Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
It's in fact a shame that your brand new carriers need some US F35 to be average armed.
UK confirms plans to order more F-35 jets
The UK has confirmed that it will purchase a second tranche of F-35B jets in addition to the 48 already planned.ukdefencejournal.org.uk
On land, maybe. But at sea it would definitely need 360 deg capability to completely eliminate AEW.
The FGFA was being designed in a similar way. Merely 4 jets would have had the ability to cover the entire Pak airspace from within our borders. 4 more would have covered the Chinese border. But we know for a fact that the radars are big. Rafale F4.2 is going through the same process, but we need to see how big the arrays are for such a role.
Without 360 deg capability, or even 240 deg, it's pointless to claim that.
Ha! I had called this out as the future of AWACS.
The current plan to replace Crowsnest is based around a single, large radar sensor mounted on a type of uncrewed air platform.
Manned AWACS are coming to an end.
That's the advantage of only having F-35s onboard, they don't have to.
It has the best ESM systems imaginable and can fly round on patrol with other aircraft. Don't forget that AEWs aren't necessarily going to see stealth aircraft either. The fact is that we have airbases and refuelling aircraft close enough to every conceivable theatre anyway, which is certainly better than relying on one sitting duck defended by non-stealth planes for everything.
Last edited:
If FGFA/SU57 is that much advanced,why there is no takers for it? Can't relay on Russian claims.
Yep, that's what we are gonna see over the next decade. Manned AWACS are already dying concept since ramjet missiles have come into the picture. Current manned AWACS are not going to be anything more than glorified air traffic controllers in the future.
But the F-35's current avionics setup is not enough to replace it. And the biggest problem is its inability to speak to other platforms on its own. The F-35 needs an SDR at the minimum.
Obviously 'cause it's not ready yet.
The main version will enter state trials only in 2022, induction beginning in 2024, and this is for the Russians. Everybody else will have to wait for 2 or 3 more years, or even to the end of the decade before they can place orders for the main version.
The real main point of the AWACS is the CS.
You have all these people who can focus full time on controlling the sky. That's why it's an Airborne Warning And Control System, instead of an Airborne Radar System.
Now, yeah, sure. The radar is important, even necessary. But you could say the same of the engines. It's the people -- with their skill and experience -- who are the heart of the AWACS.
Could you just fly the radar around, and have the people in a container on the ground, like drone operators? Yes, technically you could. But there would be issues with that, issues that could become very important during a war with a peer enemy. For a start, latency. When you control the airspace during a battle, you do not want your situational awareness to be ten seconds late because you're in California and your radar is over the Malacca Strait. The second is jamming. When you control the airspace during a battle, you do not want your situational awareness to be nonexistent because the enemy is operating some jammers.
And no, satellites are not the trump card. Everyone and their grandmother has anti-satellite weapons nowadays. Russia and China have demonstrated ASAT kills. So have the USA and India.
You have all these people who can focus full time on controlling the sky. That's why it's an Airborne Warning And Control System, instead of an Airborne Radar System.
Now, yeah, sure. The radar is important, even necessary. But you could say the same of the engines. It's the people -- with their skill and experience -- who are the heart of the AWACS.
Could you just fly the radar around, and have the people in a container on the ground, like drone operators? Yes, technically you could. But there would be issues with that, issues that could become very important during a war with a peer enemy. For a start, latency. When you control the airspace during a battle, you do not want your situational awareness to be ten seconds late because you're in California and your radar is over the Malacca Strait. The second is jamming. When you control the airspace during a battle, you do not want your situational awareness to be nonexistent because the enemy is operating some jammers.
And no, satellites are not the trump card. Everyone and their grandmother has anti-satellite weapons nowadays. Russia and China have demonstrated ASAT kills. So have the USA and India.
