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.

10 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. 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."
  3. 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 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. 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.