Posted on 12/27/2014 4:24:07 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
America’s $400 billion, top-of-the-line aircraft can’t see the battlefield all that well. Which means it’s actually worse than its predecessors at fighting today’s wars.
When the Pentagon’s nearly $400 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter finally enters service next year after nearly two decades in development, it won’t be able to support troops on the ground the way older planes can today. Its sensors won’t be able to see the battlefield as well; and what video the F-35 does capture, it won’t be able to transmit to infantrymen in real time.
Versions of the new single-engine stealth fighter are set to replace almost every type of fighter in the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps inventory—including aircraft specifically designed to support ground troops like the A-10 Warthog. That will leave troops in a lurch when the F-35 eventually becomes the only game in town.
“The F-35 will, in my opinion, be 10 years behind legacy fighters when it achieves [initial operational capability],” said one Air Force official affiliated with the F-35 program. “When the F-35 achieves [initial operational capability], it will not have the weapons or sensor capability, with respect to the CAS [close air support] mission set, that legacy multi-role fighters had by the mid-2000s.”
The problem stems from the fact that the technology found on one of the stealth fighter’s primary air-to-ground sensors—its nose-mounted Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS)—is more than a decade old and hopelessly obsolete. The EOTS, which is similar in concept to a large high-resolution infrared and television camera, is used to visually identify and monitor ground targets. The system can also mark targets for laser-guided bombs.
“EOTS is a big step backwards. The technology is 10-plus years old, hasn’t been able to take advantage of all the pod upgrades in the meantime, and there were some performance tradeoffs to accommodate space and stealth,” said another Air Force official familiar with the F-35 program. “I think it’s one area where the guys are going to be disappointed in the avionics.”
Ironically, older jets currently in service with the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps can carry the latest generation of sensor pods, which are far more advanced than the EOTS sensor carried by the F-35. The latest generation pods—the Lockheed Martin Sniper ATP-SE and Northrop Grumman LITENING-SE—display far clearer high-definition video imagery in both in the infrared and optical spectrum—and from greater distances. Further, both pods have the ability to beam those full-motion video feeds to ground troops, which provides those forces with vital intelligence information.
The end result is that when the F-35 finally becomes operational after its myriad technical problems, cost overruns, and massive delays, in some ways it will be less capable than current fighters in the Pentagon’s inventory. Both pods also incorporate the ability to mark targets with an infrared laser beam—which the EOTS lacks—that helps pilots and ground controllers coordinate their attacks. Some pilots consider the infrared marker to be crucial to the close air-support mission to support ground troops. The F-35 EOTS, which is an integral component of the new stealth fighter, was envisioned as a replacement for targeting pods altogether to preserve the JSF’s stealth frame. (Targeting pods can bulge out a bit, and leak out unwanted signals.) But along with the stealth came performance compromises that also hinder the ability to upgrade the system—the specifications of which were set more that 15 years ago—far before anyone imagined a jet would be providing video imagery to ground forces.
When the Pentagon had initially drawn up the Joint Strike Fighter program’s specifications during the later half of the 1990s, the EOTS would have been bleeding-edge technology. However, in the 14 years that have passed since the Pentagon awarded Lockheed the contract to develop the F-35, technology has evolved—and the services have gained experience from over a decade of war.
“It was an awesome system when the F-35 specs were drawn-up in the late ’90s—LANTIRN [targeting pod] was the most advanced pod at that time,” said the first Air Force official affiliated with the F-35 program. “But we’re now a couple of generations beyond that spec with the targeting pods. EOTS is about a [1990s-era Northrop Grumman AN/AAQ-28(V)] LITENING II-equivalent targeting pod.”
That means that the EOTS camera does not have the range or high-resolution capability that would be found on the current targeting pods carried by American fighters flying over Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. It also means that future F-35 pilots won’t be able to see their quarry in the same kind of detail that they can on current U.S. jets.
The Air Force is currently using the advanced LITENING-SE on many of its fighters like the F-16, which is about two generations newer than the old 1990s-vintage LITENING II-pod. Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin is delivering the new Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod-Sensor Enhancement (ATP-SE) to the Air Force—which is, ironically, an advanced version of the original Sniper XR pod that the F-35’s EOTS sensor was based on.
More damningly, the F-35 won’t be able to send even its already lower-quality live video down to those soldiers on the ground because its specifications were set before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started. Back then, no one ever imagined needing to beam live video to ground troops from a fighter jet. Nor are there any current plans to add that capability to the F-35.
“At no point is F-35 fragged to have VDL [video down-link] unless it carries a targeting pod and the F-35 EOTS does not have and will not get an IR [infrared] marker,” the first F-35 official said. “It won’t fit in the space available.”
The lack of an infrared pointer is a huge problem, according to multiple Air Force pilots with experience flying combat missions in support of ground forces. In aircraft like the A-10, F-15E or F/A-18 Hornet, when ground troops pass target coordinates—or if the pilot spots enemy forces shooting—that pilot can turn on the infrared pointer to highlight the target. If the ground controller—known as a Joint Terminal Attack Controller—sees the “sparkle” from the infrared pointer, he can confirm that the pilot is illuminating the correct target.
Further, if a pilot sees something of interest, he or she can use the infrared pointer to draw the attention of the ground controller, who can then confirm if the target is hostile or not. “F-35s will never have this,” the first F-35 official said. “It also helps pilots orientate themselves during weapons delivery passes.”
Officials at JSF-maker Lockheed Martin couldn’t respond to queries by press time, but the F-35 program does not appear to have a plan to rectify the problem.
One Air Force official said that with enough time and more money, the EOTS could be fixed. “Because in five years when the USAF [US Air Force] comes to Lockheed Martin and says we absolutely need an upgraded EOTS with an infrared pointer and [video down-link], Lockheed Martin says... OK no sweat, that’ll be $5 million per jet,” the Air Force official said. “Thus lies the problem in the U.S. military industrial complex. They purposefully build products that require mass amounts of money to ‘upgrade’ when in fact, they could have planned ahead and built an easily upgradable ship / aircraft / radio / weapon system.”
One of the JSF officials agreed that the EOTS does not speak well for the Pentagon’s ability to buy new weapons. “EOTS is a poster child for one of the ills of the acquisition process,” the official said. “Because all of the subsystems depend on each other, requirements aren’t allowed to change after the design is ‘finalized.’ It’s not a big deal, unless it takes 20 years to field the jet… then it’s a problem.”
The end result is that when the F-35 finally becomes operational after its myriad technical problems, cost overruns, and massive delays, in some ways it will be less capable than current fighters in the Pentagon’s inventory.
“Will the F-35 even have parity with those jets in the CAS mission set 10 years from now? I don’t know, dude. It doesn’t look good.”
Daily Beast not a credible source for military subjects.
Yeah, the way this is going the next generation will have 2 propellers and six 50 cal machine guns.
After the Navy adopted the flammable “little crappy ships”
it has become clear that there is a group which is
destroying America’s military power DELIBERATELY.
More importantly, is the F-35 eco-friendly?
Yea, the electronics are not really relevant at this point. The aerodynamics and maneuverability and stealthy ability are. You can fix and improve electronics but you can never make a brick fly with much effect.
Besides, I’m sure DB knows everything there is to know about military hardware and that wrong and disguised specifications aren’t ever leaked as disinformation. :/
Missions should be multi-task with various personnel instead of depending on 1 aircraft & a computer...maybe I'm old school...or have witnessed what joint forces can do to an enemy...
We can’t do this,We can’t do that.When the time comes our miltary technology is usually light years ahead of everyone else.
Why listen to these naysayers?
Should have kept the F22 in production.
The F15 is a great plane but lacks the stealth and is expensive to maintain.
I don’t think stealth is as important as joint force operations are....stealth, as my understanding, was for a Cold War going hot...even though Syria has top notch radar now from Russia...should those systems fall into even worst hands...that’s when joint strike forces are the best...maybe the F-22 or F-35 can handle it ...or even the F-117, which is more of a bomber than a fighter...
F-15’s might be expensive - but having 2 guys sitting there working the issue out - IMHO - is better than this F-35..but yes, F-22 should have stayed...
Is the F-35 going to be less expensive to maintain? All of our eggs are in one basket with this aircraft, it has had significant delays and cost over runs. I hope for our kids sake that the wizards of smart at DOD and Lockheed Martin got it right and did not blow billions of dollars and decades on this thing. I unfortunately do not have a great deal of confidence that they did.
The F117 isn’t active anymore is it? IMO its a combination of things but the F35 tries to be all things to all people, a sure recipe for failure.
I wonder if the copycat Chinese version that they stole has the same issues?
i found this article...http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/11/we-now-know-why-the-f-117-is-still-flying/
Kinda like moth balled - but maintained...that was a expensive piece of UFO history and op to be placed on the side burner...but then again....they would not have launched the F-22 or F-35 into operation...
Always been a fan of the F-15. It’s has proven itself on the battlefield so I agree. Modify those and you will have a killer fighting machine...
What a crapload of FUD in this article. The F-35 EOTS does include a laser designator, which can desginate and track ground targets.
The F-35 will have the ability to carry advanced targeting pods with built-in video downlinks if necessary, it will just lose most of its stealth. But the F-35 was designed for first day of war stealth, then conventional non-stealth bombloads afterwards.
The F-35, when it reaches initial operating capability, will not instantly replace all of those other aircraft on day one. F-16s and A-10s will still be around for decades.
We have a winner!!!!!!
An obvious counter to such incredibly advanced aircraft uses a very old military balance, between quality and quantity. If a military relies too heavily on one or the other, it becomes vulnerable to attack using the other.
While there certainly is a need for such an advanced system, there is also a pressing need for a low cost, low tech, expendable system that can be mass produced in huge numbers.
They do not have to be particularly fast, maneuverable or stealthy. Nor do they need a great deal of weaponry. But they need to exist in great numbers.
Imagine a “buzz bomb” type aircraft. A very simple system that has a common conventional engine, a fuel tank, some type of weapon, even just a bomb, internal wire guidance, and a shielded modular computer brain that can be inserted just before it is used, with an even simpler ‘auto pilot’ that works if its ‘brain’ is knocked out. Its skin is made of recycled beer cans. The aircraft comes in a box and can be assembled, fueled and programmed in just a few minutes prior to launch.
Per unit, optimally about $100,000 each. Maybe less.
The cheapest F-35A in full production is $85,000,000 each. The Pentagon plans to build 2,443 at $160m each. Around $390 billion dollars.
For the same amount of money as just one of these, you could make 850 of these cheap aircraft. An armada. A close to unstoppable armada. For $390 billion, you could make 3,900,000 of these small aircraft. Enough to invade another world.
“Quantity has a quality all its own”
You could make a case that we won WWII this way but we and the Russians has the quantity.
The only thing that saves us with “quality” is that the front line hardware of the militaries of the world are today built to fight, and win, very short wars. But what happens if you don’t win right away?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.