Linked, but not, I do wonder how long it'll be before the west stops developing incredibly complex and slow to produce aircraft. Many are years old before they even leave the drawing board and then need more modern systems fitting in.
We're already considering the future viability of the aircraft carrier and the Ukraine war has been fought with a relative absence of conventional air power
Ukraine war has been fought with a relative absence of conventional air power
🤷🏻♂️ is that lack of F35s and wotnot related to the desire to help Ukrainian forces but not precipitate an all out NATO-Russian federation conflict?
But Russian hasn’t swamped Ukraine with it’s on paper much greater air power, not sure why but there was probably enough early losses from relatively cheap ground to air defences to make it unsustainable.
I'm surprised the generation just starting development now are manned, surely by 2035+ tech will have developed enough for unmanned + AI (in case of jamming etc.) for frontline combat aircraft. I guess maybe it's easier to retrofit unmanned into a manned design than the other way around but I'd have thought you'd be able to make some fundamental design choices if you don't need to worry about a pilot
Like the V22 , the F35 has a bad rep for crashing that's mostly undeserved. Observation bias probably pays more of a part of this than not. Compared with the jets of the 50's and 60's - F-102, F-106, Sea Vixen, etc etc these aircraft are incredibly safe; but it's military flying, there's going to be crashes. That's pretty much baked in.
I think the USAF "mishap/100,000 flight hours" for the F35 is very low (comparable to the F18) is 4 or so, compared to the F-102 which was something like 13
@fuzzyWuzzy I think the US DOD and USAF this year has said that their next generation aircraft (6th Gen fighters) will be manned, so I think for at least a few decades that's not going to be the majority. I think UAV's have been in operation since the late '00, and they certainly have their place, but there's some drawbacks that are hard to overcome without a pilot in the seat. I think even if we get to situation where computers are doing most of the flying decisions, there's still going to be a man in the aircraft to make the weapons decisions.
An F35B has also had an issue on landing. The video is here.
Here too:
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/another-f-35-crash/page/2/
Like the V22 , the F35 has a bad rep for crashing that’s mostly undeserved.
Also, the rate will be higher when a new aircraft is introduced and will drop after problems are discovered and resolved. The F35 in the video was fresh out of the factory and was undergoing flight tests, quite likely a manufacturing fault that isn't fundamental to the aircraft design.
Vertical landing aircraft will always have a higher accident rate because any problem during the hovering stage is almost guaranteed to result in a crash.
That would negate almost all the advantages of a pilotless vehicle though! You can still have a guy on the ground in a nice air-conditioned office making the decisions remotely. I actually think making an AI flying death-machine is a lot less of an ask than, say, a safe self-driving car for public roads.I think even if we get to situation where computers are doing most of the flying decisions, there’s still going to be a man in the aircraft to make the weapons decisions.
Also,
yeah, they are definitely going to announce all their plans to everyone and keep the whole internet up-to-speed with what they have in development 😂I think the US DOD and USAF this year has said that their next generation aircraft (6th Gen fighters) will be manned
As a layman, he had the bugger on the deck albeit at a jaunty angle, then it powers up again and takes him for another ride, forcing him to eject. Does the pilot have a big button to kill the engines once he's on the ground? Or does 'computer say no' to that?
Previous generation fighters usually have a throttle cut-off, no idea how the F35B throttle quadrant works.
Usually some sort of physical obstruction that requires the pilot to lift over, or push through to get it into the cut-off. Similar to how the afterburners are selected.
There's a big disconnect between what western air forces have actually needed over the last 20 years (subsonic and relatively cheap aircraft for dropping bombs in relatively benign environments) with what they think they need (F-35).
But 'you need a new A-7' isn't what they want to hear.
yeah, they are definitely going to announce all their plans
The DOD is publicly funded arm of government that needs to keep it's development plans in the public so folks know what their tax dollars are being invested in and allow the people that build planes to keep abreast of what their requirements are.
So yes, they are definitely going to announce their plans. I'm guessing you don't understand how military procurement works?
ratherbeintobago Full Member
There’s a big disconnect between what western air forces have actually needed over the last 20 years (subsonic and relatively cheap aircraft for dropping bombs in relatively benign environments) with what they think they need (F-35).
While the west's military deployments for most of the past two decades have been dominated by counter-insurgency type operations, it would seem that lately military planners are expecting more near-peer conflicts, or the need to appear ready to handle such things so as to deter them.
In conflicts with powers such as Russia and China an F-35 is probably going to be more capable than the sort of aircraft that would have been effective at the low intensity warfare that occurred in Afghanistan.
In conflicts with powers such as Russia and China an F-35 is probably going to be more capable than the sort of aircraft that would have been effective at the low intensity warfare that occurred in Afghanistan.
Depends entirely on the effect you want. Not to dive into the usual shitfest these discussion turn into but each platform/type is a tool that has a use of variety of uses depending on what you need to achieve.
Effective air is about layers. Or as Gox Wan would say, options.
Depends entirely on the effect you want. Not to dive into the usual shitfest these discussion turn into but each platform/type is a tool that has a use of variety of uses depending on what you need to achieve.
Effective air is about layers. Or as Gox Wan would say, options.
If it was any good Tom Cruise would have had it in Top Gun 😂
If it was any good Tom Cruise would have had it in Top Gun 😂
Hahaha. Too true.
Ukraine war has been fought with a relative absence of conventional air power
One theory on this is Russia is making the Ukrainians use all their surface-to-air missiles to shoot down Russian missiles then when they are depleted then the Russians will have air superiority.
Just watched the video .. It looked perfect until...oh
Fw Tower: alpha Lima 39er you are clear too land on runway 3 West.
F35 pilot: thank you tower. 100 ft, 50 ft, 20ft and all indicators green, 5, touchdown! Tower am I clear to taxi...
Computer: Err, no, no I don't think this is right at all
Pilot: what the! Oh....I can sort this .. It's just a scratch.... If I can just get it back. Oh...time to leave!
Computer: thank you for flying with...
Pilot: Martin baker!
You can still have a guy on the ground in a nice air-conditioned office making the decisions remotely.
Surely any remote control is dependent on communications not being jammed by the enemy? In counter insurgency situation it may work but in a peer war it could be a problem - but I have no expertise in this area so tell me if I'm wrong.
Surely any remote control is dependent on communications not being jammed by the enemy?
Just one the many drawbacks of uses UAV in the sorts of mission where having a pilot is advantageous. So far UAV (in the US experience at least) have just been used in uncontested airspace, In 2002 A UAV and MiG-25 had a AAC over Iraq and while both got off missiles, the MiG (the -25 not known for it maneuverability) got around the UAV easily and shot it down. Then there's the "man on the spot" issues, the cost - each Global Hawk is $75M, the speed and manoeuvrability advantage that manned aircraft have, and the accident rate. UAV's get into mishaps in a way that makes even the F35 look like Mr Safety.
While UAV are much better for long and boring surveillance missions, some, like Global Hawk an even refuel mid-air, and stay up for days with crew changes on a rota, they're still waaay behind in the sorts of "dynamic" operations. I think most air forces are looking to combine manned and unmanned aircraft to take advantage of both types pros and cons.
Surely any remote control is dependent on communications not being jammed by the enemy?
This is already happening over Ukraine and Russia, GPS signals are being jammed and spoofed, which would make things difficult for someone a thousand miles away from the UAV they’re piloting from a comfy seat wearing an Oculus, with no situational awareness.
”jamming” as you see it in movies is not really possible, without requiring a phenomenal amount of energy & disrupting all of your own communications too. There’s a huge number of ways to modulate a radio signal; if you have someone smart enough to build you an AI jet, chances are you’ll have someone smart enough to figure out how to get a signal to it too!Surely any remote control is dependent on communications not being jammed by the enemy?
”jamming” as you see it in movies is not really possible, without requiring a phenomenal amount of energy & disrupting all of your own communications too. There’s a huge number of ways to modulate a radio signal; if you have someone smart enough to build you an AI jet, chances are you’ll have someone smart enough to figure out how to get a signal to it too!
Break out the Growlers 😁
”jamming” as you see it in movies is not really possible
The main jamming equipment that the US forces use is a pod small enough to be carried on the wings on airplanes like the F/A18 and so on. Read about it here If you can't be bothered with the link; from the description
The system is capable of intercepting, automatically processing and jamming received radio frequency signals. The system receivers can also be used to detect, identify and direction find those signals, providing signals intelligence either automatically or manually.<sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference"></sup>
There was a good documentary on the History Channel iirc about a mission over Iraq where special forces were raiding a house and it was interviewing the Prowler crew about the process of using Jamming. It's not just a case of flying over and flicking a switch and jamming everything straight away as in the movies as that gives the whole game away. It's a very precise methodical process that is in sync with everything else involved in the mission including any ground troops. In this case, it was literally a few minutes to jam phone signals while they raided the house.
It’s not just a case of flying over and flicking a switch and jamming everything straight away as in the movies as that gives the whole game away.
“Instruments of Darkness” is worth a read if you can find a copy - history of the wartime RAF’s electronic warfare efforts. By VE Day, Bomber Command had quite sophisticated EW platforms… the problem being as above that the Germans could get early warning of raids by it all being switched on.
Anyone who thinks the F-35 is crash-prone doesn’t know the history of the DeHavilland Sea Vixen. Out of the total 145 aircraft that saw service, 55 were lost in various mishaps and 51 aircrew killed.
https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/12/what-is-the-worst-fighter-plane-of-all-time/
The airplane had Rolls-Royce Avon 208 turbojets that were deemed sufficient at the time. But trouble started early. Just a year later in 1952, as the Farnborough Air Show, a Sea Vixen broke apart during a high-speed, high-G maneuver. The pilot was trying to create a sonic boom to wow the crowd, but the airplane’s engines hurtled into the crowd and killed 29 people along with the pilot and flight engineer.
Different time, though. Wasn’t the Crusader’s accident rate even worse?
(Before anyone says it, the Luftwaffe F-104 accident rate was bad, but better than the rate for the F-84s they replaced)
I'm going to drop this link here...
It mentions jamming, the superiority of Russian over Ukrainian aircraft, missile and radar systems, how western aircraft could help, co-ordinating air defences, etc
It's nothing to do with F35s but I couldn't decide where else to put it and I found it interesting. Sorry
Anyone who thinks the F-35 is crash-prone doesn’t know the history of the DeHavilland Sea Vixen.
Honestly, you could say the same about pretty much all deck launched fighters of the day. Below is photo of the short-lived Vought Cutlass, note: Canopy open on take off to allow for quicker ejection...
I like how the F35 here is having to use its lift fan so it can fly slow enough to stay in formation with a WW1 bomber.
https://twitter.com/TheAviationist/status/1699540234914906608
https://twitter.com/TheAviationist/status/1699540335129452671
Well, it is a stealth jet, you'd expect it to be hard to find.
https://twitter.com/TeamCharleston/status/1703523385475534968
How da blinking flip do you lose a plane? I know the US is a big old place, but that is impressive.
Nose dive into a lake?
Straight into a cave?
Or, just maybe they need to have a word with the 'pilot'....
How da blinking flip do you lose a plane? I know the US is a big old place
That really. The list of missing planes is fascinating. Very long, but still fascinating
That really. The list of missing planes is fascinating. Very long, but still fascinating
Apart from the odd one in an absolute wilderness, nearly all of these have gone missing over water.
Finding a crashed aeroplane underwater can be quite difficult and time consuming. I used to do it for a living.
I found one up a mountain in Africa 74 years after it had gone missing. It was found 14 years earlier but then couldn't be 're-found'.
The world is a big place to lose relatively small things.
Wasn't there a case in America only a wee while ago, when Steve Fossett went missing flying his own plane from one well used local airport to a fairly other well used private airport, they never found his crash site during the search, and it was only a year later that a walker stumbled across it. They did though, while they were looking for him, find a couple of decades old crash sites of other planes that had gone missing..?
Finding a crashed aeroplane underwater can be quite difficult and time consuming. I used to do it for a living
I've seen thunderball, it didn't look that difficult
How da blinking flip do you lose a plane? I know the US is a big old place, but that is impressive.
If they ejected at altitude then it could have gone a reasonable distance before crashing.
There was an nutty example of a soviet pilot ejecting and the fighter flying another six hundred miles before eventually crashing after running out of fuel.
Although for the fans of the f-450 scenario there was also a case of a US pilot ejecting which somehow corrected the problems with the plane which then landed almost perfectly by itself in a field.
somehow corrected the problems with the plane which then landed almost perfectly by itself in a field.
https://twitter.com/TeamCharleston/status/170352338547553496 8"a mishap" 😁
Some of the comments on that post are gold.
F106 story is bonkers and brilliant at the same time.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/f-35-cant-be-found-after-pilot-ejected
A lot more information above, the pilot had an unspecified emergency, set the jet onto autopilot and punched out, his companion pilot kept station and followed him down to make sure his ‘chute had opened correctly and he landed safely. Meanwhile, the F-35 carried on flying, its transponder was switched off, so ADS-B has no track, and of course, it’s a stealthy aircraft! Scroll down to the comments, definitely worth a read.
I believe it was fly NW, away from the coast, but America is sodding huge, and if it came down in a forested area, then it’s probably almost invisible from above.
If they ejected at altitude then it could have gone a reasonable distance before crashing.
There was an nutty example of a soviet pilot ejecting and the fighter flying another six hundred miles before eventually crashing after running out of fuel.
There was an incident just after WW2 when an American bomber flying over southern England got lost, so the crew set its autopilot and baled out, leaving the plane flying all on its own. That is, until a piece of high ground a couple of miles outside of Chippenham got in its way…
It was apparently a Convair B-36 ‘Peacemaker’, the world’s biggest bomber at the time, and nuclear capable.
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/152762
According to a published newspaper report ("Wiltshire Gazette & Herald" 6 February 2003):
"6th February 2003
Bomber flew 30 miles without a crewFIFTY years ago on February 7 one of the world's largest aircraft crashed near Lacock, and the crash remains unexplained to this day.
Chippenham historian Paul Moran who has compiled newspaper reports of the accident and talked to witnesses, says the B-36 bomber, carrying top secret military equipment, flew 30 miles over the north Wiltshire countryside without pilot or crew, before plummeting to the ground.
The plane could have crashed in Chippenham with a heavy death toll but fortunately it came down in an isolated location at Nethermore Woods, near Pitters Farm, at Sandy Lane
Just to indicate how close to a disaster that B-36 crash came, here’s a section of map showing Chippenham and the crash location, circled in the bottom right.
The town was significantly smaller back then, but we’re not talking a bigger margin of error.
And to give better context, here’s a map showing Fairford at the top right, and the crash site at the bottom left, and how little deviation would have been needed for it to hit the town.
Ms. RM's mum was one of the handful of survivors of the Frecklington air disaster. Planes falling out of the sky is bad news all round.
Someone suggested this as a way to find the jet…
The only thing to do is to wait until it starts its own Twitter/Instagram account, and then start tracking it based on the selfies.
wow I’d never heard of that disaster. That was a real tragedy and it seems the US didn’t really atone properly
wow I’d never heard of that disaster. That was a real tragedy and it seems the US didn’t really atone properly
I assume it's Freckleton rather than Frecklington?
It's well known locally but as you say, very little info elsewhere.
I assume it’s Freckleton rather than Frecklington?
It’s well known locally but as you say, very little info elsewhere.
That's the one, I'm not local. Haha.
But yeah, not widely known, a proper tragedy.
The memes are good, but it really has been found now, still in S. Carolina... https://www.reuters.com/world/us/anyone-seen-my-f-35-us-searches-fighter-jet-after-mishap-2023-09-18/
A bit more follow-up…
There are some references in the comments further down in that article, and contrary to what many seem to think, the F-35 has a remarkable record in comparison to most combat jets, here’s a screenshot of the relevant information, look at the F-16, for example…
Two Norwegian F35a landed on a motorway in Finland, hot-refuelled, engines running, and took off again.
Apparently a first for the a-variant without VTOL https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/lockheed-martin-f-35a-fighter-jets-land-motorway-2023-09-22/
Two Norwegian F35a landed on a motorway in Finland, hot-refuelled,
I never saw the point in taxiing to a petrol station to be honest.
