Newest Stealth Fighter's Ground Attack Sensors 10 Years Behind Older Jets'

schwit1 writes with this excerpt from The Daily Beast: America's $400 billion, top-of-the-line aircraft can't see the battlefield all that well. Which means it's actually worse than its predecessors at fighting today's wars. .... The problem stems from the fact that the technology found on one of the stealth fighter's primary air-to-ground sensors—its nose-mounted Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS)—is more than a decade old and hopelessly obsolete. The EOTS, which is similar in concept to a large high-resolution infrared and television camera, is used to visually identify and monitor ground targets. The system can also mark targets for laser-guided bombs. ... Older jets currently in service with the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps can carry the latest generation of sensor pods, which are far more advanced than the EOTS sensor carried by the F-35. ... The end result is that when the F-35 finally becomes operational after its myriad technical problems, cost overruns, and massive delays, in some ways it will be less capable than current fighters in the Pentagon's inventory.

Comments

Doesn't matter for its primary mission.

[jeffb (2.718)]

The F-35 is already a resounding success at its primary mission. I refer, of course, to pork distribution.

Re:That's not the only way it's inferior

[koan]

It allows the manufacturers to charge 3 times more for it, and sell "repair subscriptions".

FFS just keep the Warthog

[rossdee]

The A10 is the best ground support aircraft ever made

Re:FFS just keep the Warthog

[CrimsonAvenger]

The Air Force doesn't want to keep the A10.

Alas, the A10 suffers one irredeemable fault - its only function is to support the Army.

Which function the Air Force disapproves of on a visceral level.

A multi-function aircraft, while it is handicapped by being ABLE to support the Army, has the virtue of being able to NOT support the Army. Hence the F16, F35, etc.

Re:FFS just keep the Warthog

[91degrees]

Given the variety of types of equipment and roles needed by the modern armed forces, I wonder if it makes sense to have different services rather than a combined armed forces. When a plausible mission is a sea launched ground attack with tactical air support I have to wonder why we're trying to get three services, each with historical antagonism towards the other, to work together rather than simply have a force with ships, planes and armoured cars.

Re:Article pretty much is off in left field.

[Pope Hagbard]

Yes, and doubtless the plan is to upgrade the F-35 to current avionics once its bugs are shaken out, as was done with its predecessors. Article is clickbait.

Re:Huh

[lucm]

This is not a technology problem, this is military politics. Basically the USAF brass doesn't want to do air-ground missions, they want to do air combat and stealth bombing because it's a lot cooler and less dangerous (for the pilots) since there's basically no serious opposition. So they sabotage every aspect of their capabilities that would allow them to do air-ground missions, like pillaging the A-10 supply chain or doing this kind of cheap stunt with the F-35, hoping that drone technology will be mature soon enough to do the dirty jobs.

Anyone who has worked on large IT projects has seen this kind of thing. The big cheese and the overpaid consultants focus on the cool but useless features that look good in PowerPoint presentations and during board meetings (like a fancy iPad-optimized dashboard or an accountant-customizable expense approval workflow that will never be used) while the really important parts like integration or bulk updates, which will be used on an hourly basis, are neglected and downplayed because they are not sexy and will be a nightmare to operate.