all that RF noise, your fighter. How exactly are you jamming passive missiles? There is no radar signal to jam.

That would be like a SAM site jamming a HARM, they can't because they HARM is passively seeking their IADS radar. To save their asses they turn it off.

 

[Windparadox]

`
Meanwhile; All US F-35s grounded worldwide (Oct 11, 2018) - The Pentagon announced Thursday it is grounding its entire fleet of F-35s, just days after the first crash of an F-35B led investigators to suspect there is a widespread problem with the advanced fighter’s fuel tubes. “The U.S. Services and international partners have temporarily suspended F-35 flight operations while the enterprise conducts a fleet-wide inspection of a fuel tube within the engine on all F-35 aircraft,” the F-35 Joint Program Office announced in a statement Thursday morning.
`

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You buld it, I can build to jam it. It's been like that ever since the invention of Radar and Radio.

Walk me through it.

You're in a fighter with a big jamming pod making all kinds of RF noise. A pair of F-35s pick up all this RF from way far away using passive sensors and triangulate your location, then launch a pair of AMRAAMs since F-35s can cue missiles with passively derived data instead of their radar, and the missiles use HOJ so they don't need their active seeker either.

Now you have AMRAAMs coming that you can't see because you're made the battlespace around you non-permissive for radars, but they can see you because they are passively homing in on the source of all that RF noise, your fighter. How exactly are you jamming passive missiles? There is no radar signal to jam.

That would be like a SAM site jamming a HARM, they can't because they HARM is passively seeking their IADS radar. To save their asses they turn it off.
/QUOTE]

Your missile comes off just like it was designed to. It tracks just fine. Until it get within 20 miles. At that point, since all the freqs are jammed, it goes terminal. You are missing point here. If you build it, I can build a way to defeat it. You are doing a Monopad routine here and giving the one side all of the advantages and treating the other side like they are a bunch of idiots. Yes you can see it but you are going to have to come within 20 miles of it to use IR Aim-9 missiles to shoot it. And if you are that close, guess what, the other side is also tracking you with their IR detectors and are able to fire as well. All they have to do is to break the link at some point between the Amraam and the F-35 anywhere along the flight of the missile to defeat the missile. And the Radar on board the Amraam won't be strong enough to take it all the way in. I don't have to have a stronger radar jammer than you have for your radar. I just have to have enough to break the chain anywhere along the flight. Contrary to what you believe, the F-35 can be defeated. It won't always win. It just has a higher rate of win than most, that's all.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You buld it, I can build to jam it. It's been like that ever since the invention of Radar and Radio.

Walk me through it.

You're in a fighter with a big jamming pod making all kinds of RF noise. A pair of F-35s pick up all this RF from way far away using passive sensors and triangulate your location, then launch a pair of AMRAAMs since F-35s can cue missiles with passively derived data instead of their radar, and the missiles use HOJ so they don't need their active seeker either.

Now you have AMRAAMs coming that you can't see because you're made the battlespace around you non-permissive for radars, but they can see you because they are passively homing in on the source of all that RF noise, your fighter. How exactly are you jamming passive missiles? There is no radar signal to jam.

That would be like a SAM site jamming a HARM, they can't because they HARM is passively seeking their IADS radar. To save their asses they turn it off.

Oh, and btw, the old Mig-23 Jammer didn't carry just Pods. He was built from the ground up as a jammer. His entire Being was Jammer. He didn't carry missiles or guns. As far as I know, they were never used in War since they were only designed to be used against Nato and that just never happened. It was just a small blip in history.