Israel becomes first country in the world to use F-35 stealth fighter in combat [tr]

Reuters ^ | May 22, 2018 | Staff

[EQAndyBuzz]

“If it did not work, Israel would not buy it.”

Israel rips out the avionics and puts their own suite in.

[DAC21]

“The F-35A has a 25mm cannon built-in.”

220 is the maximum amount of rounds available. They really need to get that number up if there is any thought of the F-35 begin some sort of Ground Troop Support platform. Long Live the A-10!

[afsnco]

Roger that. And if someone has a quantum leap in technology and is able to hack our UAVs and use them against us, that would be a problem. Can’t do that to human pilot.

I hope Bibi is sharing intel with us about how the F-35 is doing against the S-400.

[Lurker]

A few hundred Small UAVs flying 100 feet off the ground each with 1/2 pound of RDX saturating an airfield with parked planes would turn those multi million dollar aircraft into junk inside of 15 minutes.

Just saying.

L

[DiogenesLamp]

Have you been seeing the articles about deploying drone swarms from fighters?

[DiogenesLamp]

A few hundred Small UAVs flying 100 feet off the ground each with 1/2 pound of RDX saturating an airfield with parked planes would turn those multi million dollar aircraft into junk inside of 15 minutes.

Thank you. The larger unmanned craft are the mother ships. No need to engage. That's what drones are for.

Drone swarms are going to kill everything.

[Lurker]

You wouldn’t even need an explosive payload. Just fly them into the intakes or smash a few dozen into the control surfaces. For that matter just hover them 50 or 60 feet off the ground at the end of the runway and wait for the planes to run into them.

Or detonate them remotely over the runway. It’d take hours to clear the debris. FOD kills planes.

A really sneaky SOB would park them inside the intakes where they wouldn’t be spotted and just wait for the engines to suck them in.

Voila, an entire air wing grounded for a few thousand dollars.

L

[Phlyer]

saturating an airfield

On the plus side of this: In essence, that's what P-51s did to defeat ME-262s. They would wait around the German airfields for the jets to return low on fuel. Aircraft landing or taking off (or parked) are always more vulnerable. Also, there is a warhead for Tomahawks that is designed to do essentially this. It puts out a cloud of bomblets over aircraft parking spaces.

On the negative side . . . well, math is hard. What is the range of these "small" UAVs? If they are really short range, then you still have the problem of getting the launch aircraft close. If they have long enough range (e.g. launched from the notional aircraft base) then they are the size of Tomahawks and cost $2-3M each regardless of the size of the warhead (actually a Tomahawk is closer to $10M but I'll give you an optimistic number). That's an expensive strategy. It's also only effective as a first-strike strategy. If the target aircraft are in the air, then bombing the base doesn't kill any. There are already munitions (see, "Durandal") which are runway cratering to address aircraft that are away or in shelters. The USAF response to this was simply to build three runways on each base, each twice as long as needed for fighters (though the visiting VIPs in their transports used it all). So, your 'bang for the buck' gets pretty low.

And, in high threat environments (e.g. central Europe), all the aircraft were parked in shelters designed to withstand non-penetrating (e.g. light-case Mk82) bombs. If the adversary had small UAVs as you outline, then they could be defeated with simple concrete.

[DiogenesLamp]

War is economics.

[SJSAMPLE]

Yeah, but I think they’re relying on smaller intelligent munitions for that role. The F-35 isn’t an A-10 replacement, no matter how hard they try to wedge it in.

[SJSAMPLE]

The released a swarm of unarmed drones from F/A-18s last year. The drones immediately formed up and converged on the target. The video is out there.

[Phlyer]

Have you been seeing the articles about deploying drone swarms from fighters?

Lots and lots of them. Again, math is hard. Take a simple GPS-guided bomb - cost about $15k, with (Mk-82) over 300 pounds of explosive payload. Now, put an engine on it ($150k), and some sort of nav system that is more than small corrections to a ballistic path, (another $150k). Put wings and control surfaces (again, for more than small corrections to a ballistic path), and something to drive the control surfaces (hydraulics?, electric motors?), and something to feed the engine fuel (pumps). In the end, you've taken the GBU-12 and multiplied the cost by two orders of magnitude.

What is the value? What do a 'swarm' of small UAVs do that a single (or a few - one fighter payload's worth) accurate bomb cannot do?

Or, if it's considered for air-to-air, then the same problems apply. What makes some notional 'small' UAV more effective than an AIM-120 that already has more effective kinematic range than sensor range? Do you take out the sensors on the missile? If so, how do you guide it?

The biggest problem most of these commenters have is no understanding of where the costs are in modern tactical aircraft. The airframe cost is small (less than 25%). All the money is in avionics and systems (most of which capability, e.g. electrical and cooling goes to support the avionics). One should consider an AIM-120 or JDAM as the unit for the 'swarm' of UAVs. Options would have to show an advantage over those, not over manned aircraft.

[Phlyer]

The released a swarm of unarmed drones from F/A-18s last year. The drones immediately formed up and converged on the target.

Yep. And then did what? How big was the payload, and at what range was it delivered? What was the cost of the swarm of UAVs versus the cost of an AIM-120? What sensors did they have - or was it a 'stunt' with 'dumb' UAVs that flew simple, predictable courses that would allow them to be shot down by a kid with a BB gun?

This thread was started by those who say that there is no need for/not much value for an F-35. Can we build UAVs that do things like 'swarm' (autonomous formation flying to a predetermined - no sensors required - target)? Sure. But the math doesn't show those one-way platforms to be more cost-effective than a reusable (meaning, survivable) delivery vehicle that gets to within AIM-120/JDAM range.

[GBA]

For what it is designed to do, the F-35 is likely the best in the world and, with constant engine and system revisions and improvements, it will continue to be for a long time to come.

It does seem to trade some wing area for engine, but with a smaller wing area, I bet the ride is pilot friendly smooth at lower altitudes.

Personally, I’m curious about its agility now as it becomes operational and the flight software is perfected and limitations removed.

I’ll bet it’s maneuverability is much better than the rumors claim, but, otoh, I do like how it’s misunderestimated now, just like the now beloved F-16 and the F/A-18 used to be when they were the new kids.

[PreciousLiberty]

"And if you think that AIs/Autonomy will provide an unmanned aircraft with the same capability as a human-in-the-loop then you haven't tried to work the problem."

You should read this:
http://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/recent_features/alpha.html

Not only was Lee not able to score a kill against ALPHA after repeated attempts, he was shot out of the air every time during protracted engagements in the simulator.
...
In fact, ALPHA can take in the entirety of sensor data, organize it, create a complete mapping of a combat scenario and make or change combat decisions for a flight of four fighter aircraft in less than a millisecond. Basically, the AI is so fast that it could consider and coordinate the best tactical plan and precise responses, within a dynamic environment, over 250 times faster than ALPHA’s human opponents could blink.

There will have to be human piloted aircraft in the area for executive decisions, but AI based UCAVs will be flying within a decade. The F-35 was designed as a "pilot-optional" aircraft.

[SJSAMPLE]

I’m not sure why you’re comparing an air-to-air missile with air-to-ground or recon/surveillance drones?

As a technology demonstrator, they demonstrated that the drones could be deployed and organized. Upon release, they swarmed the target in a circular fashion (like Injuns circling a wagon train).

Of course, the “risk” to the F/A-18 mitigates the benefit of the drones, but we’ve seen other delivery systems (MLRS, ATACMS, etc.) capable of delivering similar submunitions in a very cost-effective manner.

I don’t think a drone swarm will replace high-performance aircraft, but their potential is undeniable.

[DiogenesLamp]

Lots and lots of them. Again, math is hard. Take a simple GPS-guided bomb - cost about $15k, with (Mk-82) over 300 pounds of explosive payload. Now, put an engine on it ($150k), and some sort of nav system that is more than small corrections to a ballistic path, (another $150k). Put wings and control surfaces (again, for more than small corrections to a ballistic path), and something to drive the control surfaces (hydraulics?, electric motors?), and something to feed the engine fuel (pumps). In the end, you've taken the GBU-12 and multiplied the cost by two orders of magnitude.

Not sure where you are going here. I don't think anyone has suggested anything close to this.

What is the value? What do a 'swarm' of small UAVs do that a single (or a few - one fighter payload's worth) accurate bomb cannot do?

Network. Relay communications, find targets of opportunity, loiter, infiltrate, and so forth. I'm not sure you've been keeping up with what is going on in drone technology. You worry about keeping communications links open, but with enough of these things, you can take out any jamming system.

That's the whole point. These things are cheap, and you can throw thousands of them into a conflict. Getting jammed? They can track the jammer and zap it. Air to Air missiles? Put a hundred drones in it's path with proximity fuses.

The potential of drone swarms is absolutely terrifying, because they can take out soldiers, tanks, aircraft, missiles, or whatever.

Here's 500 drones being controlled for amusement.

This technology is not yet fully developed for war, but people are working on it. When this stuff is mature, It will be another pivot point in the history of military evolution.

Or, if it's considered for air-to-air, then the same problems apply. What makes some notional 'small' UAV more effective than an AIM-120 that already has more effective kinematic range than sensor range? Do you take out the sensors on the missile? If so, how do you guide it?

You could laser guide drones (line of sight) from sensors on the aircraft till they get close enough to use their own sensors to track another aircraft. You can laser guide to ground targets within line of sight, and you can make your Unmanned vehicles small enough that they would be even harder to hit with a missile.

There are lots of methodologies that could be developed along these lines. I've seen drone designs that land and recharge. I've seen em that flap their wings like birds. I've seen designs that land in trees. I've seen insect sized designs.

For your amusement. Unrealistic, but not that far away from what is actually possible.