Europe and 5th generation aircraft

[Sintra]

Re the email - Not anymore ;-(.

I'll have assume your referring to its satellite comms and the radar burst mode.

I was under the impression that recent exercises other air units only got voice comms from the Raptors for vectors not real time datalinks.

Cheers

JWCook

Now you have made me curious.
The work by L-3 with the AN/APG-77 AESA antena relaying information by "line of sight" to a Common Data Link (CDL) modem his well known, started in 2004, tested in march 2006 and by every account it wasn´t applied to the active fleet!
And the plan to install a satcoms link in the Block40 Raptor´s was droped several years ago.
Someone wants to shed a bit of light?

 

[JWCook]

Hi Sintra

I'm curious too, netcentric is the buzzword, and the Raptor by open accounts looks lacking.

It looks like the F-22 is morphing from a stealth orientated program to an integrated information sharing asset, these are opposing goals as stealth requires no emissions and the other emissions constantly..

Wouldn't you like to be in the middle of those opposing factions.
Put simply I don't know what the Raptor has now, but recent testing of new comms equipment for information sharing with other assets seems to indicate something is lacking from th F-22, or they would not be testing on such a rare platform.

But I will be asking around


Cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

Hi Sintra

I'm curious too, netcentric is the buzzword, and the Raptor by open accounts looks lacking.

It looks like the F-22 is morphing from a stealth orientated program to an integrated information sharing asset, these are opposing goals as stealth requires no emissions and the other emissions constantly..

Wouldn't you like to be in the middle of those opposing factions.
Put simply I don't know what the Raptor has now, but recent testing of new comms equipment for information sharing with other assets seems to indicate something is lacking from th F-22, or they would not be testing on such a rare platform.

But I will be asking around


Cheers

F-22 lacking? How about revolutionizing the state of the art. The Raptors IW/EW capabilities are transformational. It's only that this kind of data is very tightly held and when it is released more often than not people don't understand the significance of it. There is A LOT about this plane still not in the public domain.

-DA

 

[Scorpion82]

No it wasn't. The Eurofighter design goes back a decade further. Due to inefficiency it took a decade longer to get into service however. But it's design goes back to the 1970s about when the F/A-18 and F-16 were being created. It's also Europe's multirole successor to the F-4 which was the previous platform.

-DA

Interestingly you seem to have totally ignored my first post in this thread... A plan to replace an aircraft is not the start of a new aircraft's design. AST 396 which was defined by the RAF in 1972 called for nothing which comes in an form close to the Typhoon. AST 396 called for a STOVL ground attack/CAS aircraft. The Typhoon is a CTOL air superiority optimised multirole fighter, hardely the same! Design of the aircraft can not begin until the customer has defined what he actually wants. BTW AST 403 was from 1976 and called for a STOVL multirole fighter with AA and AG capabilities, but still no optimised design which resembles the Typhoon in any form.

The Eurofighter programme was started on 16th December 1983 under the name FEFA (Future European Fighter Aircraft) and the development phase actually started on 23th November 1988.

A late, overpriced Coldwar era fighter built to specifications that are no longer valid that is still in development in a lot of ways that exist primarily as a job program rather than serious attempt at 21st Century Fighter with all the implications thereof.

The F-22? :

We are also waiting to read something that confirms the operational utility of the Typhoons "supercruise".

Well it can, but I can't give you the range data because they are not unclassified yet. But be sure they compare well.

I'm in no way biased toward any platform. I don't even like the F-22 "best". To me, the F/A-18E/F is my personal favorite fighter in operational service. I may change this opinion once more F-35 data becomes available. I'm also objective enough to say that while I like the F/A-18E/F, the F-22 is clearly a superior a2a platform.

Just biased towards US weapon systems huh? Has anyone here challenged the F-22s superiority as a fighter here?

 

[DarthAmerica]

Well it can(EF Supercruise allegedly), but I can't give you the range data because they are not unclassified yet. But be sure they compare well.

I don't need you to give me range data. I've already figured a rough approximate for myself. Thats why I wanted someone to provide objective confirmation one way or the other...

Marc Selinger, Aviation Week: What do you think you'll be looking for when you fly?

General Jumper: Obviously I'm not going to be a proficient pilot but I know enough to be able to look at handling qualities and the general air handling of an air machine, its stability and the like. It's not that I doubt or question any of those things, but it's a familiarization sort of thing(Referring to the V-22). I flew the EuroFighter a couple of weeks ago, too, in Germany and not to critique it but just to be able to see what's the technology that's out there and how is it different than my 30 years of experience doing this?

Marc Selinger, Aviation Week: How does the EuroFighter compare to the F-22?

General Jumper: The EuroFighter is a very good airplane. It does not do what the F/A-22 does. It does not do supercruise, it does not do stealth. So it's just a different category. But as far as maneuverability goes and acceleration and the flight characteristics, it's a very impressive airplane.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123008666

...without all the marketing hype. This is not a negative criticism of the EF. Just an acknowledgment that it was built to different sets of requirements where stealth and supercruise wasn't one of them.


-DA

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Ozzy Blizzard

That was a fine post. But in one single point you over stated the AIM-120D capabilities, 200 Nautical Miles! That´s 370 km´s!
You could shoot an AIM-120D from an SR-71 at full speed that you wouldn´t have that kind of range.
On a "real world" shot, you can divide that range by five, at least if you want a decent chance of a hit.

Cheers

Sorry mate, typo. I meant 200km. I'll change it.

 

[Scorpion82]

I don't need you to give me range data. I've already figured a rough approximate for myself. Thats why I wanted someone to provide objective confirmation one way or the other...

Well the data known to me suggest it is really useful in a combat configuration. Of course it's not the same level of supercruise as for the F-22 which was more optimised for it. Typhoon was optimised for high speed and altitude performance, but supercruise was no specific requirement.

General Jumper: The EuroFighter is a very good airplane. It does not do what the F/A-22 does. It does not do supercruise, it does not do stealth. So it's just a different category. But as far as maneuverability goes and acceleration and the flight characteristics, it's a very impressive airplane.

Jumpers judgment is limited to what he has seen and what has been demonstrated to him. I'm not saying he is incorrect at all, but the "lacks supercruise" claim is simply wrong. Typhoon does not supercruise at the level of the F-22 that is fact, but the aircraft has an operationally useful supercruise capability that includes the achieveable speed in combat configuration and also the range figures I know. And the aircraft proved to be capable of doing so in extrem climates as well.

...without all the marketing hype. This is not a negative criticism of the EF. Just an acknowledgment that it was built to different sets of requirements where stealth and supercruise wasn't one of them.

-DA

Something I actually refered to in my first post in this thread. Most people forget about the requirements. The Typhoon wasn't designed to be a counterpart to the F-22.

 

[JWCook]

F-22 lacking? How about revolutionizing the state of the art. The Raptors IW/EW capabilities are transformational. It's only that this kind of data is very tightly held and when it is released more often than not people don't understand the significance of it. There is A LOT about this plane still not in the public domain.

-DA

<Sigh>We can only argue about whats in the public domain, we can however pick and choose our references that we use in light of what we gather from other sources\personal experience.

Raptor technology is now leaning rather heavily on the F-35's which is in development (especially radar and EW).

BTW I think you'll also find the Typhoon has a few secrets too, some of which are being tested in the US right now.


Cheers

 

[JWCook]

LM's definition of 5th generation here :- http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/corporate/press-kit/5th-Gen-Brochure.pdf

Does the F-22 qualify as 5th gen???

Defining the 5TH Generation Fighter
5TH generation fighters are unique, revolutionary aircraft. Unlike legacy fourth-generation fighters, 5TH generation fighters were designed from their inception to integrate a wide spectrum of technologies into a single platform.
For the first time, advanced stealth, extreme fighter performance, information fusion for net-centric operations and advanced sustainment – all are uniquely found in the only 5TH generation fighters in production today.

I couldn't help notice the F-22 may not qualify by LM own definition!!, it hasn't met its mean time between maintainence so doesn't qualify for the advanced sustainment..

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]* The mean time between maintenance intervals is less than one hour.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]* That number is half what it should have been at the end of system development and demonstration, in December 2005.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]* It's one-third of the "mature" goal, which is supposed to be achieved in 100,000 operational flying hours, in 2010.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]* It hasn't improved in the past year.[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]source :- http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...79a7Post:07080c8b-3eb9-4402-a39c-41b0eb2db7c4
[/FONT]

What do you all think?

Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

Hi Sintra

I'm curious too, netcentric is the buzzword, and the Raptor by open accounts looks lacking.

It looks like the F-22 is morphing from a stealth orientated program to an integrated information sharing asset, these are opposing goals as stealth requires no emissions and the other emissions constantly..

Wouldn't you like to be in the middle of those opposing factions.
Put simply I don't know what the Raptor has now, but recent testing of new comms equipment for information sharing with other assets seems to indicate something is lacking from th F-22, or they would not be testing on such a rare platform.

But I will be asking around


Cheers

Why would you say it's lacking? All of the traffic we see certainly doesn't even remotely indicate that - in fact what we see is that the US is rapidly modifying doctrine elements to take advantage of various capabilities.

in fact the claims about F-22 data sharing deficiency are patently wrong. there is a vast difference between what is released into the PD and what info is made available to 3i or 4i partners

people need to step beyond assuming that the PD can be a credible baseline measurement of technical truth.

I asked whether you had a mil email address for a reason. You don't need access to a Stone Ghost terminal to know that the claims made about F-22 data sharing and connectivity by its opponents are absolute rubbish.

In the same breath, as good as the Tiffy is (and I do like it)-to claim that it has parity with the F-22 in some performance vectors is absolute nonsense.

They are chalk and cheese. Don't look at them as capability competitors (they're not) - look at them as a significantly lethal complimentary pair of assets.

In fact this whole debate is venturing into wally world. People are better off saying nothing than making commentary which anyone with a remote association with current contemp systems knows will not be commented on - for various reasons.

At a knowledge level, anyone who has worked at the assessment level on mil programmes knows that over 90% of tech is withheld - arguing over 2 platforms designed and developed for different host country requirements and systems concepts is a waste of time.

People need to step back or move on. It's getting ridiculous.

 

[Feanor]

Guys this discussion has been very interesting. Please don't turn it into a personal fight.

EDIT: My two cents is that if it doesn't provide capabilites that are an order of magnitude above the previous, then it's not really a new generation. The Raptor and JSF do this, and the Typhoon does not which would make it fourth gen. albeit very late fourth gen.

 

[simdude97]

They are chalk and cheese. Don't look at them as capability competitors (they're not)

Clearly so, however there is a tendency in certain circles to elevate the Tiffie up to "next best thing" status, and again, that clearly is very arguable. You are certainly correct in saying that the Raptor and Tiffie would make a very lethal pair, but so would a Raptor and F-15, F-16, F-18 and Rafale. The Raptor is a force multiplier and developing a stealthy, secure data link that can be accessed by all allied aircraft is just another milestone in it's development.

As for the Tiffie, well yeah it's a top notch 4th gen aircraft but there are lots of others out there as well and if the JSF delivers on most of it's promises and is fielded in the numbers expected the Typhoon will be relegated to 2nd tier status along with all the other fourth generation fighters regardless of performance or avionics.

Jumpers judgment is limited to what he has seen and what has been demonstrated to him.

Jumper has flown both so you would think he would know.

Typhoon does not supercruise at the level of the F-22 that is fact, but the aircraft has an operationally useful supercruise capability that includes the achieveable speed in combat configuration and also the range figures I know.

A "demo" copy perhaps. I wonder if production versions truly super cruise and if they do I wonder how slagged the motors are afterwards. Lets keep in mind the only "official" comment from an actual operator is from the German Luftwaffe and all they say is that speeds up to M1.2 are possible without reheat. Nothing about conditions, altitude, weapons load out or whether the cans are needed to break M1.0. In fact late model F-16s and F-15s can do the same thing. Is it truly super cruise?

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Raptor is a force multiplier and developing a stealthy, secure data link that can be accessed by all allied aircraft is just another milestone in it's development.

exactly, and a lot of the "biggles" type comments clearly and/or deliberately ignore what else it brings to the battlefield table.


modern warfare is about systems - not platforms - and when the platform brings autonomy and organic systems that prev required a raft of other support/multiplier assets then the compression capability is significantly multiplied - and the logistical demands also change.

the simple dumbing down of platform x to platform y misses multiple points.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Well the data known to me suggest it is really useful in a combat configuration. Of course it's not the same level of supercruise as for the F-22 which was more optimised for it. Typhoon was optimised for high speed and altitude performance, but supercruise was no specific requirement.

Jumpers judgment is limited to what he has seen and what has been demonstrated to him. I'm not saying he is incorrect at all, but the "lacks supercruise" claim is simply wrong. Typhoon does not supercruise at the level of the F-22 that is fact, but the aircraft has an operationally useful supercruise capability that includes the achieveable speed in combat configuration and also the range figures I know. And the aircraft proved to be capable of doing so in extrem climates as well.

Gen Jumpers judgement limited? Does that even make sense to you? Also, how can you say that you aren't calling him incorrect then in the same breath call him "simply wrong"? Then how can you say it does in configurations that you know? If you know then where is your explanation or proof? Are you suggesting that your credentials grant you access to information Gen Jumper can't get even though his specific stated purpose was to make an assessment of technology trends that could affect the U.S. Military? This seems like bias to me.

The point is that Europe is on a different technology roadmap to address it's fighter requirements. The EJ200 wasn't made to do what some seem to think it does. I'm sure that EADS can see the operational benefits of supercruise and wants to include that into a future Tranche. This is why I suspect they constantly refer to upgraded engines. We know that F-16 could be made to supercruise and a variant was proposed that would do this. We know the Russians are working on new engines to supercruise. But in order to achieve this a new engine and design are required as sustained supersonic speeds have unique demands on the machine.

This is why I ask for operational reference to this capability rather that test data. Some of the data from the Streak Eagle and T-10 are rather incredible. Just like the extreme performance of some Mig-25s. All are test aircraft rather than combat configured warplanes. It does make a difference. Again, none of this is a knock on the engineers who were tasked to build a very specific capability into the machine. We need to recognize that in order to make accurate consistent assessments.

What we should do is access how Europe will use capabilities it actually has to meet 21st century requirements rather than trying pretending the Europeans will use American doctrine and their equipment the way the US uses it's equipment.

-DA

 

[Fritz]

4th gen and 4.5 gen are different beasts alltogether.
Networking does'nt oze exotic like buzzwords like "stealth" or "supercruise" but is nonetheless a requirement today.
4th gen. fighters don't have the networking capability crucial to contemp. battlespace.
modern warfare is about systems - not platforms

 

[JWCook]

Why would you say it's lacking? All of the traffic we see certainly doesn't even remotely indicate that - in fact what we see is that the US is rapidly modifying doctrine elements to take advantage of various capabilities.

It was obviously lacking a secure data link that can be accessed by all allied aircraft..... why else have one installed in a F-22 if it already has the leading edge in secured data links that can be accessed by all allied aircraft.

I don't understand why they would do that to the F-22 when its under such tight budget constraints? - just for fun perhaps? or to give it a niche to live in once the JSF arrives?. So why do you think they did it if it really didn't need it?

I'm admit I'm getting a little tired of discussing The F-22 with people who think its faultless, cheap and leading edge.


Cheers

 

[Fritz]

I'm admit I'm getting a little tired of discussing The F-22 with people who think its faultless, cheap and leading edge.

IMHO the issue with F-22 is not its performance, but its abysmal maintenance requirement.
IMV this is why production was discontinued.

 

[DarthAmerica]

4th gen and 4.5 gen are different beasts alltogether.
Networking does'nt oze exotic like buzzwords like "stealth" or "supercruise" but is nonetheless a requirement today.
4th gen. fighters don't have the networking capability crucial to contemp. battlespace.
modern warfare is about systems - not platforms

Are you kidding me? There has been more to do with NCW in professional circles, sometimes down to the lowest private being made to learn FBCB2, for the last 10 years than discussion of anything else.

Also with regard to 4th/4.5 Gen fighters, what networking capability do they lack that makes them irrelevant to a modern battlefield?

http://www.f-16.net/news_article1286.html


-DA

 

[ASFC]

My two cents is that if it doesn't provide capabilites that are an order of magnitude above the previous, then it's not really a new generation. The Raptor and JSF do this, and the Typhoon does not which would make it fourth gen. albeit very late fourth gen.

Whos Fourth Generation though? For the RAF, it could be easily argued that Typhoon is 5th Generation, and JSF is Sixth Generation (and F-3 Tornado is fourth, F-4 is third, Lightening is 2nd, and everything before that is 1st), whereas in the USAF JSF & F-22 is 5th Generation and Typhoon would be late 4th (or 4.5 if you prefer).

I am very weary of using these 'Xth Generation' statements and much prefer to talk about aircraft in capabilites rather than to which decade they belong to (although there is no denying that the age of the design will come into these discussions).

 

[simdude97]

JWCOOK, your argument makes no sense. Why are they planning to give EF an AESA, why is super getting an IRST? Don't you continually develop and improve on successful aircraft? Could that be the reason why Raptor is getting an upgraded data link?

I don't understand why they would do that to the F-22 when its under such tight budget constraints?

Because it is relatively inexpensive. It utilizes off the shelf equipment. It enhances Raptor's capability as a force multiplier. These are items you seem to overlook. The fact is that the new link does not necessarily make the Raptor itself more potent. It always could receive L16 data and it has always had a two way data link that works amongst F-22s. The new system enables supporting, non VLO aircraft such as Typhoon or F-15s to be more effective by giving them access to real time sensor and targeting information provided by a VLO platform flying higher, faster and closer to the threat than they are.

The key here is the ability to now share data obtained by from an aircraft that the enemy knows nothing about, and can out fly or outfight the enemy if it is detected. Now think about an AWACS. Everyone sees it for 500 miles. It has to stay 175 miles behind the front and it's in big trouble if it has to run.

I'm admit I'm getting a little tired of discussing The F-22 with people who think its faultless, cheap and leading edge.

First supersonic VLO fighter. First deployment of LPI radar in a fighter. Thrust vectoring. Extensive IR suppression. True, useful super cruise. Internal weapon and fuel carriage. Pretty leading edge.

Cheap, no. Not if less than 200 are produced. Cheap, yes when you consider it's ability to dominate the sky and make any other aircraft it flies with more effective.

Faultless. No, that claim belongs to tiffie according to the fans.