F-35 stealth jet 'will not be able to fire its guns until 2019'
telegraph.co.uk
telegraph.co.uk
This is how I imagine somewhere in the world malware is currently getting engineered at this very moment.
For example, a request such as making the vehicle amphibious could translate into a request for making the software attack both OS X and Windows.
It's a nice idea to have a completely flexible plane capable of doing every role, but it's clearly not working. What we're ending up with is the proverbial camel designed by a committee who was designing a horse.
Incidentally, there are possibly millions of people with daily exposure to a subset of Ada - its the basis of Oracle's PL/SQL. A component of the PL/SQL parser is called DIANA, which true Oracle geeks know is Descriptive Intermediate Attributed Notation for Ada. See http://stackoverflow.com/q/7764656/447514
There's no guarantee the software would have been any better were it written in Ada. Every generation is more complex than the last.
The irony is, people happily invest their time on becoming gurus in web frameworks with a 2 year shelf life max.
The biggest reason I want to find another line of work. Programming is fun. Wiring together flavor-of-the-month frameworks is torture, but that's where the jobs seem to be.
And I'm old enough to never have been the target demographic of garments designed to showcase my underwear.
The F-35 has a lot of problems, but it's already made its way through most of that loooong process. Scratching it and going back to the drawing board would reset that clock, which means that even if 1) they started on the new design tomorrow and 2) it turned out much better than the F-35, it wouldn't start reaching squadrons until 2035 or even later. Which leaves a big, multi-decade gap where the various services have to keep their aging fighters flying until the New Thing shows up to replace them.
The official chart that diagrams the steps in the process [1] is poster sized and is absolutely mind boggling. Even after multiple (mandatory!) courses explaining it to me I would find it impossible to explain to my 65 year old mother, which to me means that I do not really understand it. Probably no one really understands it as written except the instructors that the DoD hires to teach it to people.
[1] http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/09/atl_wal...
The reason this program has taken so long is because its goal is to build an advanced, cutting-edge fighter that eclipses any of the other 4th gen aircraft in the world while simultaneously meeting strongly conflicting requirements. If instead the military developed 2 variants (carrier-borne and land-based), scrapped the STOVL requirement, and perhaps scrapped the low-observable requirement, they could end up with a far cheaper, far better performing aircraft in far less time. For example, the F/A-18 only took about 10 years to go from development to production.
It would still leave a gap of about 10 years but that's better than spending the most money in military history and being stuck with a turkey for 3 or 4 decades.
...have just added thrust vectoring to the F-16 and prayed for peace.
These are the normal teething problems every new advanced fighter goes through. The F-22 went through them. The F-16 and F-15 went through them, though it was so long ago nobody remembers. Nearly every project reaches a point where people say "This will never work. Let's cancel it."
But there's no plan B. We can't fly the F-16 for another 25 years.
In any event, the gun doesn't matter that much. Gun kills are very rare, and usually they happen because the pilot wants a gun kill. They probably wouldn't even have included the gun but for some bad experiences in the '60s with the F-4.
By the way, the "flexible plane idea" has been incredibly successful in the F-18.
Because if the powers that be were smart, they drastically simplify the requirements and drop the USMC variant completely. Any time the military tries to design a super-advanced swiss-army knife it invariably fails. This is the worst example of that in history.
> These are the normal teething problems every new advanced fighter goes through. The F-22 went through them. The F-16 and F-15 went through them, though it was so long ago nobody remembers. Nearly every project reaches a point where people say "This will never work. Let's cancel it."
Sure but the problems with the F-35 are waaayyy beyond teething issues. The software is way behind schedule. The fuselage has very poor rear visibility, so a targeting helmet was supposed to be developed but that's way behind schedule and may never work. The plane was designed without proper onboard lightning strike protection so it currently can't fly in bad weather. The plane can't be loaded with fuel higher than 80 degrees in temperature so it can't currently operate in a hot environment until retrofits to cooling trucks. The jet wash from the USMC variant melts the decks of the amphibious carriers it is meant to operate from. It has a poor turning and acceleration performance compared to Gen 4 fighter aircraft. It has poor loiter time. It doesn't have the basic video uplink functionality for close air support that even the A-10 has. It is already so far over budget that the unit price may approach that of the F-22. Some of the partner nations that were supposed to buy it are backing out, thereby increasing the unit price.
The main problem with the F-35 is that the military took a lot of short cuts in drafting the requirements for this program, and when the predictable problems and schedule slippage occurred, they doubled down by relaxing testing requirements.
This is supposed to be the backbone of American air power for DECADES. It would be one thing if this system would eventually perform as billed but it looks unlikely that it will and it will cost twice as much to purchase and operate as originally projected. It doesn't make sense to cripple our air power for the next generation becaus of the sunk cost fallacy.
> By the way, the "flexible plane idea" has been incredibly successful in the F-18.
Yes, but the F-18 is a much, much simpler concept. Carrier-based strike aircraft. Then look at the F-35: stealthy land-based, carrier-based, and stovl aircraft that will perform strike, cas, and interceptor roles. Right off the top the stovl requirement makes it very difficult to design a stealthy aircraft that will also have good enough aerodynamic performance to win a an air-to-air engagement after ther merge.
If the F-35 was only a carrier-based strike fighter that added stealthiness, maybe we'd have a winner. But it is literally trying to be all things to three different services (one with a VERY difficult implement STOVL requirement) then throwing a difficult to implement low-observable requirement of which no other nation in the world has successfully implemented even a first generation of.
Personally I would never have produced a new strike aircraft. With the advent of cheap guided bombs what you really need is complete dominance of the air and big, big bomb trucks. I would have bought another thousand F-22s and spent money upgrading the heavy bomber fleet.
Nobody asked me, though :)
- Onboard lightning strike protection was present, but it didn't have an inert-gas generator (it was removed earlier for weight) which fills the fuel tanks with an inert gas as they're drained. It's not necessary, but it was desired - ground-based lightning tests had it go through 800+ strikes without incident, so all-weather flying is set to be permitted in the next couple of months.
- The jet can take hot fuel and has been able to do so for the past 8 years, with it's primary testing bases being in Texas and Arizona. The fine-print of it's limitations was that its radar, etc wouldn't be operate at full power <2 minutes after take-off if it had hot fuel and had been sitting with its engine idling for 30 minutes.
- It's exhaust doesn't melt the deck, but it causes heat stresses in the long term. The Navy already has a new deck coating ready (called Thermion) which eliminates the issue and doesn't need to be replaced anywhere near as often.
- The turning & acceleration performance is only poor when compared to air dominance fighters like the Eurofighter Typhoon or Su-35, or legacy fighters like the F-16 when they're stripped of external weapons, fuel tanks, pods, etc that are otherwise required for combat.
- It's loiter time has never been disclosed yet, but on internal fuel only the F-35 outranges every other western fighter using internal fuel and is competitive in range against them when they're loaded with external fuel tanks.
- The video uplink function is scheduled for Block 4 of the F-35's software; the reason for its delay being that ROVER was only recently overhauled to ROVER IV and because it's extremely unlikely the F-35's going to be performing CAS prior to 2020 while there are still (relatively-disposable) F-16s, A-10s, etc flying.
- It's original 'budget' / targeted price was $50 million. While the jet's far more expensive than that, so is every other modern fighter. Even a modern Block 60 F-16V goes for more than $70 million flyaway, while more relevant fighters like the Typhoon, Rafale, etc are over $100 million. As of LRIP 8 / F135 Lot 8, an F-35A with engine is approximately $108 million, with the total cost decreasing approximately 3.5% each year through to 2018 when full-rate production begins and the price drops to ~$85 million, being cheaper than pretty much all of the competition.
- The only nation that's backed out is Canada, and even then it's almost certain they'll end up going with the F-35 anyway based on what the RCAF has been asking for.
>Yes, but the F-18 is a much, much simpler concept. Carrier-based strike aircraft. Then look at the F-35: stealthy land-based, carrier-based, and stovl aircraft that will perform strike, cas, and interceptor roles.
Other than the STOVL and stealth, that's exactly what the F/A-18 is, and even then the E/F/G models have tried to utilise stealth to a degree in their forward hemispheres.
> The targeting helmet has been operational for a couple of years now and has gone through 3 revisions. The 3rd revision eliminated issues of jutter, etc and is now more or less ready for combat.
With the updates to reduce the visual issues, has the updated helmet now been put through it's paces by test pilots?
> The turning & acceleration performance is only poor when compared to air dominance fighters like the Eurofighter Typhoon or Su-35, or legacy fighters like the F-16 when they're stripped of external weapons, fuel tanks, pods, etc that are otherwise required for combat.
So the F-35 performance envelope is comparable to those Gen 4/4.5 fighters when both aircraft are flying clean?
> - It's original 'budget' / targeted price was $50 million. While the jet's far more expensive than that, so is every other modern fighter. Even a modern Block 60 F-16V goes for more than $70 million flyaway, while more relevant fighters like the Typhoon, Rafale, etc are over $100 million. As of LRIP 8 / F135 Lot 8, an F-35A with engine is approximately $108 million, with the total cost decreasing approximately 3.5% each year through to 2018 when full-rate production begins and the price drops to ~$85 million, being cheaper than pretty much all of the competition.
Forgive me for saying so but how is a significantly more complex aircraft like the F-35 going to cost signficantly less than current Gen 4 aircraft> All of the flyaway costs I've seen for F-35's have been well over $150 million/unit, even without R&D costs factored in. Admittedly unit cost is a number that is juggled and obfuscated endlessly when talking about defense aircraft but it doesn't seem believable that on an apples to apples comparison the F-35 will cost less than planes like the Typhoon.
> The only nation that's backed out is Canada, and even then it's almost certain they'll end up going with the F-35 anyway based on what the RCAF has been asking for.
The saving grace for the F-35 is that US has many political and economic tools it can use to convince partner nations to continue with the program. But it's still looking like many partner nations will reduce the number they had planned to buy.
> Other than the STOVL and stealth, that's exactly what the F/A-18 is, and even then the E/F/G models have tried to utilise stealth to a degree in their forward hemispheres.
Yeah looking back on that sentence, "strike" pretty much means interdiction/air support. Still, I think if the JSF program chosen either STOVL or stealth and not both we'd be looking at a very different story right now. And of the two stealth is WAY more valuable than STOVL.
I'm not sure how many flight hours have been made with the new helmet, but so far test pilots have no complaints. It's possible there could be more issues, but so far there's no evidence of such.
>So the F-35 performance envelope is comparable to those Gen 4/4.5 fighters when both aircraft are flying clean?
Unfortunately not; a clean F-16 or F-15, etc will outperform an F-35 in most (but not necessarily all) areas. A combat loaded F-35 vs a combat loaded F-16 or F-15 however is a different scenario and is where the F-35 is comparable or superior, as it's then more streamline / more clean than legacy fighters. To give a recent example from a Dutch pilot flying:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uvlimgf4g151bvd/Airjan2015.pdf?dl=...
"When comparing performance, I would say that the F-35 turns like an F-16 with pylon tanks; but it climbs, descends & accelerates like a clean F-16."
>[Costs]
As of right now, an LRIP 8 F-35A, with an engine included, is $106-108 million (the airframe alone is $94.8 million). Right now this is on par the Eurofighter Typhoon, while the Rafale is roughly $100 million, etc. Some 4th gen fighters will always be cheaper than the F-35 but, frankly, those are budget fighters that aren't comparable.
As for future costs, the F-35 airframe drops in cost around 3.5% each year and the engine, 4.5%. Beginning Full Rate Production in 2018 is set to make a large drop in cost for the same reasons anything in mass-production costs less as well.
>The saving grace for the F-35 is that US has many political and economic tools it can use to convince partner nations to continue with the program. But it's still looking like many partner nations will reduce the number they had planned to buy.
Time will tell - it is possible that it will be short in sales, but I predict that such decreases will only be due to a gradual international disarming / enduring peace or another major recession; or a European / Eastern proliferation of advanced, competitive UCAVs.
>Yeah looking back on that sentence, "strike" pretty much means interdiction/air support. Still, I think if the JSF program chosen either STOVL or stealth and not both we'd be looking at a very different story right now. And of the two stealth is WAY more valuable than STOVL.
I with your last statement, but I don't think the JSF would have actually been all that much different - it'd be slightly more optimal, but it'd still be a single engine fighter, with a thick airframe to house large internal bays, fuel loads, etc. Canopy visibility would still be roughly the same due to stealth requirements, etc. Possibly the only major external change would be in nozzle design.
Serious question: why not? Assuming the F16 is going to be updated with improved technology is any other country producing fighter jets that are going to overtake the capabilities of the F16 any time soon?
However, the irony is that the F-35 probably won't be able to turn or accelerate with aircraft like the Su-30 or Eurofighter so in a dogfight it would be outclassed.
I used to think that was a big mistake, but lately I'm coming around to the idea that the oft-wrongly-heralded end of the dogfight is pretty much upon us. As missiles get smarter and (more importantly) integrate more sensors they get much harder to dodge.
It's one thing to slip a single frequency semi-active radar homing missile or a four quadrant heat seeker in 1980. It's something quite different to shake a missile with IR, visual, and active EM sensors with the computing horsepower to integrate them all into a single predictive model. I was involved in IR missile development twenty years ago, and the consensus from the test pilots even then was the higher resolution sensors and extra smarts made modern (mid '90s) missiles almost impossible to shake once they locked on. That was just IR, too.
From what I can tell going forward the last guy to get detected wins.
I have to think some nation is going to pursue the swarm of drones idea and once it's proven in combat the whole air power paradigm will shift.
Because, as you said, if AA missiles are becoming so advanced that dogfighting really is dead, having a quasi-stealth aircraft may not be the advantage that it was originally billed to be.
Crazily enough, the program is having problems with heat melting off the stealth coatings, which is why the current fleet is not cleared for supersonic flight. My understanding is also that the sensor package is behind schedule.
I think if the idea was a stealthy strike fighter for just the Air Force or just the Navy,we might have a pretty nice jet at this point, but the one plane to do everything approach just keeps bearing bad news.
The gun matters very, very much if the F35 is to take on the A10's role.
>Also, AC-130
Noted, though I was thinking of aircraft that have to put themselves in danger to make low and slow strafing runs.
Guided missiles are much more efficient than guns on a pound-for-pound basis, particularly for an anti-armor role. DU is heavy.
Makes no sense.
It ended up with one model for deep interdiction, then the various services were able to get back to procuring more specialized planes like the F-14 and F-15. In the meanwhile the Air Force had to swallow its institutional pride and fly Navy designed F-4s.
When making rich people richer is the primary goal, it all makes sense.
The F-35 may not be able to fire its guns in operational service until 2017, but test pilots will likely fire the gun well before then. The F-35 is designed to use 25mm rounds instead of the more common 20mm rounds used currently in other jets including the F-22 Raptor. The 25mm rounds have to be physically certified, then the software for the gun validated and certified, and finally pilots (& ground crew) trained to operate the gun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-12_Equalizer#Specification...
^- Same video as YT
What's delay in integrating this into the platform? Haven't they done this several times before? Or is this a low priority item (how often do jets use their cannons)?
/us taxpayer
Military avionics is developed in a waterfall fashion with functionality spread out over several increments.
Initial weapons capability is to be included in block 2B increment which /should/ be released to the fleet this year [1]. The fleet is currently using block 2A, the gatling gun seems to be block 3f by the release date cited in the article.
Secondly, even after the software development is done there are still /months/ of testing (including flight tests) required before it's released to the main force. As example, f35 block 2b was reportedly finished last summer but will be ready to be fielded this summer.
[1] http://www.janes.com/article/40733/farnborough-2014-block-2b...
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/pierre-spreys-anti-f-35-dia...
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-trag...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-22/flawed-f-35-fighter...
The US political system is antithetical to efficiency.
Really, if you want a culprit for the F-35, blame the US Marine Corps (MARINES, RAWR!!) for insisting on the highly faulty and problem plagued F-35B. If the Brits had insisted on building proper through deck carriers, this wouldn't be an issue (at least the F-35B issues). The QE2 class are awfully big, and really should just be through deck without the ski jump.
In fact that the US Marines might be the first people to actually fly from the QE2 class:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/the-reporters-30229988
[NB If you are feeling particularly cynical you might want to take note as to whose constituency the QE2 class carriers were assembled in and note that the relevant politcian was notoriously stingy when it came to providing money for helicopters etc. for soldiers actually fighting a war.]
Also, the Marines want the STOVL F-35B for operation on LHA/LHDs, as well as small island bases with short/limited runways. It's not just the ski-jumping Brits who want that feature.
With that said, you're right that the STOVL capability has added substantial complexity to the airframe.
Naval aviation is of extremely limited utility as a result of a short range. If the fighting starts or moves inland the carrier is mostly useless.
I mean, when has the Harrier ever been the difference between success and failure for a USMC operation? Sure it's nice, but it's also a jet that is very difficult to fly and prone to crashes.
That's why the Navy is so hot to develop the X-47 into something they can deploy.
If refueling aircraft are available then far more capable land-based aircraft should have been used anyway.
As far as when the Harrier has made the difference, well, we haven't fought many pitched battles lately, so it's hard to say. But you can't design a military with the idea you'll never have to fight a pitched battle.
EDIT: By the way, one of the advantages of the F-35B is supposed to be that its design is inherently less crash prone. We'll see.
That's the thing though, by shoehorning that VSTOL requirement into the program, we've made the F35A and F35C significantly worse aircraft. That in turn may mean that we may end up in a more difficult conflict because of the shortcomings of the aircraft.
Sure, if at all possible you want your military to be able to handle all scenarios. But truth is that the budget is not unlimited (as the USSR found out) so you have to distribute your eggs such that you get the best capabilities for the most likely scenarios.
I'm sure the F-35B will be less crash prone than the Harrier as well as more capable. I just don't think the costs justify it.
True, but we're spending less on our military as a percentage of GDP than we have since before WW II. We can afford the F-35B.
[1] http://defensetech.org/2012/06/22/pic-of-the-day-f-35b-shows...
* The F35 has battle awareness, but I wonder if those systems could have been integrated into existing airplanes, I'm not a aeronautics or avionics engineers though. Obviously it might increase pilot effectiveness, and decrease the amount of stuff pilots have to learn.
* I also read that the f35 has been designed around many sensor systems, allowing it to see enemy aircrafts much more before they would, giving it more time to react or to avoid dog fights: that's the argument against a non maneuverable aircraft, that information is more important in a fight situation. Also stealth is not always about land radars, it's maybe also about embedded aircraft radars, which are much less capable.
* The only point of VTOL is because air bases are hard to come by and build. It requires a large strip of road to take off, and flat areas are hard to defend. VTOL allows a jet to land in remote areas.
Maybe the F35 is all about electronic, detection and spying and not about dog fights, maybe the military also doesn't want to talk about the functionalities that make a difference so that other countries don't pick up on it. Although it's weird to see that so many will be built, since it seems like a very specialized jet.
The VTOL capability is also needed for aircraft carriers.
F-35C is the Carrier version of the jet and lands with an arresting hook onto the deck.
And because only one of the three types of F35 will actually have VTOL, the other two types will still be stuck with those downsides despite lacking the entire reason for those downsides.
The VTOL should have been a totally separate design. Replacing all your highly specialized fighters with one generic fighter that's supposed to do everything, can only hurt your capability, and at a far higher cost.
"C++ has been used for demanding embedded systems and critical systems for years, examples are The Mars Rovers (scene analysis and autonomous operations), The F-35s and F-16s (flight controls), and many, many more"
Also: what does that software do? I can think of several:
- Interface with friend-or-foe detectors - Check that the plane is in the air
But I cannot see why either would take four (more, but let's ignore that) years to develop.
'Check that the plane is in the air' is like the extreme under statement. Modern fighter jets are inherently dynamically unstable. They require constant adjustment to even fly level. As such, the entirely of flight control is now computer guided. For example, computer systems may apply as series of hard constraints on control surface positions/movements based on the current state (altitude, attitude, speed, rate of change of everything weight, etc).
Nearly every aspect of the plane involves software.
Of course there are task where software will be necessary and will add features, for there are simple things that should not always be digital.
The F35's integrated system design was a (possibly too much) very audacious design, and includes over 10M lines of C++. It was questionable why C++ (instead of using existing ADA software) was used from the "re-inventing the wheel" perspective, but existing software in ADA very likely wasn't good/sophisticated enough and would have required significant re-writes anyway. Over the past 10-15 years there has also been a huge move away from ADA to more COTS languages/solutions by management in order to "save money".
Reading http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/31/new-u-s-ste..., the plane carries so few bullets that it may be necessary to make its shots count, but even that shouldn't be that hard that it takes years and years to develop the software to shoot a gun.
Caveat: I know next to nothing about what the U.S.A. expects these guns to do or what they can do. My model of what a gun does is "spew out lead when the pilot presses a button", with very few refinements. A video camera that stops shooting when the original target goes out of range and a friend-or-foe detector input that stops shooting, would be nice additions, but since the missile system works. I would guess that the 'interfacing with a variety of NATO weapon systems' part shouldn't be that hard for the gun part of the plane's software. Or are these guns almost auto-firing and do they want to shoot at enemy vehicles that are in close combat with friendly forces, and only hit enemies? Maybe even have the gun control steering of the airplane (target turns left, please follow, so that I can keep firing)? That would seriously complicate matters.
Or is this a matter of bureaucracy in action in that this module missed a shipping deadline and now has to wait for the next software release for the entire plane that will come in 2019?
I think what probably would take so long is integrating this new gun firing module into the entire software suite, or as you say, waiting for the next software version.
1) Provide basic flight control services through the control laws that transform pilot intent into commands to individual flight control surfaces
2) Basic and advanced navigation (GPS, TACAN)
3) Sensor fusion. Taking in data streams from multiple types of sensors and presenting a coherent picture to the pilot of the space surrounding the aircraft, notifying the pilot of dangers and target opportunities
4) Stores management. Keeping track of the ordnance loaded on each station of the aircraft so that the flight control system can compensate as weapons are launched. Communicating with active weapons so that they have the necessary targeting information.
5) Electronic warfare, jamming, and countermeasures.
6) Operational mission plan. Fans of the old Microprose flight sims would recognize this as a set of instructions that tell the jet something like -- 1) Takeoff from Sicily 2) Destroy missile boat 3) Destroy SAM Radar at Benghazi...etc.
7) Data links to other aircraft, satellites, and ground systems.
8) Provide interfaces for future system growth and improvement.
You can see that there are a vast array of data interfaces that must be managed with all kinds of operational and time constraints. Writing and testing all of this code does take much time and effort.
"Equipped with a gun, Air Force’s F-35A version barely carries enough ammunition. Despite being able to shoot 3,300 rounds per minute, it will only be carrying 180 to 220 rounds."
"The two other versions of F-35 – for the Navy and Marine Corps – have different configurations with external gun pods, however, they will not have a software for them either, the Daily Beast reported."
http://www.defencetalk.com/computer-glitch-prevents-us-most-...
For comparison, the F-22 has "A 480-round closed loop ammunition feed and storage subsystem is housed integrally under the right wing root/fuselage for easy ammo upload and download of empty casings." using the proven M61A2 which is in a bunch of fighters.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAC_TSR-2
Eventually we ended up with a classic Euro-compromise in the form of the MRCA/Tornado - a swing winged jack of all trades.
Prior to the cancellation of Black Arrow, NASA had offered to launch British payloads for free; however, this offer was withdrawn following the decision to cancel Black Arrow
So much for the "special relationship" eh?
My hypothesis (I have no expertise in this area) is that the public is blind to fundamental changes in (aerial) warfare, much like people in the 1930s might have criticized aircraft carriers for poor guns and armor. The articles below revolutionized my perspective: Warfare is now (or will be) information technology warfare. The article at the end is best, but first a few excerpts:
1) Instead of focusing on individual planes, squadrons, or "strike packages" executing a particular mission, the new concept looks at all the deployed aircraft as a whole, linked together by secure wireless networks into the "combat cloud." This cloud would be enabled by "fifth generation" aircraft — specifically F-22s and a substantial number of F-35s — and their ability to connect electronically both to each other and to legacy aircraft. [1] This combat cloud shares data in a sort of mesh network, so instead of a pilot seeing only their own plane's sensor data they see the combined sensor data of all planes in the cloud, and share that with units and command on the ground.
2) Another way to describe it is that the fifth generation aircraft are primarily forward-deployed nodes in a network (fighting an enemy network across an air gap); there's even talk of their pilots operating fleets of drones. [2]
3) The sensor data's UI is much improved, with a massive impact (something HN readers will appreciate): "In my fourth gen airplane, I was the fusion engine, the pilot was the fusion engine. I took the inputs from the RHWG, from the Radar Homing Warning Gear, from the radar, from the com, multiple radios, from my instruments. I fused that into what was happening in the battlespace, all the while I’m trying to do the mechanical things of flying my airplane and dodging missiles and all these sorts of things," he says. / Combine the fusion engine, the ISR sensors, the designed-in stealth, the advanced helmet, and the eight million lines of software driving what it can do ... "What we’ve done with the fifth generation is the computer takes all those sensory inputs, fuses it into information. The pilot sees a beautiful God’s eye view of what’s going on. And instead of having to fuse three pieces of information and decide if that’s an adversary or not, the airplane is telling him with an extremely high degree of confidence what that adversary is and what they’re doing and what all your wingmen are doing. It’s a stunning amount of information," [from the article in #6]
3) Stealth: In this new perspective it's information warfare defense, hiding data (your position, etc.) from the enemy, or sensor defense.
4) A leak said that F-35's could conduct cyber attacks on radar systems, effectively hacking the radar's computers via their sensor inputs (based on my limited understanding of limited info). [I can't find a good link at the moment]
5) Background: This combination of information warfare components (sensors, stealth, computers) are part a cohesive plan developed in the 1970s, the Pentagon's second "Long Range Research and Development Planning Program" or "Offset Strategy". A third is beginning now; some interesting background at the links. [3][4]
6) The best overview I've seen of the F-35 and the new form of warfare: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/a-gods-eye-view-of-the-ba...
[1] http://breakingdefense.com/2013/01/why-the-air-force-needs-a...
[2] http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/pawlikowski-on-air-force-...
[3] http://breakingdefense.com/2014/11/hagel-launches-offset-str...
[4] http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/dod-to-silicon-valley-vcs...
it's still relevant because the transition is not complete, but the clone war is coming faster than the new plane is coming, you can afford to lose a drone and you don't want to lose a pilot, you learn faster developing a drone program.
Did you completely skip history class? In all of recorded history civilian casualties during a war have never been lower.
No, I went to all of them, including the ones that discussed how governments lie by default.
South Korea isn't a place?