How the Air Force killed the fighter fleet

I think the reason why the US air fleet is changing is because of how the manufactures describe and advertise the capabilities of the new jets to the buyer/government. They are portraying that the new line of jets are unmatched at almost every level. When you have been told that, your mentality towards the need of F-15s, F-16s and F-18s become second rated.

Why spend money on buying 10. F-15s if 4. F-35s can do the same job.

reply to post by JimTSpock

Due to security considerations, the access to information provided by some of the most advanced sensors currently available in theater is highly restricted. For example, intelligence and situational picture generated by F-22 Raptors cannot be transferred to F-15s, F-16 or AWACS even if both units are participating in the same operation. As stealth aircraft, F-22s are not equipped with conventional datalinks such as Link-16 which can be easily spotted by enemy SIGINT. Instead, they use a unique stealth-qualified, narrow-beam Intra-Flight Data-Link (IFDL) designed to relay data and synchronize a situational picture only among the Raptors. As this stealth datalink is incompatible with all other communications devices, Raptors cannot communicate with any friendly aircraft.

The experimental Battlefield Airborne Communications Node (BACN) developed by Northrop Grumman will partly solve this issue. An early version of this airborne relay currently employed on a NASA WB-57 in Afghanistan utilized a range of radio datalinks to bridge between different networks. A more advanced version integrated in a Gulfstream business jet is being tested. When completed, Northrop Grumman proposes to deploy BCAN on the Global hawk UAV.

defense-update.com...

As of this test, in 2008, they had to link to a ground station, which then linked to other aircraft, similar to the BACN route.

reply to post by spy66


The big issue though is that the military goes to the contractor with a Request For Proposals on a design and gives them the parameters they are looking for. So it all comes back on the Air Force, no matter how you look at it.

reply to post by Zaphod58


That's interesting. I've just read a bit about that, it says F-22s can receive but not transmit on the link 16. You'd think they could just have a stealth mode which stops transmitting. Looks like they're addressing that.
I don't think that's a big deal at all. Other air assets don't need F-22 sensor info. The F-22s main role is air supremacy which it does extremely well.

The US military industrial complex at work lobbying the government for billion dollar contracts. Some argue the US military is probably bigger than is necessary.

reply to post by JimTSpock


The point though, as was made in the original article, was that the Air Force command at the time lied to Congress about the F-22 capabilities to make it seem like a much better buy than it has been. This led to every other air asset in the inventory being basically ignored until the F-22 buy was almost complete, or unless they absolutely had to.

reply to post by Zaphod58


That's not good. The F-22 program has been going for decades. The Flanker series outperforms all teen series jets in flight performance so they had no choice anyway. It's not that bad the F-22 program is good I think, even if as you say they lied to congress which I don't know much about.

reply to post by JimTSpock


The F-22, when it has the kinks worked out, will be an outstanding fighter. The only thing is that everything else was ignored, and they made things up to make sure they got it. And now they're doing the same with the F-35 program, to a lesser extent.

reply to post by Zaphod58


America has had an outstanding history of building fast jets. The F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18 were all excellent designs for the time. I think the F-22 carries on this tradition but there are definitely some big question marks over the F-35. This fighter expert who I've spoken to a few times is quite critical of the F-35.

www.ausairpower.net...

www.ausairpower.net...

It's not a great looking jet but I think it will get the job done.

I'm 99% sure they had link 16 in the past. They asked for link-16 equipped tankers for training in the past.

reply to post by boomer135


They were originally going to have Link 16, but the decision was made to go with IFDL instead. Supposedly it is because IFDL is an LPI datalink, where the Link 16 is detectable by SIGINT platforms. Why this is an issue I don't know, because at best it's going to tell you that someone with Link 16 is operating in the area, and wouldn't be in use long enough for them to track it back to where it was coming from.

Well this is appropriate.

DARPA and future aviation builds

reply to post by boomer135


Upon further reading, they can receive Link 16, they just can't broadcast on it. So they can hear the tanker nicely, they just couldn't share anything with it, even if they wanted to.

Originally posted by JimTSpock
Other air assets don't need F-22 sensor info.

While they don't need the F-22's information per se, denying information to your own forces only hurts you. The F-22 has the some of the most advanced electronics available on serving aircraft as well as the capability to put itself into advantageous positions to use it with. By making the information that the F-22 can get available to the rest of the fleet via the link system du jour you effectively increase their own electronic capability by proxy. You also give them a vastly more accurate picture of what's going on in the battlespace, and I'm sure we can agree that you can't go wrong with that.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Well this is appropriate.

Putting DARPA in charge of turning things that are ridiculously overcomplicated into a simpler, more practical system? That's gonna end real well.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Upon further reading, they can receive Link 16, they just can't broadcast on it. So they can hear the tanker nicely, they just couldn't share anything with it, even if they wanted to

Frankly I'm shocked not only that aircraft aren't being upgraded to what the AF obviously considers the modern standard link, but that the newer aircraft aren't even bothering with basic backward compatibility. It seems likely that they feel that the F-35 will solve those problems by making them obsolete, but at this rate the issue will be with them for some time yet.

Originally posted by Darkpr0

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Well this is appropriate.

Putting DARPA in charge of turning things that are ridiculously overcomplicated into a simpler, more practical system? That's gonna end real well.

While I agree that DARPA probably isn't the best people to put in charge of this, at least someone has recognized that the procurement process has become the most obscenely bloated thing this side of the Blob after it ate Pittsburgh (obscure movie reference).

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Upon further reading, they can receive Link 16, they just can't broadcast on it. So they can hear the tanker nicely, they just couldn't share anything with it, even if they wanted to

Frankly I'm shocked not only that aircraft aren't being upgraded to what the AF obviously considers the modern standard link, but that the newer aircraft aren't even bothering with basic backward compatibility. It seems likely that they feel that the F-35 will solve those problems by making them obsolete, but at this rate the issue will be with them for some time yet.

I'm not even sure that the F-22 and F-35 will be able to talk to each other. As of last year, the Multifunction Advanced Datalink that is going on the F-35, and the B-2, wasn't considered "mature enough" to put on the F-22. They wanted the F-35 to test it out and let it mature in that program before putting it on the Raptors.

I'm pretty sure that the issue of flight performance is getting to the point where its the human body that is the limiter more then the aircraft itself. G-suits can only reverse so much of the effects, pressure suits are expensive, uncomfortable, custom fit, and unwieldy. Also when you strip all the controls, instruments, ejection seats, O2 bottles, survival equipment, etc... out of the aircraft, you lighten the load by a significant amount making an aircraft faster, go further, and be more maneuverable. It only makes sense to eliminate the pilot. Since the new drones are small, quiet, portable, fast, stealthy, and don't have the same limitations that the fighters do; they can fly them more secretly then fighters. They also don't have human restrictions on the number of hours they stay aloft, or the same safety/maintenance restrictions. They most likely aren't listed as actual aircraft, so they aren't accounted for in the lists that are being used to show the shrinking of manned aircraft.

The days coming where the only manned military aircraft will be those involved in airlift and rescue operations. Even the fuelers will be unmanned (sorry boomer ) .

reply to post by defcon5


Oh, I agree that we're seeing the end of manned flight, within a generation or two at the most. But right now, that's totally irrelevant, because even if they were to start producing UCAVs to replace the fighters tomorrow, we're still going to reach the point where there is a dangerous gap in our air coverage, because what we currently have isn't capable of performing the mission anymore.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
As for the UCAV idea, the X-47 is starting to follow the same path of decades to operational. The first X-47 pictures were released years ago, and they're looking at another year or two before they even fly an approach to an aircraft carrier, let alone are flying off the deck of one.

BTW...
They are being told to hurry this along:

Navy to Speed Up Carrier-Launched Combat Drone Program
“We’ve had a statement of need from the Navy that was validated by the joint staff for UCLASS about three weeks ago … and we expect to get a memo that tells us to essentially streamline the acquisition on that program and move more quickly,”

reply to post by defcon5


That is actually the UCLASS, not the X-47. Both are Navy projects, but they're different projects. The UCLASS may be in flight testing by the end of the decade, but the X-47 is far ahead of it. As far as the speeding up goes, Lockheed was told they had to tighten up the F-35 program, or they'd lost money for some of the airframes, and did basically nothing. And oh look, they're still paying them for the airframes they said they wouldn't.

reply to post by Zaphod58

I think that UCAS-D is the program, its not the aircraft.
The aircraft is the X-47B...
Northrop Grumman X-47B UCAS-D
Here is the same photo:
Northrop Grumman X-47B US Navy unmanned aircraft is a prelude to our robotic armies.

Navy Teaches Robot Top Gun, X-47, To Fly From Aircraft Carriers
August 1, 2012:
Now both robot planes have moved out east to Patuxent River to work on "the basics of operating around the aircraft carrier," Engdahl said.

They say this will be doing actual carrier trials by next year:

The X-47B Doesn’t Need A Pilot to Land on an Aircraft Carrier
"This flight of the X-47B is the first time an autonomous, carrier-capable unmanned system has flown at Pax River," said Carl Johnson, VP and Navy UCAS program manager for Northrop Grumman. "It's also a major milestone for the program as the Navy/Northrop Grumman team prepares the aircraft to enter carrier suitability testing this fall, the last major phase of testing before we begin carrier trials in 2013."

reply to post by Zaphod58

Oh, I get what your saying now...
Sorry...
I didn't realize that there was another drone with almost the same name as the project:
Lockheed Martin UCLASS Sea Ghost
Yep, that looks like its still in the concept stages and not even given the go-ahead from the brass yet.

US Navy expects fall approval for UCLASS requirements.
"The UCLASS requirements have not been approved by the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations]," the Naval Air Systems Command says. "Approval is expected in the early fall timeframe."