US F/A-XX and F-X 6th Gen Aircraft News Thread

[Jura The idiot]

Why don't you embed the video instead of just a picture of it?

LOL! Brumby if you had thought I would've been able to redo a DARPA video, then you should know I can't

I can't picture from it what is supposedly a new concept.

I just added (at certain point of the video you posted previously

System of systems air warfare

)

something what you, in the post right above this one, referred to as

... the pictorial presentation that you provided is somewhat problematic ...

... and now to increase your disbelief, let me tell you the OPFOR would do, in my opinion of a pub debater, much more to disrupt the clean formation from your video (in addition to sending interceptor airplanes as far out as possible, to commence "non-aimed" launches of anti-radiation missiles):

1. jamming (communication between parts of your "system of systems" lost = mission kill, I guess)
   
2. going for the mission-truck from your video
3. going for tanker aircraft (not shown in your video but obviously needed considering the EDIT range)

 

[SamuraiBlue]

• jamming (communication between parts of your "system of systems" lost = mission kill, I guess)

• going for the mission-truck from your video

• going for tanker aircraft (not shown in your video but obviously needed considering the EDIT range)

For jamming you'll need an electronic warfare specialized aircraft that can jam a whole band but those does not usually fly on patrol and are not usually used for defense.
To go after the mission truck you'll first need to locate it and the only way you'll locate it is with an AWAC plane since like I posted earlier on-board radar is not strong enough to reach beyond 100Km.
Same with a tanker.

 

[Jura The idiot]

well now I'll try to be very careful when responding as "war scenarios" are not allowed on the SDF:

For jamming you'll need an electronic warfare specialized aircraft that can jam a whole band but those does not usually fly on patrol and are not usually used for defense.

if a War was looming, I would change "but those does not usually fly on patrol" to something like "and those would be on patrol"

To go after the mission truck you'll first need to locate it and the only way you'll locate it is with an AWAC plane since like I posted earlier on-board radar is not strong enough to reach beyond 100Km.
Same with a tanker.

they could be located from ground stations, which is one of the reasons China militarizes South China Sea (of course I'm not talking war here)

 

[SamuraiBlue]

if a War was looming, I would change "but those does not usually fly on patrol" to something like "and those would be on patrol"

I doubt it since the numbers of units are limited in the first place and more importantly they are not armed.

they could be located from ground stations, which is one of the reasons China militarizes South China Sea (of course I'm not talking war here)

Wasn't the vid about attacking a ground station outside the radar bubble in the first place?
Basically you are chasing your own tail.

 

[Brumby]

LOL! Brumby if you had thought I would've been able to redo a DARPA video, then you should know I can't


I just added (at certain point of the video you posted previously

)

something what you, in the post right above this one, referred to as

... and now to increase your disbelief, let me tell you the OPFOR would do, in my opinion of a pub debater, much more to disrupt the clean formation from your video (in addition to sending interceptor airplanes as far out as possible, to commence "non-aimed" launches of anti-radiation missiles):

1. jamming (communication between parts of your "system of systems" lost = mission kill, I guess)
   
2. going for the mission-truck from your video
3. going for tanker aircraft (not shown in your video but obviously needed considering the EDIT range)

There are two different CONOP's we are discussing and I will go through each one so that we are not confusing between the two.
I will start with your red team scenario. Here are my issues :
(a)The picture illustrates an ingress flight path that is outside the red threat bubble. That means it is not within detection range of its sensors.
(b)You then have a bunch of ARM going off in that direction. How do you reconcile that event to the fact that its presence is still outside the senor range?
(c)The red CAP is not necessarily effective as a counter air threat. I attached that Tyndall example as evidence of the potency of the F-35's being able to operate undetected against the F-15E's with their APG-82.
(d)I don't see how jamming comes into the picture without context and knowing their respective capabilities. For example, a VLO has a considerable S/N advantage against jamming especially with the F-35's with their MADL com. links as they are designed to operate in such an environment with their LPI features.

As to the system of systems CONOP, the arsenal plane is meant to be way off the sensor grid to remove any potential threat to it. The swarm UAV's are controlled by the F-35 using the MADL com. links to avoid detection and jamming.

I agree that the weakness link in this approach is any potential disruption or degradation to the com links via direct threats to the satellites. I personally suspect that the B-21's will provide the redundancy as airborne com. nodes in the event of a peer conflict. The B-21's will be very capable ECCM and com. platforms and the reason why I believe their capabilities are being protected from disclosure.

 

[Jura The idiot]

There are two different CONOP's we are discussing

are we? LOL
anyway if those CONOPs won't sound convincing in the pub where I'm now, they're unlikely to work

and I will go through each one so that we are not confusing between the two.
I will start with your red team scenario. Here are my issues :
(a)The picture illustrates an ingress flight path that is outside the red threat bubble. That means it is not within detection range of its sensors.

what I meant by the "cartoon" I posted in
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us...ircraft-news-thread.t7126/page-22#post-402915
was the Red Force airplanes would be sent outside of the detection zone of the Red AA assets shown on the ground, to be able to intercept the Blue Force Group (using of course the sensors of those Red Force airplanes), and ...

(b)You then have a bunch of ARM going off in that direction. How do you reconcile that event to the fact that its presence is still outside the senor range?

... the crazy part, even if those Red Force airplanes didn't detect the Blue Force Group, they would still launch ARMs ... to increase the chaos

(c)The red CAP is not necessarily effective as a counter air threat. I attached that Tyndall example as evidence of the potency of the F-35's being able to operate undetected against the F-15E's with their APG-82.

if you're referring to what's described inside of
F-15E Strike Eagles unable to shoot down the F-35s in 8 dogfights during simulated deployment

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

then let me tell you I consider it sales-talk (what the Rules Of Engagement were??)

(d)I don't see how jamming comes into the picture without context and knowing their respective capabilities.

I see. You can consider it vague, but I assume the Red Force would deploy Electronic Warfare aircraft in the defended area.

For example, a VLO has a considerable S/N advantage against jamming especially with the F-35's with their MADL com. links as they are designed to operate in such an environment with their LPI features.

I'm afraid it's sales-talk

As to the system of systems CONOP, the arsenal plane is meant to be way off the sensor grid to remove any potential threat to it.

yes, and it would be highest-priority target for the Red Force

now I went through several articles; probably the most interesting:
USAF flaunts ‘arsenal plane’ concept at Air Warfare Symposium

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The swarm UAV's are controlled by the F-35 using the MADL com. links to avoid detection and jamming.

I agree that the weakness link in this approach is any potential disruption or degradation to the com links via direct threats to the satellites. I personally suspect that the B-21's will provide the redundancy as airborne com. nodes in the event of a peer conflict. The B-21's will be very capable ECCM and com. platforms and the reason why I believe their capabilities are being protected from disclosure.

how many drones one Pilot can control? (I think I saw three in that vid)

 

[Jura The idiot]

I doubt it since the numbers of units are limited in the first place and more importantly they are not armed.

what I meant was something like the Growler:
"... In a surveillance-only configuration the Growler is armed with two AIM-120 air-to-air missiles for self defence. ..." according to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Wasn't the vid about attacking a ground station outside the radar bubble in the first place?
Basically you are chasing your own tail.

LOL! it's very funny (I mean it but I think you missed my point from
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us...ircraft-news-thread.t7126/page-24#post-403021
which would be to increase the perimeter (if two or three AA installations in the middle of the sea were blackened, all the remaining, all over the country, would be on the highest state of alert ... in some cases it could mean to switch the radars off!!)

 

[SamuraiBlue]

what I meant was something like the Growler:
"... In a surveillance-only configuration the Growler is armed with two AIM-120 air-to-air missiles for self defence. ..." according to

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

No you mean the Growler, not something LIKE the Growler or could you name another electronic warfare specialized aircraft outside the western military arsenal that fit the same description?

LOL! it's very funny (I mean it but I think you missed my point from
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us...ircraft-news-thread.t7126/page-24#post-403021
which would be to increase the perimeter (if two or three AA installations in the middle of the sea were blackened, all the remaining, all over the country, would be on the highest state of alert ... in some cases it could mean to switch the radars off!!)

Basically you are still chasing your own tail and have not made any point. At the start the planes are out side the radar bubble. You are just babbling about possible scenario outside the starting hypothesis to make an argument look more palatable.

 

[Brumby]

are we? LOL
anyway if those CONOPs won't sound convincing in the pub where I'm now, they're unlikely to work

Why not? You need to make some kind of compelling argument rather just a statement that it doesn't work.

what I meant by the "cartoon" I posted in
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/us...ircraft-news-thread.t7126/page-22#post-402915
was the Red Force airplanes would be sent outside of the detection zone of the Red AA assets shown on the ground, to be able to intercept the Blue Force Group (using of course the sensors of those Red Force airplanes), and ...

F-35 by way of their VLO and sensor fusion is meant to provide it with the capabilities to access denied airspace. The recent Tyndall exercise is a demonstration of such capabilities. This not new. The F-117 demonstrated it during the first Iraq war.

... the crazy part, even if those Red Force airplanes didn't detect the Blue Force Group, they would still launch ARMs ... to increase the chaos

As you said it is a crazy idea to just launch indiscriminately at possible targets. Btw, it is not practical to launch ARM at moving targets. ARM's are meant against non mobile targets.

if you're referring to what's described inside of
F-15E Strike Eagles unable to shoot down the F-35s in 8 dogfights during simulated deployment

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

then let me tell you I consider it sales-talk (what the Rules Of Engagement were??)

I will give you the benefit of determining the ROE's and then question whether they are reasonable or not. For example, the F-15E's are not allowed to turn on their APG-82 and ATP pods. They are to only use visual ID for their counter air.

I see. You can consider it vague, but I assume the Red Force would deploy Electronic Warfare aircraft in the defended area.

Please explain what kind of EW will the Red Force be employing and then we can have a conversation as to whether they are effective or not.

I'm afraid it's sales-talk

The advantage of RCS against jamming is well established radar science and not some sales talk.

yes, and it would be highest-priority target for the Red Force

now I went through several articles; probably the most interesting:
USAF flaunts ‘arsenal plane’ concept at Air Warfare Symposium

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A concept that is being debated is not a concept that is a failure. We are talking about a projected system in 2030. There is plenty of time to work through the issues.

how many drones one Pilot can control? (I think I saw three in that vid)

This is clearly WIP.

 

[Jura The idiot]

No you mean the Growler, not something LIKE the Growler or could you name another electronic warfare specialized aircraft outside the western military arsenal that fit the same description?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

... You are just babbling about possible scenario outside the starting hypothesis to make an argument look more palatable.

LOL thank you ... in case you cared, you could realize any competent AA defenses are integrated since

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

so actually

System of systems air warfare

is a stretch, since the OPFOR won't

... wait for that mission-truck from Brumby's video with folded hands

I started to repeat myself, so you may check my next post.