Slashdot Mirror


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.

19 of 279 comments (clear)

  1. Doesn't matter for its primary mission. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  2. That's not the only way it's inferior by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Worse sensors, less maneuverable, requires more maintenance, extremely expensive, uses more fuel.
    How is this thing an improvement exactly?

    1. Re:That's not the only way it's inferior by koan · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    2. Re:That's not the only way it's inferior by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Informative

      The entire plane is modular, upgradeable, and works mostly the same across all three variants. The biggest benefit to the F-35 is that large portions of the training, documentation, and maintenance materials can be shared by all users of the plane, significantly reducing operating the expense to run a fleet.

      TFA is really just whining about the fact that this plane took 15 years to develop, and the Pentagon's purchasing process doesn't allow revisions until after delivery. Highlighting a component that's now obsolete just makes a good headline.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    3. Re:That's not the only way it's inferior by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Disappointed how far down I had to scroll for this. In the old days, this would have been known by a high percentage of users.

      They can say the sensors are "10 years behind" planes that were built 20 years ago. Because those planes were upgraded ~5 years ago, and this one has been in development for 15 years! lolol The known upgrade schedule is the only reason they can give such good numbers for how far "behind" it is. Except that it doesn't take 10 years to install the upgrade, and you don't have to wait 10 years to develop it, either. So in that sense, these new sensors are... days behind!

      And when they come into service they'll have the most recent upgrades and be "ahead" of the planes they're accused here of being "behind."

      So the story is true, in a meaningless pedantic way, and totally false within the context the planes exist it.

    4. Re:That's not the only way it's inferior by plopez · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that if it takes 20 years to build an airplane that design will be obsolete by the time it gets deployed. So upgrading just increases costs. Why did it take 20 years? Isn't that a bit excessive? Why doesn't the software work? Why could it not fly in the the rain for God's sake? Why are we replacing a platform like the A-10 which is an example of a good dedicated design with a Swiss Army knife approach.

      The last major attempts for a "one size fits all" muti-role fighter was the f4 which resulted in the services abandoning the approach in favor of the F18, F-15, and A-10. Like a bad penny the multi-role fighter concept just keeps coming back. We are ending up with a plane that does everything and will not be able to do any of it particularly well.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    5. Re:That's not the only way it's inferior by Sarten-X · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a sneaking suspicion you don't actually want answers to your questions, but I'll provide them anyway.

      The problem is that if it takes 20 years to build an airplane that design will be obsolete by the time it gets deployed. So upgrading just increases costs. Why did it take 20 years? Isn't that a bit excessive?

      Not really. A-10 development took 10 years, F-18 took 8, and the F-15 took 13, all measured from program start to initial production. The F-35 began its production run in 2008, 12 years after its program started. I haven't found timelines for the earlier planes' IOC milestones, but I'm under the impression that they followed similar schedules, with production running for a few years before pushing the planes out into use. Yes, the F-35's timeline is drawn out because they're trying to design three planes at once, but that was also expected from the start.

      Why doesn't the software work?

      Because it's not required to work until next year, at the earliest. What's in use now would be good enough to fly and work out other problems, but it's not suitable for combat use.

      Why could it not fly in the the rain for God's sake?

      Rain isn't the problem. It's actually lightning that the F-35 isn't currently allowed to fly near, because the initial production run did not have the lightning protection applied, as it would interfere with testing. That'd be another thing to be added for IOC.

      Why are we replacing a platform like the A-10 which is an example of a good dedicated design with a Swiss Army knife approach.

      Because the A-10 is an expensive one-trick pony. You call it a "Swiss Army knife", but that's really just because its one trick is very useful. The A-10 only does close air support in an area-denial situation where the most recent anti-aircraft threat was built by the Soviet Union. It takes far more training and maintenance support to operate, and that training and logistics expense is only applicable to that one aircraft.

      In comparison, the bulk of the support for an F-35 is shared across the three variants, so the total cost to run the fleet is greatly reduced. A maintainer can switch variants with minimal additional training, and a single base can support any F-35 that stops by. We're also not going to be dealing with Soviet-era defenses for much longer, with China and Russia making gestures that they're willing to sell modern SAMs to anyone who opposes Western interests.

      The last major attempts for a "one size fits all" muti-role fighter was the f4 which resulted in the services abandoning the approach in favor of the F18, F-15, and A-10.

      ...After only 36 years, for the US. The F-4 is still in service in other countries, primarily those that don't need to worry about modern SAMs. The F-4 was originally not a multi-role fighter. It was designed as a fighter-bomber, reworked to be an interceptor, and finally upgraded to do close-air support almost a decade later.

      Like a bad penny the multi-role fighter concept just keeps coming back. We are ending up with a plane that does everything and will not be able to do any of it particularly well.

      Just well enough to get the job done. What we've learned since the Gulf War is that fighting is expensive and complicated. To support the dozens of different single-role planes, we have to mobilize thousands of support crew to ensure that we can support any kind of mission we need. A multi-role fighter, designed to meet the potential needs, will still be able to handle lesser threats. The F-35 is being built to handle anything China or Russia might produce, but it will be perfectly capable of supporting campaigns in Africa, the Middle East, or North Korea.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  3. Re:This is why we need a war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    You need to get them off the ground before they can start dropping out of the sky.

  4. FFS just keep the Warthog by rossdee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The A10 is the best ground support aircraft ever made

    1. Re:FFS just keep the Warthog by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:FFS just keep the Warthog by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:FFS just keep the Warthog by OolimPhon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      We do!

      They are called the Marines...

      Ta Da!

    4. Re:FFS just keep the Warthog by SylvesterTheCat · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, that is very true. The USMC is the closest we have ever had to what you are proposing.

      I think that merely changing the organization for service-oriented (i.e. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard) to one service with "specialty branches" (or whatever you want to call them) would not change anything. Sure, it may offer some small amount of consolidation, but that is what DoD was created to do. (Yeah, I know... obvious jokes will follow). Seriously, though, as long as the combined size is about the same and the respective size of the service branches (or "specialty branches") stays the same, all you will have done is to (slightly) rearrange the deck chairs.

      On a positive note, having been in the Army National Guard for over 25 years (including overseas deployments), I have worked with both the Navy and the Air Force. I cannot speak specifically to the "historical antagonism" the gf mentioned, but I can say that overall, everybody I worked with generally wanted to do a good job without deference to service branch. That especially includes a USAF NCO who I knew for a short period of time and was killed by the enemy.

  5. Article pretty much is off in left field. by Charcharodon · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Duh, people are pretty ignorant of how aircraft development works. The latest and the greatest planes are nearly 30 years old. The F-22 was prototyped when I was in high school (80's) and the F-35 was in proto-typing in the 90's. You aren't just developing an airframe, but all the systems inside and outside the aircraft along with training people to operate said systems. It takes a long time to shake all that out.

    Even things like cars are like that too. The models for 2015 will have parts on them that haven't been upgraded since the 80's.

    1. Re:Article pretty much is off in left field. by Pope+Hagbard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  6. Re:Huh by Charcharodon · · Score: 5, Informative
    They are modular and there is an insane amount of money in it. Never heard of the military industrial complex?

    The reality is that good enough is good enough. Unlike in the movies the reality is that the military doesn't upgrade everything just because something new and shiny came out. The computer that you are typing on is more advanced than the computers in even the latest fighters. The difference is the ones in the aircraft are rarely fail and can operate in very harsh environments.

    Combat drones don't need to dogfight, that is also Hollywood nonsense. They are small, impossible to see, and will shoot you down before you even know they are there, and they are already building them.

    The JSF is the last project of the old guard who still think a man needs to be at the stick of the aircraft. Once the over 50 crowd in congress dies/retires you see a drastic move away from manned aircraft.

  7. stealth by v1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those "sensor pods" are shaped like external fuel tanks. They've got that rounded and curved shape, to make them aerodynamic. Which is horrible for stealth. The F35 has to pack all its baggage inside the fuselage, with minimal openings.

    A huge part of this question then becomes a tradeoff between stealth and features. You have to gve up some stuff if you want to be stealthy. So far, on the F35, most of those drawbacks have been "bought out" by spending a crapton on working around them. Stealt VTOL for example was a major PITA.

    Considering the already absurd cost of the avionics electronics developed for the F35, tacaking on a completely new ground sensor package (and finding a place to PUT it inside the airframe) would have raised the cost quite a bit. Those sensor pods have been a work in progres for the last 15 years, the R&D is already mostly done. You can't compare that to a completely new package. (and you thought the rest of the new F35 had bugs and glitches?)

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  8. Re:Huh by TFAFalcon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So why aren't the older fighters limited to the same tech? Their interfaces must be even older.

  9. Re:Huh by lucm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    lucm, indeed.