If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
JSF and close air support
Everything I read seems to indicate the JSF is intended to do air to ground
work primarily with high-tech weapons like JDAM bombs. However, I get the impression that such weapons require a considerable amount of advance planning. This would seem to make loitering near a combat area waiting for a call for support if and when the need arrises more or less impossible, in turn making this combination of weapon and aircraft useless for that sort of work. Perhaps this is not overly relevant when engaged in wholesale warfare, with hordes of Apaches to take care of targets of opportunity/necessaty (SP?), but how much of a problem would it present in a small scale bush fire war? Is my idea of CAS totally outdated? Or am I mistaken about the capabilities of weapons like JDAM? How effective is a JSF with dumb bombs, or LGBs, or, for example, AGM65 missiles? Rob |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Rob van Riel" wrote in message om... Everything I read seems to indicate the JSF is intended to do air to ground work primarily with high-tech weapons like JDAM bombs. However, I get the impression that such weapons require a considerable amount of advance planning. This would seem to make loitering near a combat area waiting for a call for support if and when the need arrises more or less impossible, in turn making this combination of weapon and aircraft useless for that sort of work. Not really. It will just require the pilot to enter the target coordinates he is given (or maybe even datalinked by the time the F-35 is in service). According to FAS: "JDAM provides the user with a variety of targeting schemes, such as preplanned and inflight captive carriage retargeting." Perhaps this is not overly relevant when engaged in wholesale warfare, with hordes of Apaches to take care of targets of opportunity/necessaty (SP?), but how much of a problem would it present in a small scale bush fire war? Is my idea of CAS totally outdated? Or am I mistaken about the capabilities of weapons like JDAM? To a certain extent it is likely a bit dated. We are now producing the Tactical Tomahawk cruise missile, which features the capability of being retargeted in flight--the Navy's SLAM-ER ATA already has that capability. So programming the coordinates for SDB's or larger JDAM's into them while enroute to the target is not going to be a big deal. Nor will these be the only weapons used by the F-35 in the CAS arena. Brooks How effective is a JSF with dumb bombs, or LGBs, or, for example, AGM65 missiles? Rob |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 08:33:11 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote: "Rob van Riel" wrote in message . com... Perhaps this is not overly relevant when engaged in wholesale warfare, with hordes of Apaches to take care of targets of opportunity/necessaty (SP?), but how much of a problem would it present in a small scale bush fire war? Is my idea of CAS totally outdated? Or am I mistaken about the capabilities of weapons like JDAM? To a certain extent it is likely a bit dated. We are now producing the Tactical Tomahawk cruise missile, which features the capability of being retargeted in flight--the Navy's SLAM-ER ATA already has that capability. So programming the coordinates for SDB's or larger JDAM's into them while enroute to the target is not going to be a big deal. Nor will these be the only weapons used by the F-35 in the CAS arena. Quick update. The ability to update target coordinates for JDAMs in flight is currently being trialled under the Affordable Moving Surface Target Engagement (AMSTE) - at least I think that's what the acronym expands to. Basically two off board SAR radars provide updates - IIRC the trials are using a JSTARS and a phased array (I think from the F-35 program, but can't readily recall). The first fe test shots have provided CEP of the order of 10m, so eneough to get a kill on truck and light armour. I imagine by the time JSF reaches squadron service this will be more routine (perhaps once coords are passed by the ground troops the F-35 radar will lock on to the SAR return of teh target automatically. There are also demos in progress for cheap IIR seekers to strap to the fron of JDAMs. --- Peter Kemp Life is short - drink faster |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Peter Kemp" wrote in message ... On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 08:33:11 -0500, "Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Rob van Riel" wrote in message . com... Perhaps this is not overly relevant when engaged in wholesale warfare, with hordes of Apaches to take care of targets of opportunity/necessaty (SP?), but how much of a problem would it present in a small scale bush fire war? Is my idea of CAS totally outdated? Or am I mistaken about the capabilities of weapons like JDAM? To a certain extent it is likely a bit dated. We are now producing the Tactical Tomahawk cruise missile, which features the capability of being retargeted in flight--the Navy's SLAM-ER ATA already has that capability. So programming the coordinates for SDB's or larger JDAM's into them while enroute to the target is not going to be a big deal. Nor will these be the only weapons used by the F-35 in the CAS arena. Quick update. The ability to update target coordinates for JDAMs in flight is currently being trialled under the Affordable Moving Surface Target Engagement (AMSTE) - at least I think that's what the acronym expands to. Interesting info. But I think we may be talking in different directions a bit. What I meant by "enroute to the target" was while it is still on the rail of the launching aircraft. Maybe my adding "is not going to be a big deal" was a poor choice of wording, as JDAM can already be loaded with its target coordinates while it is hanging on an aircraft approaching the release point. Apologies for the less than clear wording. Brooks Basically two off board SAR radars provide updates - IIRC the trials are using a JSTARS and a phased array (I think from the F-35 program, but can't readily recall). The first fe test shots have provided CEP of the order of 10m, so eneough to get a kill on truck and light armour. I imagine by the time JSF reaches squadron service this will be more routine (perhaps once coords are passed by the ground troops the F-35 radar will lock on to the SAR return of teh target automatically. There are also demos in progress for cheap IIR seekers to strap to the fron of JDAMs. --- Peter Kemp Life is short - drink faster |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Peter Kemp
wrote: Basically two off board SAR radars provide updates - IIRC the trials are using a JSTARS and a phased array (I think from the F-35 program, but can't readily recall). More likely either the F/A-18E/F or the F-15C with APG-63(V)2 . I don't think the F-35 radar is in position yet to be able to support tests outside the F-35 program. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Harry Andreas
wrote: In article , Peter Kemp wrote: Basically two off board SAR radars provide updates - IIRC the trials are using a JSTARS and a phased array (I think from the F-35 program, but can't readily recall). More likely either the F/A-18E/F or the F-15C with APG-63(V)2 . I don't think the F-35 radar is in position yet to be able to support tests outside the F-35 program. Yep, it's the F-35 radar on a BAC 1-11. Here's a link to an article about the jet. http://www.forrelease.com/D20031021/...553.29871.html I'm not sure what software it's running or how mature it is to the final version. I was a bit surprised myself but it's a program parallel to one of mine so I've seen the brief and discussed it with one of the PM's. Pugs |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Allen Epps
wrote: In article , Harry Andreas wrote: In article , Peter Kemp wrote: Basically two off board SAR radars provide updates - IIRC the trials are using a JSTARS and a phased array (I think from the F-35 program, but can't readily recall). More likely either the F/A-18E/F or the F-15C with APG-63(V)2 . I don't think the F-35 radar is in position yet to be able to support tests outside the F-35 program. Yep, it's the F-35 radar on a BAC 1-11. Here's a link to an article about the jet. http://www.forrelease.com/D20031021/...553.29871.html Not necessarily. A careful reading of the article (and backdoor info) indicates that the "sensor" is a "performance representative" "4th gen" radar that they're using to do the fusion work. NOT necessarily the F-35 radar which I understand they're having trouble building because of low yields. This is the same BAC 111 that they used for the F-22 radar work. It could have an F-22 radar on it, or an update to the F-22, or a brassboard. There's really no reason to have a full-up F-35 radar if your main purpose is S/W development. As long as the target processor is the same is doesn't matter. I'm not sure what software it's running or how mature it is to the final version. I was a bit surprised myself but it's a program parallel to one of mine so I've seen the brief and discussed it with one of the PM's. What's your program (if it's not sensitive)? Did your contact actually say it is an F-35 radar, or did he use weasel words like "performance representative" ? There's nothing wrong with using a brassboard radar for work like this, but one shouldn't claim it's a production, or even pre-production system unless it really is. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Harry Andreas" wrote Peter Kemp wrote: Basically two off board SAR radars provide updates - IIRC the trials are using a JSTARS and a phased array (I think from the F-35 program, but can't readily recall). More likely either the F/A-18E/F or the F-15C with APG-63(V)2 . I don't think the F-35 radar is in position yet to be able to support tests outside the F-35 program. I read recently that an AMSTE demonstration with a single RADAR sensor was successful. That's a major milestone since the earlier algorithms required fusing two RADAR sensors to get the resolution required. I don't think mono-sensor demo involved a fighter sensor but I don't recall any details. Both JDAM and SDB are planned to allow use of a terminal imager. Because the GPS nav puts the weapon into a small error basket, the terminal seeker can be very inexpensive, given the small field of regard. On the other hand, JDAM accuracy has been consistently better than spec, so the users are less interested in the terminal seeker. I'm not sure how AMSTE plays with the terminal seeker. Moving target engagement requires post-release updates and a data link from the launcher to the weapon but everything to date that I've seen talks about aimpoint updates for the GPS/INS. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "Paul F Austin"
wrote: "Harry Andreas" wrote Peter Kemp wrote: Basically two off board SAR radars provide updates - IIRC the trials are using a JSTARS and a phased array (I think from the F-35 program, but can't readily recall). More likely either the F/A-18E/F or the F-15C with APG-63(V)2 . I don't think the F-35 radar is in position yet to be able to support tests outside the F-35 program. I read recently that an AMSTE demonstration with a single RADAR sensor was successful. That's a major milestone since the earlier algorithms required fusing two RADAR sensors to get the resolution required. I don't think mono-sensor demo involved a fighter sensor but I don't recall any details. Both JDAM and SDB are planned to allow use of a terminal imager. Because the GPS nav puts the weapon into a small error basket, the terminal seeker can be very inexpensive, given the small field of regard. On the other hand, JDAM accuracy has been consistently better than spec, so the users are less interested in the terminal seeker. Hmmm. I don't know about that. Just as interested seems to me. I'm not sure how AMSTE plays with the terminal seeker. Moving target engagement requires post-release updates and a data link from the launcher to the weapon but everything to date that I've seen talks about aimpoint updates for the GPS/INS. Keep that basket small. If your system has enough bandwidth you can update the weapon all the way to the target and at the terminal point it's within the CEP of the blast effect for the particular weapon you've selected. Obviously the 2000lb JDAM requires less bandwidth for a given target. Also obviously the performance of your SAR, GPS receiver, and datalink are crucial. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
impression that such weapons require a considerable amount of advance planning. A high percentage of navy fighters in Afghanistan attacked targets that were not known to the pilot when he launched from the carrier. Perhaps these were not JADAMs? all the best -- Dan Ford email: (requires authentication) see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|