Number of Operational squadrons with stealth air frames:
US: 27 Squadrons.
Rest of the world: Zero.
>Are you even trying?
https://news.usni.org/2016/06/30/20458
>>30465560
>I want an F-35 shitposter thread, but people have got wise to it so I'll start a 'hurrr F-35 is best, step it up rest of world's instead.
Go fuck yourself.
>>30465592
It's a stealth multirole with just 600lb less payload capacity than an F-4 Phantom, with only a single engine and pilot.
>>30465560
Mess with the best, die like the rest.
>>30465627
>assault weapons
OOOOoo, assault weapons, huh?
>>30465592
F-35 is the best multirole in the world. Was that ever in question?
>>30465601
>Payload capacity is all that matters
B-1 confirmed best multirole airframe ever.
>>30465708
>B-1 confirmed best multirole airframe ever.
Well I mean it does everything from nuclear strategic bombing runs to CAS arsenal ships for drones, so other than air to air...
>>30465753
It has the same radar (actually better, its PESA instead of pulse dopplar) as the F-16.
It can be done.
>27 squadrons
>still a shit ton of problems
>pay extra to fix the problems on the already delivered planes
I'm happy for Lockheed for getting a gold mine.
>>30465800
>implying lockheed makes all of the stealth airframes in the US inventory.
>>30465824
I feel like participating in this bait thread so here's your (you), don't spend it all at once champ!
>>30465835
Well then by all means, participate, what exactly is your problem with my post?
>>30465708
>Being proud of being a jack of all trades master of none
Meanwhile all air superiority fighters in the block are laughing menacingly.
>>30465928
Except the F-35 routinely wipes the floor with every air superiority fighter we face it off against.
We'll have thousands of them, supported by even scarier F-22s and thousands more planes we currently have which are going to be upgraded.
Pretty much every engagement with combat coded F-35s against anything else ends in a hilariously one sided curbstomp.
>>30465560
From that angle is looks gimpy looking.
>>30466279
It's a lot prettier and better performing than the F-117's shape, that's for sure.
>>30465971
We don't know shit about the ROE when the F-35 trounced those F-15E.
But can it do this?
>>30466313
I think its safe to assume that the F-15Es certainly put up some type of competent resistance, so the engagement does speak for the F-35s A2A performance
>>30466348
Or this?
>>30465835
Wew lad, you're a special kind of idiot.
>>30466313
Don't have many details, but based on what some people I know have told me, essentially the 35s regardless of how the matches are set up.
They can see you from further away than most any other fighter, and you can't see them back, usually the 'engagements' consist of the Gen 4 pilot eating a simulated AMRAAM and that being his first indication there's an enemy plane in the area.
They don't have the performance of dedicated fighters, because that's not what they are, but their combination of stealth and really, really good sensors means that the fight is over before it begins.
>>30466348
>>30466360
No, but that's not what it's for.
And the first gif is a pointlessly showy stunt which is only useful for impressing people at airshows.
>>30466378
Simulated BVR is bullshit.
Go and face the F-35 against F-15/F-16 in WVR - I bet not a single one of them will survive it, especially if they are not armed with AIM-9X (which would render the stealth meaningless).
>>30466414
>BVR is bullshit.
Go back to bed, Pierre.
>>30466414
But the F-35 also gets the AIM-9X and points like a Hornet. I don't see its gross disadvantage
>>30466420
He did say 'simulated' to be fair.
>>30466414
That's not what it's for though, and even if the simulation doesn't hold up, which a lot of people have spent a lot of time and money making sure that it does but even if you're right, then the sensors are still miles beyond anything that's currently common and it's still very stealthy.
Within visual range, if an enemy survives long enough to get that close, if it can't slip away and IF it doesn't have dedicated fighters supporting it, it is at worst about equal with the very best fighters that it could be fighting against.
The F-35 is not a fighter, but I think it's pretty damn impressive that it is considered world class at something that is at most its secondary concern.
>>30466420
I said simulated BVR.
Of course F-35 will detect the F-15 sooner. However it doesn`t mean a kill. AIM-120D`s are not jam-proof.
>>30466481
>AIM-120D`s are not jam-proof.
I mean...
>The missile also features the ability to "Home on Jamming,"[11] giving it the ability to switch over from active radar homing to passive homing – homing on jamming signals from the target aircraft. Software on board the missile allows it to detect if it is being jammed, and guide on its target using the proper guidance system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM#Operational_features_summary
>>30465971
>When you want to remove another countries air force with one plane.
Ask a Northrop Grumman employee who works on the F35 weapon bay anything
>>30467065
Do you get to bring friends?
>>30467065
is the fix for F35B space issues only a redesign of a single pipe?
>>30467072
Definitely not, it's all restricted
>>30467065
Is it possible to fit Metoer and NSM inside?
Theoretically, could you develop a gas tank that you could fit inside F-35 bomb bays?
>>30467065
Are the temperature issues serious?
>>30467090
Jeez, lotta loyalty for a hired employee...
>>30467065
Is it possible to fit six missiles (AIM-120D or MDBA Meteor) inside the weapons bay at the same time?
>>30467083
In part yes, but not entirely. As you make know, the 'B' variant has less space in general due to its hovering capabilities, so overall it's been a challenge..
>>30467093
Of course it's possible, I have seen some works on it being built but as of now, they already have external fuel pods available.
>>30467109
Temp issues regarding what?
>>30466481
>AIM-120D`s are not jam-proof.
I'm dying here.
Keep going
>>30467185
>Temp issues regarding what?
If the plane flies low and fast the weapons bay will overheat, potentially destroying the payload.
Or at least that is what the last progress report said.
>>30465627
>>30467232
To be fair, low and fast is a demanding and rare thing to be doing for every aircraft
>>30467232
I see, I honestly havent heard much about that being a problem, so i guess it's not serious. Even from the testing guys, i havent heard a single whisper about temp issues.
>>30467232
>>30467260
What's low and fast?
Does he hover just above ground and fly forward like a heli?
>>30467260
Last time the issue came up, Dragon029 said that the problem could be easily solved just by adding vents.
There was also supposed to be an issue where the bay wouldn't open properly at supersonic speeds.
>>30467271
It says here that the F-35's weapon bays need to be opened every 10 minutes to prevent over-heating.
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2016/01/DOT%26E%202015%20F-35%20Annual%20Report.pdf
That presents a window of vulnerability where the plane would have an increase radar signature.
>>30466348
I mean that's cool and all but it's also completely useless.
>>30467368
It has also been shown that the vibration inside the weapons bay is too severe for the AIM-120 to tolerate.
>>30467368
>open bay
>get shot
>don't eject because the ambulance ride back to the states is 800000$
>>30467065
How is it like working for an Aerospace company? What do you need to work for such a company?
How does the 1394 data bus impact wiring in the weapons bay?
>>30467368
10-minute restriction at speeds over
500 knots at altitudes below 5,000 feet;
550 knots at altitudes between 5,000 and 15,000 feet; and
600 knots at altitudes between 15,000 and 25,000 feet.
No restriction above 25,000 feet.
Bad, but not crippling. Can still utilize JDAMs away above the 25,000ft deck, at fly at ~mach 0.8 from 15,000ft upwards.
>>30467246
>Mass shooting
>Less than 4 victims
Found the liberal!
>>30467065
And by the F35 weapon bay, you mean the LRSB.
THE FIRST PERSON TO TELL ME ABOUT THE BOMBER GETS TO STAY ON MY BOARD
>>30467065
Why haven't you guys made a CTOL super hornet with Boeing?
>>30467438
>3 americans
>not a large mass
>>30467438
>im a fucking retard
This is what we call a pie chart, which I have put together, detailing the FATALITY numbers of the incidents recorded and counted by the Mass shooting tracker. It does not show the number of victims of the shooting, only the number of people killed.
>>30467489
What would be the point
>>30467178
I am not 100% sure desu, i havent dealt with that weapon directly. I usually do check for the 1000 lb loads, but I highly doudt it. Id guess around 4 max.
>>30467391
It's pretty chill especially when you're in defense. People are a bit nerdy, but good as well. You mainly need an engineering degree with internships under your belt.
>>30467489
I cannot confirm or deny that there will be a wider F-35 being made :^)
>>30467579
GET AN F-35
PUT HELICOPTER BLADES ON IT
AND PUT A GAU-8 ON IT
TIE A BALLISTIC EARLY WARNING RADAR TO IT
NAME IT THE A-11
YOU CAN GET THE LONG LOITER TIME CASFAGS, THE BRRTFAGS, AND THE SENSORFAGS ALL IN ONE
I'LL TAKE 10% FOR ROYALTIES THANK YOU
>>30466560
Don't forget that it can also do LPI 2-way link to the launch platform, and only turn on active homing once in the target's NEZ.
>>30465971
Is that what the dod magic 8-ball said or was it Lockheed Martin(TM)?
>>30467844
Recent exercise with F-35s had F-15s flying DACT aggressors and lost to the F-35s handily.
>>30467271
It is a non issue because it involves altitudes far below what it normally flies at.
I don't think the length of time required for the heat build up to become an issue was ever stated.
>>30467451
shut up faggot
>>30468224
So like I said, altitudes far below what it normally flies at.
>>30468275
Cruising, sure.
What altitude will it be using weapons? You seem to confidently know.
>>30468381
The same altitude as most fighters operate these days, the 30,000ft range?
>>30468404
Not even close to being true, anon.
>>30468470
What the hell do you think it is, then?
>>30467065
Would it be better for me to go to the Marines and fly the B or the Navy and fly the C?
>>30466360
I was at EAA In wisconsin when the F-22 was first made public. two of them showed up and had a mock dogfight over the crowd. I was almost openly fapping by the end of it.
>>30468723
Air Force, you might actually get to fly one.
>>30468502
Not that fag, but the answer is highly dependent on the target. Uncontested backfield interdiction and CAS happen at very cozy altitudes where point defenses cannot reach. But anything flying that high into a complex IADS with something nasty like S-400 or -300 at it's core is dead meat. Engagements of those targets are done in pop-up attack runs using the curvature of the earth to hide from the radars until they're blinded and/or in flames.
Ignoring that the bay temperature issue is/was a very easy fix. It's the sort of problem that would disappear overnight if tensions requiring F-35 mounted.
>>30468723
You could go Marines and fly the C as well. Honestly, you probably have a higher chance of flying the F-35 if you go Marines.
>>30468906
>But anything flying that high into a complex IADS with something nasty like S-400 or -300 at it's core is dead meat.
Unless, of course, it's a stealth fighter with an advanced passive RF suite intentionally hunting for those signals instead of hiding from them...
>>30469003
Still applies, anon.
>>30469003
You beat me to the punch. Is it just the As that can carry JSOW internally?
>>30469069
Only Cs.
>>30469003
Then you have a very solid first-shot advantage, but in a truly dense IADS environment, like Russia or China, your shot can be detected and fired upon in turn. So if you're an F-35 in a stealth configuration trying to penetrate these airspaces, and someone sees your bays open, you might still get huge ass missiles fired at you. But more dangerously, something fast with an IRST that can actually see you will be told where you were found. You can see the Russians banking on this in Pak-fa's L-band radars, whereas the Chinese seem intent to follow us down the VLO rabbithole.
>>30469211
For a truly dense IADS, you spam MALD along with JSOW.
>>30469232
Lol, hey. MALD isn't fucking fair, even compared to F-35-related fuckery.
There is nothing on this Earth that is going to protect you from VLO aircraft with VLO missiles riding the coattails of a fuckload of MALDs. So it's not even worth arguing about, cause there is no argument.
>>30469148
Hm. You'd think that the Airforce would be all up in that business.
>>30469344
Unlikely that the USAF would be involved in inital strikes even a fraction as much as the USN.
>>30469003
>>30469232
I think it needs to be mentioned that Russian short-range air defense is positively bristling with IR sensors, and are almost scarier than the area defense systems. Going low to penetrate with a VLO aircraft is exactly how you wander over an IIR-guided gun and missile trap and get shredded. All the more so if lots of major RF sensors are still in play to cue point defense units towards threats. To the point where, if a VLO aircraft is detected firing on a target deep within non-permissive airspace, that aircraft could be prevented from a clean escape, by trapping it with the coordination of air and ground assets with IRST capability. All this relies on powerful radars seeing bay doors when they open, to have any chance of getting a useful early-warning capacity. Hell, even calling it that is a stretch. More like, hopefully-not-too-late warning.
Geez. The design of Pak-fa now makes close to complete sense. They're playing damage control until they can afford to make a true stealth jet by mating what they can manage of 5th gen features with their best last generation technology. We call F-35 a sensor-shooter, but Pak-Fa is more so in some ways.
>>30469469
Fair. I suppose there's little need for two JSOWs to an F-35 when you've got as loads of JASSMs on B-1s and 2s.
>>30466348
It just looks like its crashing
>>30469211
The F-35 doesn't even need to fire the weapon. An arsenal B-52 or legacy fighter loitering outside the IADS' effective range can handle weapons launch while the F-35 just sits back and directs the weapon to the target.
>>30469034
How? The entire point is scanning for the IADS, which you can't do at NOE.
>>30467391
My grandpa could answer that, he always tells me storys. He wasnt really in defence. But he was a manager at a company that made parts for boeing and lockheed and others. He always tells me how he hated working with boeing because they were always over staffed and over educated, and he would walk into the production floor and see like a group of "5 guys one would be working and the others would be standing there doing nothing" also alot of my extended family works for boeing the best way to get in is to know someone who works there thats how alot of them got in. But just over all my grandpa liked it he just didnt like boeing and he also hated working with china for stuff
>>30469069
>>30469148
>>30469069
A's and C's can both carry the JSOW; it's only the F-35B that has a slightly different weapons bay.
>>30466414
You forget that "WVR" for the F-35 could be 50 miles out in a clear sky--DAS can present a clear enough picture to ID a fighter from that distance.
Mk I eyeball is now an emergency backup sensor.
>>30467065
How's the laser bay coming?
>>30468906
>But anything flying that high into a complex IADS with something nasty like S-400 or -300 at it's core is dead meat.
The f35 was actually designed to take these out.
>>30470181
"WVR" distance doesn't change due to sensors..
>>30467301
>>30467368
I hadn't heard about the supersonic speed bay opening issue (link?), but just to add onto / clarify, the main reason that the bay overheating issue arose at all is because to make the jet easier to maintain, they moved some electronics kit (eg: diagnostic controls for the pneumatic launchers) to the weapons bay.
Those electronics weren't previously certified to the temperatures that appear in the weapons bay, so the restrictions were put in place - nothing was getting damaged or failing, but the DoD doesn't like taking chances in SDD programs.
They've since gone about re-certifying those electronics (just testing them up to those temperatures in a controlled environment), but I haven't heard anything since. Considering that the fuel tank overpressure issue was fixed with little public notice (the DOT&E report said they'd tested the fix on the B, but not on the C or A, then recently it was mentioned that the USAF's F-35A jets for IOC have already received the fix), I wouldn't be surprised if this had been too.
What I said those weeks ago was that if the part couldn't be re-certified, AND couldn't be better insulated, AND couldn't be modified with high temperature components, then they could just throw on some stealthy vents onto the bay doors (which would be relatively easy; the doors aren't load-bearing structures).
>>30470287
yes, yes it does.
You simply cannot just magically "appear" within WVR, you need to fly from far away to get close, and good fucking luck trying to sneak up on a Raptor or Lightning, because a flight of 35s or 22s will almost always have an AWACs and EW aircraft accompanying it, especially if the flight is performing SEAD on a dense IADs network.
And like the anon said above, the USN would be the one's that begin to chip away at a sophisticated IAD, which is why the F-35C carries two JSOWs, and you'll be damned if the 35 flight would be going in performing SEAD without Growler support.
at least that's what I think, I could be dead wrong
>>30470217
Uh huh, but my point is that even F-35 cannot evade these systems if the pilot flies directly over the radars like a jackass. If you allow the opfor the opportunity to make even a brief radar contact, even if he cannot maintain weapons guidance, he will still try to make the kill with systems that CAN see VLO aircraft.
So thinking of 'the big one', the idea is that strikes deep into Russia can be disuaded, even if they cannot be predicted, if it can be guaranteed that any VLO strike package that attempts to strike deeply will be trapped by the layers which it passed through, once they make their presence known.
Naturally this is all theory, because the Russians don't have nearly the resources required to play that game throughout Europe; they're struggling right now just to maintain that situation within their current borders
>>30470422
It doesn't, WVR refers to the realm of <15nmi. It's meant to be the range at which the human eye, within a certain scenario / context, can see an enemy fighter, and from which something like an older AIM-9M could be used. The F-35's DAS has tracked a rocket from >800 miles away, but that doesn't make <800 miles WVR.
>>30470451
F-35s and F-22s are meant to be strike from medium / high altitude; situational awareness is super important for utilising stealth and tactics, so having none at 500ft doesn't work out well. I can't remember if it's the USAF or USMC (think it's the latter), but their CONOPS has the F-35 flying missions at a median height of 43,000ft.
>>30466348
>>30466360
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSC_05hG2P0
>>30470723
>>30466360
>>30466348
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZWsaJDc8PI
>>30465560
I hate all the writing on it
>>30467065
Do you have any lewd upskirt photos?
>>30468847
>>30468993
I don't think the AF takes too many pilots from OTS, I know navy and marines do and they're pushing for a lot of pilots. Just wondering if it'd be better to fly the one that doesnt have that VTOL shit
>>30469595
F-35 wasn't designed for low level penetrations. It flies at medium to high altitude where IR guided AA is much less relevant.
Planes did low level penetrations because radar guided SAM could close off high altitude flight. Since the 1960's, the arms race between radar guided SAM and planes has tilted more towards planes. Stealth is just one part of the countermeasures against SAMs.
During Desert Storm, the highest losses were to low-level aircraft, since they had situational awareness and time to react. High altitude losses were fairly light, even for a "worst case" scenario of no Jammers and no SEAD.
High altitude operations with stealth aircraft looks to be the way to go until lasers become viable and widespread.
>>30468795
I'd yasen that baka
>>30466348
>tumblr
Hah
>>30471360
>Since the 1960's, the arms race between radar guided SAM and planes has tilted more towards planes.
I wouldn't say that
Merely that the US chose the side of planes and outspent the other guy 20 to 1
If the US had chosen to invest hundreds of billions in SPAAG's, radars, air breathing hypersonic guided missiles, we'd be talking about how incapable planes are at penetrating any airspace.
>>30472823
All you are doing is reinforcing his claim.
>>30467065
Can I have one
I've flown Cherokee Warrior 2s, F-35 can't be that different.
I'd like an A please.
>>30465971
yes! yes! shill more!
>>30472823
More that ground-based anti-air is at a severe disadvantage compared to offensive systems.
>>30472939
Stay mad, Vatnik.
>>30473734
Super Duper Hornet Fighter 2 : Turbo.
>>30470287
The point of going WVR in the first place is to visually ID the target; otherwise, you'd just kill it BVR.
If you can visually ID the target as a hostile and get permission to kill it from 50 miles away, then isn't that an advantage?
WVR =/= the merge now.
I feel like the reason F-35 gets so much hate is because it's a single engine multirole fighter.
>>30474207
F-16? That did pretty damn well as a single engine multi role. And it kicks the shit out of the Harrier and legacy Bug.
Rest of world has better things to spend taxpayer money on.
>>30465661
>mult-role
>>30474598
>Rest of world doesn't have the GDP to spend taxpayer money on and depends on the Pax Americana to maintain stability
FTFY
Air Force should reALLY JUST restart thee F22 prograM and make as best improvements to the frame/design. Does the F22 have 3d Thrust Vectoring yet? since the Chinese are to have almost equivalent jets by 2030ish (Not likely) by then we should have Unmanned Fighters (UAV's) out the ass a highly maneuverable F/A-XX Like plane.
ALsO an high altitude fighter firing hypersonic air to air/ground missles.
ALPHA:http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/genetic-fuzzy-based-artificial-intelligence-for-unmanned-combat-aerialvehicle-control-in-simulated-air-combat-missions-2167-0374-1000144.pdf
>>30475019
F-22 is an old as fuck plane, there is no reason to restart anything with it
Maneuvering and speed on airplanes will be irrelevant very soon
>>30465776
>B-1 Interceptor loaded with 92 sidewinders when
>>30474395
The F16 got a lot of shit from Sprey back in the day.
>>30475137
And he was just as fucking wrong back then. By the way, the F-16 started out as his baby. If he'd had his way, it would have never had an A2A radar, radar guided missiles, ground attack ability or a fuel capacity even as large as it's already tiny internal tanks.
>>30475106
It's been proposed before, but with AMRAAM instead of AIM-9
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_B-1_Lancer#Variants
>>30475242
>It's been proposed before, but with AMRAAM instead of AIM-9
Which makes a bajillion times more sense. If you're going to load your strategic bombers up to the gills with A2A fuck your face, fuck your mother's face and your grandmother's, too, you want that bird as far away from the merge as you can get it with at least a four ship of Raptors bird dogging and screening for it.
At that point, employment tactics start looking a lot like a CSG - it's a full package. You don't put that up in the air on game day unless you've got the AWACS, Raptors and F-35s and promise Navy some reacharounds to get a two-ship of Growlers up there too.
>>30475383
I can imagine a universal facefucking contingent of:
3x F35 up front, spread wide for targeting.
2x Growlers to tell any opposing system to crawl into a ball and sob.
1x B1 arsenal flinging hurt sticks at any air/ground target the F35s indicate.
1x F22 sitting high and back, ready to pounce on anything that gets through.
Bonus points for a Growler style UAV, controlled by an extra seat in the B1...
/wank.
>>30475639
No, I can't. You know why? Each element should be two aircraft, other than possibly the Growlers and B-1Bs.
>>30475639
Don't forget to load up some MALD-Js in the B-1 for maximum Nelson-style HA HAs at anything that gets lobbed back at you.
>>30475681
F-35s are at their best flying in 4-ship formations (that's the most that can fuse together with MADL at the same time continuously).
>>30475739
>(that's the most that can fuse together with MADL at the same time continuously).
Can they still receive full AWACS/Aegis/munitions takes in that configuration, or are there only 3 "slots" total for exterior integration?
>>30475739
Possibly, but by replacing each of the single F-35s with a two-ship, you start getting a reasonable look at how things might be done. Planes don't fly around by themselves. The smallest independent element is a two-ship.
>>30475739
Wise Sir, do you have any suggestion on the "hunting" layout the F35s would be assuming in a sweep like my suggested "wank" above?
Spread wide, but symetrically, with variations in altitude should help with feeding good targeting data to the B1 amirite?
Thanks as always for regular, attitude free wisdom - Are you Oppenheimer's brother or something?
>>30465560
there is more than one way to defeat radar
>>30467579
>>It's pretty chill
so is NG hiring? I worked at LM for a while, now with small defense company, wan to gtfo of her
>>30475804
If you'd listen to me, you'd have two flights of four F-35s, split into two-ships. Decent spread, 20 miles or more between elements in a flight, more than that between flights. Varying altitudes. Maybe a two-ship of F-22s behind them a ways.
>>30475804
>>30475850
Don't forget the AWACS emitting behind the B-1. Depending on the geometry (and hardware/software questions I'm not read in enough to answer), it might even let the F-35s run passive and still get good radar returns.
>>30475850
I'd listen to any and all sources friend.
>>30475860
Using the AWACS' returns... yes that sounds good.
Is there any plans for an E Warfare / Jamming UAV like the growler (but presumably smaller), that can be controlled from the AWACS / B1 in this scenario? Is this idea non- retarded?
Whats the chances of getting some E Warfare hardware in the F35, thats controlled from another seat in a rear located Plane, such as the B1 / AWACS? With directional comms (especially back to the rear of yhe F35, is this plausible? Gotta be better than another seat on the small F35 right?
>>30465971
>Except the F-35 routinely wipes the floor with every air superiority fighter we face it off against
>A Fokker Dr. I Triplane beat it in a mock battle
>>30475912
>Is there any plans for an E Warfare / Jamming UAV like the growler (but presumably smaller), that can be controlled from the AWACS / B1 in this scenario? Is this idea non- retarded?
It is non-retarded. IIRC one of the MALD variants was supposed to provide programmed jamming/EW packages. Not sure it that made it into the final product or not. It may have been too expensive/not hardware size compatible considering the power and processing needs to perform serious EW work in a modern frequency-agile EM environment. When I'm not falling out of my chair drunk tomorrow I think I'll run that down and see where we are.
>>30475930
>>A Fokker Dr. I Triplane beat it in a mock battle
Those fucking things are the GOAT. God can't win against them. What did you expect?
>>30475751
That's just for MADL, they can talk to plenty of other entities via Link 16, etc.
>>30475760
I mistook that previous comment, I though it was suggesting a strike force of just 3 F-35s.
>>30475804
I guess it depends on the threat; having F-35s dispersed in an extended line (not to be confused with a file) with varying altitudes would probably give you the best possible capability to detect enemies across a wide area, a box formation or something similar could potentially be best for actually engaging (left / right pairs can flank, with the forward jets doing the spotting and rear jets doing the shooting / covering themselves). That said, groups like Weapons School (the USAF Top Gun) are working on these sorts of things; they'll probably come up with fancier tactics, especially when looking at 2-ships and at larger 8, 12, etc ship forces.
>>30476075
>That's just for MADL, they can talk to plenty of other entities via Link 16, etc.
MADL's only got 3 channels? That's a bummer. Gotta be at the top of the comms upgrade list for rolling upgrades. I thought they were coding AWACS and Aegis systems to communicate through MADL with the F-35s. Guess I missed that one.
>>30467391
>Aerospace company
if you don't have a 4yr degree, it blows.
i get paid $15 an hour to make $1,000,000 F35 Vcats and $200,000 F35 AUG liners.
feels bad man
>>30473734
looks like a re-skinned F22
why would the US gov even fund that?
>>30475019
>Thrust Vectoring
Thrust Vectoring is a meme
pilots don't even like using it.
the minute you turn too sharply, you lose 80% of ur airspeed and ur dead.
it's a crowdpleaser sure
>>30476144
Bust your ass, keep your head down and your quality up, snag every opportunity for in house training and keep an eye out for in-house education funding and/or take night courses to pick up the degree you need.
That's the well lit end of the tunnel. To find the other end, just trudge along till you get bored enough to quit/get fired or don't show enough to get promoted before the manufacturing run is complete.
I started on the factory floor 22 years ago. I got hired last year as a CFO. It was a fucking slog, and it sucked, but it is possible to do it.
There. Both of our quota for unasked for advice for the week.
>>30476174
excellent advice
that's exactly what i'm doing senpai.
my plan is getting hired at Blue Origin though.
>MFW they don't know i spend 3 hours practicing welding on the clock
>>30476104
Constant MADL comms aren't required for most things; one of the main reasons for its use on the F-35 is so that jets can send sensor data to each other to collaborate; so rather than just updating XYZ, ID, status and velocity data (which can fit in a <1kB message), it's streaming waveforms or imagery or video constantly just to see if it's the missing piece in the puzzle of what the hell a bright spot of IR is. The F-35 is being integrated into AEGIS and has already demonstrated the ability to take command / redirect naval-launched SM-6 missiles.
MADL will surely get upgraded in the future, but I think they might actually have to upgrade some of the jet's infrastructure to do that. They've actually just come out with some more details on Block 4.1 and 4.2:
>Capabilities in the 4.1 plan include electronic warfare improvements, cockpit navigation upgrades, a maritime identification capability for the radar and additional weapons integration including the Small Diameter Bomb II and the AIM-9X. 4.1 will also include Norway's JSM missile. The next sub block, 4.2, will bring interopability enhancements, including Link 16, and will begin incorporating an advanced electro-optical targeting system -- a capability that the Air Force has said is a top priority.
Note that Link 16 (both transmit and receive) is already present on the F-35, this is just expanding it in some way (I'm not sure of the details). The Advanced EOTS is neat too: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-prepping-advanced-eots-and-legion-pod-for-f-422810/
But yeah, no MADL upgrades yet; that might have to wait for some time. In the mean time, if you need to send data to more than 3 other jets, you can just package up the data (not the real-time stuff, but all the contacts that've been identified, their signatures, locations, etc), copy it over to another F-35 for sharing with his wingmen, and then jump back to your own wingmen.
>>30476205
>>30476104
Also, the USAF, etc are working on comms nodes, so you might potentially have an upgraded AWACS being the 4th wingmen and sharing some level or prioritised form of that data to other formations of F-35s, as well as F-22s and 4th gen jets.
>>30476211
>Also, the USAF, etc are working on comms nodes, so you might potentially have an upgraded AWACS being the 4th wingmen and sharing some level or prioritised form of that data to other formations of F-35s, as well as F-22s and 4th gen jets.
Makes sense, especially with the current datalink limitations RE: LPI with the F-22. Though it seems like that's something that might fit on an orbiting drone or even VLO mission pod for the F-35. What would it need? Power for the AESA LPI t/r tightbeam arrays, plus the processing horsepower and go juice for sorting each transmission for relevance and converting for link archetecture?
Obviously the AWACS will be a comm node no matter what, I was just thinking about day 1 VLO penetration strike missions in mass raid numbers. A lot of moving parts there, and they wouldn't want to put an AWACS in the middle of that.
>>30476205
One of the neat things about mesh networking is that you don't need direct lines to everyone you talk to. So while each plane in the MADL net is limited to three other planes, it doesn't mean only 4 can talk to each other. It can basically chain data across every active F-35 in the battlespace.
>>30476439
You could fit a MADL / IFDL comms system into a pod; TALON HATE pods for example allow F-15s to receive IFDL from F-22s.
For distributing it to larger forces though is a bit trickier - you can't just repeat the MADL from one set of F-35s to another set; it'd exceed (if not immediately, then eventually) the receiving capability of the F-35s, at least for the real-time component (which is the whole point of such a concept).
So instead you would need sensor fusion processors on the comms node, taking in that data, fusing it and seeing what's junk, and only exporting the good stuff; to the other F-35s, it'd be like if their 4th wingman just had way better sensors.
Ultimately, I think the best way to do things is just to wait and improve the F-35's throughput / number of active channels. Otherwise, realistically, there isn't going to be much that much that 4 F-35s can't figure out on their own that 8 or more could (chances are those F-35s would only be further away and have a worse image). As soon as they have a targeting solution or ID on a target, they just daisy-chain that information throughout the fleet like >>30476545 mentions, or via relaying that via SatCom to theatre command, or Link 16 to AWACS.
It's like a group of detectives working on a case; there can only be 4 detectives in the room at the same time, looking at the crime scene and working things out together CSI Miami style, but at any time they can create and give a copy of all their notes, photos and evidence, etc to another crew - if the CSI Miami crew run out of AMRAAMs or get low on fuel and need to leave the case to the FBI, the FBI start off with all the fresh information that the Miami guys had.
