The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[SpudmanWP]

The F-35 is designed to share information with other warfighters in the battlespace and the round table that sferrin posted mentioned that one F-35 can have fire control of another F-35. I wonder if an adversary could intercept this data stream, de-crypt it, and what information he might be able to glean by listening in? Does the F-35 share its location information with other warfighters? Might an enemy be able to determine the location of F-22 or F-35 aircraft by intercepting and listening in to this information?

MADL is directional so the enemy would have to be between the two F-35's involved to get the data.

 

[LowObservable]

So, Mr Ferrin: Can you explain why, according to your logic, anyone should be worried about cyberespionage, unless they can prove that something classified was compromised? Because otherwise, surely, you're just "claim[ing] it's worse [sic] case".


Again, irrelevant or hostile responses will be ignored.

 

[sferrin]

So, Mr Ferrin: Can you explain why, according to your logic, anyone should be worried about cyberespionage, unless they can prove that something classified was compromised? Because otherwise, surely, you're just "claim[ing] it's worse [sic] case".


Again, irrelevant or hostile responses will be ignored.

I said nothing other than WE (those who are guessing) don't know what they did or didn't get. That doesn't mean nobody knows what they got (and those who do certainly wouldn't be telling you or I). Nor did I say (or even imply) that we shouldn't be worried about cyber espionage. On the contrary, I've said many times, I think our efforts at combating it verge on the pathetic. That doesn't automatically mean the first time an F-35 flies in the Pacific it's going to deliver itself to Beijing.

 

[Triton]

MADL is directional so the enemy would have to be between the two F-35's involved to get the data.

I understand that Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) is line of sight, has limited range, and can interconnect a maximum of four aircraft. Is beyond line of sight data exchange performed by Link 16? What about the PPL (Precise Participant Location and Identification) which is part of Link 16?

 

[sublight_]

The F-35 is designed to share information with other warfighters in the battlespace and the round table that sferrin posted mentioned that one F-35 can have fire control of another F-35. I wonder if an adversary could intercept this data stream, de-crypt it, and what information he might be able to glean by listening in? Does the F-35 share its location information with other warfighters? Might an enemy be able to determine the location of F-22 or F-35 aircraft by intercepting and listening in to this information?

Then we have just transitioned from "cant speculate" to "possible".
The interception and decryption of inter plane comms is not as dangerous as the "external interface to fire control". That is where the biggest vulnerability is going to be.

 

[SpudmanWP]

MADL is directional so the enemy would have to be between the two F-35's involved to get the data.

I understand that Multifunction Advanced Data Link (MADL) is line of sight, has limited range, and can interconnect a maximum of four aircraft. Is beyond line of sight data exchange performed by Link 16? What about the PPL (Precise Participant Location and Identification) which is part of Link 16?

I'm not sure where you are getting the limit of four from, but it's much higher than that. I'll search for details, but they have already demonstrated five.

14 June 2013: Four- And Five-Ship MADL Connection
AF-6, AF-7, BF-17, and BF-18 were used to complete the first F-35 airborne four-ship MADL connection at Edwards AFB, California. The airborne four-ship also achieved MADL connectivity with AF-3 during its ground test, marking the first five-ship MADL connection.

As far as secure & directional COMMS outside of the MADL connection, there are two options (SatComm and AESA).

--EDIT--

Found it, the limit today is 25.

Finally, as far as "limited range" goes, it is exceeding expectations:

"During the flight tests, MADL functioned reliably with excellent range at multiples of required specifications while demonstrating ability to network fifth-generation fighters," said Mike Twyman, vice president and general manager of the defense systems division for Northrop Grumman. "This success is a significant achievement for the F-35 program and enabling joint aerial concept of operations."

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/topstories/F-35-Data-Link-Completes-Flight-Test_79067.html

 

[sferrin]

The F-35 is designed to share information with other warfighters in the battlespace and the round table that sferrin posted mentioned that one F-35 can have fire control of another F-35. I wonder if an adversary could intercept this data stream, de-crypt it, and what information he might be able to glean by listening in? Does the F-35 share its location information with other warfighters? Might an enemy be able to determine the location of F-22 or F-35 aircraft by intercepting and listening in to this information?

Then we have just transitioned from "cant speculate" to "possible".
The interception and decryption of inter plane comms is not as dangerous as the "external interface to fire control". That is where the biggest vulnerability is going to be.

Lots of things are "possible" that aren't necessarily probable. That type of network would be such an obvious target one could safely assume it's security would receive attention. (Note: that doesn't mean it can be ignored or is bulletproof.)

 

[sublight_]

The F-35 is designed to share information with other warfighters in the battlespace and the round table that sferrin posted mentioned that one F-35 can have fire control of another F-35. I wonder if an adversary could intercept this data stream, de-crypt it, and what information he might be able to glean by listening in? Does the F-35 share its location information with other warfighters? Might an enemy be able to determine the location of F-22 or F-35 aircraft by intercepting and listening in to this information?

Then we have just transitioned from "cant speculate" to "possible".
The interception and decryption of inter plane comms is not as dangerous as the "external interface to fire control". That is where the biggest vulnerability is going to be.

Lots of things are "possible" that aren't necessarily probable. That type of network would be such an obvious target one could safely assume it's security would receive attention. (Note: that doesn't mean it can be ignored or is bulletproof.)

No piece of software driven communications/routing equipment has ever "not" needed continuing security patches. "external interface to fire control" seems like a really bad idea when "absolutely positively has to work" is on the line. They should drop this one from the spec.

 

[Triton]

The roundtable discussion that sferrin posted also mentioned that the F-35 needed to be washed more than previous aircraft. Is this due to the salt water spray of operating the aircraft at sea and corrosion concerns?

 

[SpudmanWP]

No, it's to maintain the best LO posture.

 

[sferrin]

No piece of software driven communications/routing equipment has ever "not" needed continuing security patches. "external interface to fire control" seems like a really bad idea when "absolutely positively has to work" is on the line. They should drop this one from the spec.

Except that you're not going to have hackers with the current source code sitting on their computer (one would hope) nor are there going to be near the number going after it as, say, trying to snag Target's credit card list as the number of people with the required skill set and necessary access will be orders of magnitude smaller. The fact of the matter is there's no going back (and I'm talking about fighters in general). When has a fighter's software ever been less capable and complex than the previous generation? The benefits are simply too great to give it up.

 

[quellish]

No, it's to maintain the best LO posture.

Really? Measured by what means?

 

[LowObservable]

Dry salt is an insulator. Wet salt can be a conductor. My guess is that a mixture of both, distributed randomly, will jack up your surface currents by creating changes in surface electrical effects.

 

[sferrin]

No, it's to maintain the best LO posture.

Really? Measured by what means?

That's what the dude at the roundtable said. That prior aircraft are allowed to get "filthy" out at sea but that LO would demand closer attention to keeping the aircraft clean(er).

 

[sublight_]

No, it's to maintain the best LO posture.

Really? Measured by what means?

That's what the dude at the roundtable said. That prior aircraft are allowed to get "filthy" out at sea but that LO would demand closer attention to keeping the aircraft clean(er).

He means it is going to take a hell of a lot more than a car wash. The "curing times" constantly mentioned at the roundtable is the "stealth putty" that has to be put on every maintenance panel every time one is opened up for maintenance, potentially after every flight.

Everything else in our stealth fleet has its RCS constantly tested and verified. The Navy is going to have to have something on the carrier that can fly around with its F-35's and check their RCS.

 

[sferrin]

No, it's to maintain the best LO posture.

Really? Measured by what means?

That's what the dude at the roundtable said. That prior aircraft are allowed to get "filthy" out at sea but that LO would demand closer attention to keeping the aircraft clean(er).

He means it is going to take a hell of a lot more than a car wash. The "curing times" constantly mentioned at the roundtable is the "stealth putty" that has to be put on every maintenance panel every time one is opened up for maintenance, potentially after every flight.

Everything else in our stealth fleet has its RCS constantly tested and verified. The Navy is going to have to have something on the carrier that can fly around with its F-35's and check their RCS.

You sure they didn't get rid of the "stealth putty"? I thought they replaced it with a different kind of seal.

 

[SOC]

Everything else in our stealth fleet has its RCS constantly tested and verified. The Navy is going to have to have something on the carrier that can fly around with its F-35's and check their RCS.

While a podded solution similar to what's used on certain ranges isn't out of the question, it may be better to develop a sort of portable RCS barn that will also be workable on landing ships where the Marines are flying. One would assume that they started thinking about this during the A-12 program, although whatever they thought up with then might not be workable for the USMC now. Either way it's something that has to be developed regardless of cost, or you'll find a lot more threat systems able to track on the thing. And if that happens, you've wasted how much money to add minor irritants like Iran to the list of places the jet isn't survivable.

 

[bobbymike]

Everything else in our stealth fleet has its RCS constantly tested and verified. The Navy is going to have to have something on the carrier that can fly around with its F-35's and check their RCS.

While a podded solution similar to what's used on certain ranges isn't out of the question, it may be better to develop a sort of portable RCS barn that will also be workable on landing ships where the Marines are flying. One would assume that they started thinking about this during the A-12 program, although whatever they thought up with then might not be workable for the USMC now. Either way it's something that has to be developed regardless of cost, or you'll find a lot more threat systems able to track on the thing. And if that happens, you've wasted how much money to add minor irritants like Iran to the list of places the jet isn't survivable.

I am assuming it will still be far better than Gen 4+ aircraft?

 

[AeroFranz]

It likely depends on the level of 'dirtiness'. You can envision a scenario where there is minor contamination and the RCS is only marginally increased. Or you could go to an admittedly unrealistic scenario where the vehicle is completely encrusted and then it wouldn't matter what radar absorbent materials where underneath. I'm assuming in service the aircraft would not be allowed to get dirtier than a certain level without undergoing a wash.

 

[SpudmanWP]

1. Most panels/doors on the F-35 do not require putty.
2. Cleaning it for LO is due to surface scatter issues
3. There are field-able RCS verification tools that they will have on the carriers.

 

[quellish]

Everything else in our stealth fleet has its RCS constantly tested and verified. The Navy is going to have to have something on the carrier that can fly around with its F-35's and check their RCS.

Every current US VLO aircraft has it's signature verified by multiple means. On the ground signature measurement and verification using systems like CLOVeRS, in flight measurement using dynamic ranges.
There are no plans for these existing systems to handle the F-35 fleet. Which system is going to be used to measure the signature of the F-35 after it's been maintained or washed?

 

[sferrin]

Everything else in our stealth fleet has its RCS constantly tested and verified. The Navy is going to have to have something on the carrier that can fly around with its F-35's and check their RCS.

Every current US VLO aircraft has it's signature verified by multiple means. On the ground signature measurement and verification using systems like CLOVeRS, in flight measurement using dynamic ranges.
There are no plans for these existing systems to handle the F-35 fleet. Which system is going to be used to measure the signature of the F-35 after it's been maintained or washed?

Are these airborne verifications done after every maintenence session or just if something major is done? For example, does every USAF F-22 base have dedicated RCS verification aircraft for the F-22 fleet? Or is everything just done on the ground?

 

[sublight_]

Which system is going to be used to measure the signature of the F-35 after it's been maintained or washed?

This should have been asked at the F-35 roundtable.

 

[bobbymike]

What did they do with Gen 1 stealth F-117s during the first Gulf War? Some of them flew through tough conditions?

 

[bobbymike]

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/3914aaf3ce5d

Look another claim that 60 Minutes is biased...................just in the opposite direction I proffered

 

[sferrin]

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/3914aaf3ce5d

Look another claim that 60 Minutes is biased...................just in the opposite direction I proffered

Look at the source. No doubt he was hoping for 60 Minutes to give a scathing presentation. It's a shame he doesn't allow comments (I can't imagine why. LOL)

 

[SpudmanWP]

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/3914aaf3ce5d

Look another claim that 60 Minutes is biased...................just in the opposite direction I proffered

God forbid they talk to people who have 1st hand knowledge of the requirement, the production, and the testing of the F-35. :

 

[quellish]

Are these airborne verifications done after every maintenence session or just if something major is done? For example, does every USAF F-22 base have dedicated RCS verification aircraft for the F-22 fleet? Or is everything just done on the ground?

Depends on the platform and the maintence task. Some require in flight verification, some can get by with ground verification. F-22s, IIRC, either way get semi-annual in flight verification (they have a requirement to get verified once or twice a year, wether there was a task that required it or not). B-2s get it more often, and with a different set of verification resources. The F-117s also got in flight verification more often, but for very different reasons.

No, F-22 bases do not have dedicated RCS verification aircraft. There are two dynamic ranges in the US that are used for in flight RCS verification of the F-22 fleet. Air to air RCS test resources are used for different platforms (B-2, RQ-170, others). IR signature verification is a different story.

 

[Triton]

In the roundtable that sferrin posted, they mentioned that they wanted a longer range missile than the AIM-120. Were they referring to the current AIM-120C or the in development AIM-120D? Is the range of AIM-120D of >180 km (>97 nm) sufficient for the F-35?

 

[sferrin]

In the roundtable that sferrin posted, they mentioned that they wanted a longer range missile than the AIM-120. Were they referring to the current AIM-120C or the in development AIM-120D? Is the range of AIM-120D of >180 km (>97 nm) sufficient for the F-35?

I'd think they'd have meant beyond the -120D as they are undoubtedly aware of the D and it's capabilities.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Since the AIM-120D is not IOC yet (Q1/2/3 FY2014 are the IOC dates), I would say 120C7. The 120D is not that much more than the 120C7 so I would say they want more range than even the 120D will provide.

btw, Looking through the FY2014 budget it says the F-35 program bought 5 AIM-120Ds for integration testing to be delivered in FY2012/13.

 

[Triton]

I'd think they'd have meant beyond the -120D as they are undoubtedly aware of the D and it's capabilities.

Is there a beyond visual range air-to-air missile that has greater range than the AIM-120D in development? Does the MBDA Meteor have a longer range than the AIM-120D?

 

[bobbymike]

Has there been a published range for the 'CUDA' missile? Although I assume it is less then the 120D?

 

[SpudmanWP]

I'd think they'd have meant beyond the -120D as they are undoubtedly aware of the D and it's capabilities.

Is there a beyond visual range air-to-air missile that has greater range than the AIM-120D in development? Does the MBDA Meteor have a longer range than the AIM-120D?

American missile in Dev with more range than 120D? Not actively. There are a couple of DARPA tech developments, but no unified missiles as NGM/JDRADM was put on indefinite hold.

Yes, the Meteor has a longer range.

Has there been a published range for the 'CUDA' missile? Although I assume it is less then the 120D?

Yes its range is shorter. However, imagine a CUDA with a NCADE backend

 

[sferrin]

I'd think they'd have meant beyond the -120D as they are undoubtedly aware of the D and it's capabilities.

Is there a beyond visual range air-to-air missile that has greater range than the AIM-120D in development? Does the MBDA Meteor have a longer range than the AIM-120D?

Not that I know of. They're saying they need one though. I doubt Meteor would be enough bump over a -120D (if any) to justify the hassle. CUDA for short/medium and a boosted CUDA (AIM-120 length overall) for long range might be interesting. Save a few bucks maybe.

 

[quellish]

Is there a beyond visual range air-to-air missile that has greater range than the AIM-120D in development? Does the MBDA Meteor have a longer range than the AIM-120D?

There *was* one, once upon a time. It was derived from the work done on ASALM and had a ramjet sustainer (it was also super duper fast). No way it could be made to fit into the F-35 weapons bay if they brought it back, and it was developed for a role that's not as relevant as it was then.

 

[SOC]

it was developed for a role that's not as relevant as it was then.

MAINSTAY killer?

 

[quellish]

it was developed for a role that's not as relevant as it was then.

MAINSTAY killer?

Yep. And ADNAN.

 

[sferrin]

Is there a beyond visual range air-to-air missile that has greater range than the AIM-120D in development? Does the MBDA Meteor have a longer range than the AIM-120D?

There *was* one, once upon a time. It was derived from the work done on ASALM and had a ramjet sustainer (it was also super duper fast). No way it could be made to fit into the F-35 weapons bay if they brought it back, and it was developed for a role that's not as relevant as it was then.

Any info on the beast in the public domain?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This should have been asked at the F-35 roundtable.

Or you just check your notes. Ages ago the F-35 program announced they were fielding a special hand held tool that maintainers can use to check the signature of the aircraft on the ground. I don't have my notes with me and that is just from memory. I'm sure Google can fill in the gaps for anyone so interested. Always refreshing to read another critique of the F-35 based on ignorance of the project.