It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Joint Strike FIghter not so stealthy afterall

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe
You could be right, but the guy is a "former senior defence analyst". so I guess he does know what he's talking about...


Um no, Zion.
With the same logic you are seemingly utilizing above, you will believe anyone who says that they are "former" or current "senior defence" analysts. In other words, any Tom, Dick, or Harry, who happens to say, speak, or assert that which backs your view(s), "knows what" they "are talking about...."

Umm, no x 2.

As such, I will concur quite fervently with waynos:


....the article is oversimplified, and of course it is loaded....





seekerof

[edit on 13-3-2006 by Seekerof]




posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Originally posted by Willard856,

>>
Ok, I guess the question is why does Australia need the strike range of the F-111?
>>

Jakarta is 800nm away as I recall, that has been the operational standard for the last 10-20yrs if not longer (SEATO?)

A better set of questions is whether you think the F-111 is-

1. Able to make that radius with an operationally significant payload.
Fully loaded, (2 GBU-15 or AGM-142, 2 AGM-88, 30,000lbs of fuel) the jet has a ceiling of about 14,700ft as I recall. That means it's NOT going to be 'high, clean and cold' where turbofans like to operate and drag is low. But right in the weather. Furthermore, due to the nature of variable geometry, as it goes faster, it /loses/ wing area which means your best Cruise Mach may be restrictive for significantly longer than it would otherwise be.

2. Is the F-111 survivable without an F/A-18 escort? IMO, no 'strike' aircraft, operating so far from support is truly self-penetrating/escorting, including the Beagle. The 111, despite AMP and whatever the Ozzians have done since is a generation older in technology. Australia is also the SOLE operator of type so any mod they do is 'all theirs' to buy into. The 111 is more capable of suppressing or flat out-ranging most S2A systems than the F-15E is (though perhaps not the K/SI). But even with AMRAAM and AESA it will never be able to hold a dominant nose point as a sophisticated (Su-30MKI and AEW&C) threat would simply vector round it if not saturate it's 'both rails today I tell'ya!' capabilities. Whether an F/A-18 (or Flubber or Rafale) would do better is moot. Because you can never fly farther than your necessary support missions require tanking for and another buy of 737 type systems would be little more than recovery systems given their limited transferrable payload and considerable own-risk as strike whales.

3. What airframe does better? The JSF brings roughly 19,000lbs and 650-700nm worth of radius to the game. On a single engine, it just doesn't get any better. Yet there is a penalty for this in that it's thrust to weight ratio is down around .5:1 in military and yet it's range profile (best height/speed) _requires_ it to avoid burner use like any other jet on truly long hauls. If stealth doesn't work. Or doesn't work /as well/ as it does on say a CM (1-way advantage) or the F-22 (all sector), then you have to realize that you are again looking at a platform with all of 2 internal shots and limited 'escort' functionality because (according to Sweetman's 'Ultimate Fighter') the airframe is not designed to take another AMRAAM in the deep JDAM well. At which point, you have to start looking at external loads to provide both standoff suppression/destruction of enemy air defenses. And additional BVR weapons. This will cost you some pretty big drag points but the F-35 has six hardpoints which may mean that a 480 or 600 gallon tank is considered a 'standard loadout' option and that VLO was always a phantom selling point vs. the F-22 (after the AF saw what the F-117 did to their attempts to buy more Falcons in the 90s). i.e. Now you're no longer comparing the JSF to a Flubber or Rafale with 10-12,000lbs internal and another 6-9 'by implication' of higher signature (limited RCS penalty for big 1700-2000l jugs). Rather you are looking at these jets with all their gas in comparison to a JSF with it's own external modifier coming up to 27,800lbs of gas -and- doubled up munitions options (i.e. internal JDAM plus AMRAAM leaves four pylons free for a mix of more principle IAM, ARM or AAM supporting missions).
The big question then becomes whether the F-35A can handle the added weight (there have been press releases stating that 'Lot 1' will not have full qualification of external munitions but that this is merely a software/aerodynamic thing rather than structural issue as it was with the F-16A vs. C) approaching 60-65,000lbs. And whether two generations worth of technology improvement to the engine cycle and TSFC will give it enough high altitude thrust trust to hold the best Mach point (for range) with all that crap hanging off the wings. It should be rememebers that the TF30 is no fuel miser and has itself always had roughly a 5% shortfall in achieved efficiencies which eventually ended up adding some 2,500lbs of fuel and an overall weight jump of 6,000lbs to the F-111.

>>
Are we really operating in a 1960's mindset of needing to drop bombs on any unfriendly communists who might be gradually moving south, domino style?

Or are we happy protecting our sea-air gap with a platform which, qualitatively, is better than anything our immediate neighbours are going to have anytime in the next 20 years?
>>

JORN can certainly take the fight out that far and JORN plus Wedgetail + RQ-4 would makes for a quite interesting BMC2/ISR strike warfare /tasking/ capability indeed. OTOH, the reality is probably more relateable to sortie counts per day. Using Day-1 OEF models for the F-14 on a similar radius to North of Kandahar, an F-35 flying as far as Jakarta would take upwards of 7-10 hours /without/ refueling to make the full trip (the F-14 pilot interview had him in the air for 12). With only a 40-60 jets and a typical 1.25:1 manning ratio, you would be _very lucky_ to get all the assets together to manage more than 1 raid per day with a surge to 1.5 or 2 only possible if the force sustained no losses and JSF reliability is truly 'car like' (get in, turn the key and go).

Even with multiple small diameter weapons carriage, the question becomes how much damage a desultory air war could achieve before you would have to move in with regular forces anyway and what exactly such an action would do to Australia's economy for years if not decades afterwards.

One of the 'fallout' advantages deriving from this would of course be that your EEZ monitoring would be fairly simple if somewhat regionally restricted to the areas you chose to show active presence in. Yet even here, overwater ops in a single engine airframe, coupled to the total loiter options of a piloted platform, would tend to argue that more RISTA and less strike might be wiser. IF you could do so on the cheap.

Thus, with the notion of Australia fighting Indonesia alone something of a stretch. The ideal of being able to fend off some kind of Chinese militarist expansion becomes laughable. And so long as the U.S. is (almost) a guaranteed presence in any such regional conflict, the fuel deficiency and mud-in-your-eye munitions problem would probably be secondary to achieving simple basein for U.S. tanking forces. i.e. Flubber or Rafale would either be integrated with hose and drogue capable tankers as best possible. Or left to sit out the fight in secondary missions.

But either way, the /cost/ of the JSF offering would not have to be born by Oz as a function of a lone ranger covering a far off riot. Not for long anyway.

Myself, the ideal option is of course some kind of UCAV. With the snide bastards in the USAF having thrown away JUCAS, I don't know how this will eventuate. But certainly skipping (most of) the manned generation to head straight into uninhabiteds solves a lot of your current manning and currency as well as maintenance problems while giving you a better odds on mix of capabilities for the local sea control mission. And the 'residual' long range strike option. If only because an A-45C with 12,000lbs of gas will go twice as far as an F-35 and fully a third more distant than even the 111. Simply because it has so much superior aerodynamics and no presumption of an active 'thrice round a circle at maximum A/B' stupidity of an A2A 'self escort' option cluttering up it's basic bomber-with-big-eyes capability (which is the job 90+% of all 'fighters' do, 90+% of the time, anyway).

Yet at roughly 730,000 dollars each, the USN is buying 2,200 hostaged aimpoints for 1.6 billion dollars and that alone should be able to simply deplete any threat states' AAM stocks -and- have sufficient in reserve to ruin their economy and infrastructure if not outright defeat their military.

In the first day of shooting (from DDG and subs).

>>
And also gives us a capability that can integrate into a Coalition environment similar to what our Hornets did for Iraqi Freedom? The needs of yesterday do not necessarily reflect the needs of today and tomorrow. The problem people have with replacing platforms is that there is often a "need" to either replace one for one, both in terms of platform numbers, but also capability (ie the F-111 can fly thousands of miles, so we need a platform that can also do that).
>>

Since you failed to answer your own question as to why the F-111 1,000nm capability must be replaced, I don't see that your logic necessarily follows.

It is dangerous to give a military the right to:

1. State a mission need.
2. Define the specs by which that mission need is fulfilled.
3. Test to meet those specs based on threshold performance which they will undoubtedly lower the bar on if they like it or it meets their own preestablished conditions for 'what they want' as much as need.

You need only look at the F-111B->F-14 controversy to see how foolishly we misplaced our trust in the USN's ability to judge what was right and necessary for their FADF mission as later defined by a deficiency in almost all areas.

>>
As for the Flanker vs JSF debate, I agreed that merging with a Flanker means it is unlikely a JSF would win.
>>

I think this is a gross oversimplification. Would /any/ aircraft win _against a modern missile_?

Cope India showed, not the equivalency of airframes but of pilots. Such that, with sufficient flight hours per year to assure basic competencies and allow for advanced MFFC and GCI deception plans, _even a MiG-21 Bison_ could be brought to a point where it's R-73 was a significant threat to Team USAF and it's geriatric Eagles.

The implication being that, once a HOBS weapon achieves lockon and flyout parameters to it's liking, no quantity of 'pilot excrement' maneuvering, EXCM or MAWS cuing of same is sufficient to guarantee survival of the target jet.

If that is so and given the Flanker's RCS remains a constant in the 5-7m2 category; the Flubber or Rafale will surely have equal advantage -with numbered carriage of Meteor- in /avoiding/ the forced merge.

As JSF does in bringing all four AMRAAM to a (subsonic = 20-40km) rangepoint for which 'Stealth' is a variable equation based on improvments in IRST as much as BARS radar detection thresholds.

Of course there are other things which need to be taken from CI as well.

Namely that if you face a package threat attacking a given defended target, you must treat every jet therein as both potential bombdroppers and MRM shooters, 'thinning out the herd' then stressing your onboard BVR shot counts to the point where you may have to accept pole deficiencies due to closure or shove-off from secondary (sweeping) threats that destroy your carefully 'as goes the intercept, so goes the fight' setup geometries.

Similarly, if you are at X and junior, with decent vectoring and shooter/illuminator capacity (mini-AEW) fighters puts a BARCAP Y between you and several deceptive strike package feints at Z, you will have minimal time to intervene before the package is egressing and the target is a pyre anyway.

If Britain gets snooty enough about her precious F136 'rights' and decides to pull the plug on JSF (much as the French did to them with the naval Jaguar), they will likely take Meteor integration out of the package.

OTOH, if AIM-120C8/D does what it's supposed to as an ERAAM type weapon, it's likely that the F-35 doing the shooting from 40-60nm away will have both picture and MCG provided by another closer to 100nm out.

If the Sukhoi pilot CAN see (with RWR cued microvolume search) the far illuminator, he may make a terrible mistake in assuming that that sets the pole boundaries for who has the biggest stick and specifically how long he can continue to close.

A herd of F-35 with 8-16 AMRAAM is nothing to be toying with.

Two F-35 a hundred miles offset from the 'obvious' strike lane which is drawing all QRA assets, may actually be able to bring more bombs (6X4X2 = 48 Dimpys) to a closer distance /without/ LO (internal) carriage provided only that the deception operation soaks an opponents fuel and missiles sufficient to require commitment of all backup forces (low ingress to a burner popup on SDB standoffs of 15-25nm is nothing to be laughed at).

All of which emphasize less how capable a given threat is, than how numerous and how cheap to operate. Because the ultimate answer to BVR is saturation defense that can take the hit in attrition and keep on coming.

>>
But with a Flanker RCS being what it is, JSF will get FLO before an AA-12 equipped Flanker. And with our platform numbers (100 or so), some good NCW enhancements, including AEW&C, AAR and JORN,
>>

In this we agree. The question then being whether you will get funding to make the system of systems work. And whether you NEED to if, given an extreme sortie rate:radius time disparity, added to an existing numeric force inequality, you are outgunned when you get to the target area anyway.

Nationalism aside, the traditional peacetime answer is to form an alliance and let someone else pay for the inventory you base-in as a host country.

At ca. 100 million dollars, I doubt TLDU will be able to buy more than 40 JSF.
And having all that targeting/battlemanagement/tanking overhead for so few jets makes no sense.

>>
... and within an Australian context of our expected threat environment, JSF will probably be an adequate solution.
>>

Not at 104 million dollars each. Which is the real cost of the PAUC F-35A. Not 45. Not 60. Not even the previous 'highwater marks' of 73.5 and 79. But 104 million each. Now, some may argue that that doesn't reflect accurately the flyaway costs but rather the flyaway + R&D. To which I reply that U.S. F-16C.50s were last offered at 21 million dollars apiece. Yet /foreign/ purchases remain up around 40-50 million dollars each, which, even accounting for bed down of spares of munitions, is quite a disparity.

Export clients exist to soak Lunchmeats total costs while the home buy is seldom more than 'ramp assurance' on production commitment.

Particularly with DEWS apt to be a driving factor in the viability of air warfare as a whole by 2020, buying into the JSF program with fuzzy dice levels of component manufacture is not likely to be any guarantee of you're getting a deal worth having.


KPl.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   
according to `vark pilots the aircraft has a ceiling of 16,000 METERS combat loaded


ch you must be making a mistake with your numbers -but thats ok.


AMRAAM

as i have said many MANY times - who`s guiding the damn thing? 60nm range is great , but that requires 2 mid course uopdates from either the launch aircraft or something in the area that can supply the information

so that `ll be the launch aircraft 99% of the time.

Back to be SARH then - keep your nose pointed at the enemy. Don`t do that and the AIM120-D is only as good as Sparrow and not as good as Sky Flash.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Um no, Zion.
With the same logic you are seemingly utilizing above, you will believe anyone who says that they are "former" or current "senior defence" analysts.

So what you're saying is, you don't believe anything the guy sais because he might be biased....doesn't that make you biased too?

I guess the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and we're going to have to wait and see what happens.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 03:57 AM
link   
really how do they know if these fighters are gonna be good until they've proven themselves in hard combat.
even the finest pilot could take down a Mig-29 in a sabre.
so even without this "stealth" technology the plane may well be a consistant fighter like the Hornet or Tomcat.

they are saying the plane will be great because its gone under extensive researchand testing but when it comes to the crunch, a plane is only the best while its selling!

[edit on 14-3-2006 by spearhead]

[edit on 14-3-2006 by spearhead]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 11:40 AM
link   
There are to be two versions of the JSF, the International version and the American version. The American version is going to be more stealthy and have a couple better things than the International version. All that is happening now is the International version will be made even less stealthy then was originally planned. Though I stongly suspect it will still be some what difficult to lock onto with radar. And it will still be more stealthy than any fighter produced outside the US.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zion Mainframe

So what you're saying is, you don't believe anything the guy sais because he might be biased....doesn't that make you biased too?

I guess the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and we're going to have to wait and see what happens.


No what I think he is saying is a akin to what I said:
He is bias because he has not "Evaluated" one single frame. The only airframes in existence are US prototypes and 1-2 production (US) models. LM has not even built a single export airframe yet, and this guy is expecting us to believe his opinion on something that does not exist yet.

AU does not have a single airframe yet...heck the US has, what 2-3 (1/2 dozen tops) and they have certainly not given AU an aircraft to test. So how does this chap have any knowledge of the rig’s RCS?

Simply put he is talking out of his rear. The whole report is a hit piece: "O' noes the 'mericans are gonna gives us broken kit!" LOL



BTW: Nice avatar WestPoint



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 01:20 PM
link   
did any of u even read the article the US is only downgrading it for exports the US version will be stealthier re read the article carefully!



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
did any of u even read the article the US is only downgrading it for exports the US version will be stealthier re read the article carefully!


"Only"? Thats the problem!


Another Yank who thinks their allies don't matter



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158
did any of u even read the article the US is only downgrading it for exports the US version will be stealthier re read the article carefully!


ummm did you even read any of the posts? I'm pretty sure everyone has made it pretty clear that we are talking about the capablites of the Aus version or export version of the 35 in comparison to the US version or the other aircraft in the area ie the Su-27 etc etc.
If you have anything to say urmomma about the topic then spit it out. no one here from what i've read has said that they are downgrading the US version if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Harlequin,

>>
According to `vark pilots the aircraft has a ceiling of 16,000 METERS combat loaded.


Ch you must be making a mistake with your numbers -but thats ok.
>>

No mistake, it's a well known anecdotal part of the F-111's performance limitations reported by AvLeak and others from initial flight tests onwards. With full fuel and bombload, the F-111A is limited to about 14,000ft. i.e 'It can't clear Pike's Peak' (14,111ft)

yarchive.net...

>>
AMRAAM

As i have said many MANY times - who`s guiding the damn thing? 60nm range is great , but that requires 2 mid course uopdates from either the launch aircraft or something in the area that can supply the information

So that it`ll be the launch aircraft 99% of the time.
>>

I have more faith in APG-81 and AESA technology in general than you do but keep in mind, what I said was-

>>
OTOH, if AIM-120C8/D does what it's supposed to as an ERAAM type weapon, it's likely that the F-35 doing the shooting from 40-60nm away will have both picture and MCG provided by another closer to 100nm out.
>>

The public data available to me states that the APG-81 is capable of 80% of the F-22's 120nm detection range _vs. a 1m2 target_. Another comparison puts direct numbers at 165km vs. 220km. That's 83-89nm respectively for the F-35 which is likely 'close enough' for extended range use against a 5m2 target like the Flanker.

forum.keypublishing.co.uk...
forum.keypublishing.co.uk...

>>
Back to be SARH then - keep your nose pointed at the enemy. Don`t do that and the AIM120-D is only as good as Sparrow and not as good as Sky Flash.
>>

Nonsense. First off TWS may well function with similar threshold strengths as STT on an AESA either because you are dividing up the array into multiple pinbeam grouped elements and avoiding the time lag between refresh intervals. Or because, with the target volume skip measured in microseconds for 'virtual dwell' on the whole array, the targets cannot exit the track volume inbetween pings.

More importantly, as we move into quad RFAU vs. 'single string' (multiRF source systems= sequential DCPA vs. full array STAP processing)-

www.avionicsmagazine.com...

With productionized MP-RTIP. The ability of nominally /surveillance/ (the equivalent of 2D vs. 3D ground radars) assets to provide longrange firecontrol quality tracking support (X-Band) as an 'ADAAM' equivalent to the ADSAM capabilities shown here-

www.acq.osd.mil...

Goes way, way, up. Because you are no longer operating as effectively a system intended solely for gap filling in high risk areas in E-3 blind zone or high clutter tracking adjunct 'alerter' role against cruise missiles (the original RQ-4-as-AWACS mission). But as an asset capable of tracking 3m2 target at 300km and probably a 5m2 (Su-27, courtesy of a 65,000ft lookdown advantage) out to LOS horizoning or 500km.

At which point, the question for the threat jet driver becomes "Who do I believe?" because his RWR may be telling him he's getting 'hard tracked' (STT equivalent 'loud' ERPs loading) from an elevation and powerdensity level that can ONLY be representative of an HALE UAV-acting-as-AWACS, 100-200nm away.

While he instinctively knows that the shooters are likely much closer in. 'If only they would speak up so that I could hear them'.

This is different from SARH because-

1. You are not relying on a 7, 8 or even 10" seeker diameter to pick up ultralongrange returns from a target in X-Band. Nor even a 27-36" fighter radar. The RQ-4 antenna being 18"X60" _can do_ as a 300km tracking capable aperture.
2. Even if you DO have limited ability to rangle resolve the absolute target location (detect vs. track), due to jamming or signature treatments or tactical maneuver; you can run the missile out to a generic 'targets bearing and range average - your bearing and range average (to me) until the seeker cone collides with a general proximity cube (near/far averaged point) whereafter your principal fire control agency can begin tracking off the generic big picture.
3. /At/ A-Pole, the weapon can perform as a TVM dual aperture function to reject decoys and advanced terminal jamming techniques. Comparing it's view of the target to that from the fighter and 'sharing' processing modes. Further easing the range issue.

All of which is just fine, except, due to the F-35s 'baby onboard' delicate condition and the cost of the asset overall; you still have to either yield signature advantage (making the forward shooter principle less advantageous) with multiple, external carriage, shots. Or go to grouped formation tactics. Which limits the onset rate and total number of targets engaged, /traditional advantages of LO/. Even with standoff munitions.

Myself? I prefer the speed and avoidance to just _not go near_ a target that I don't need to. And six + two (bomber and bodyguard section loadouts) max out my AIM-120 shot:target loading factor on those threats which I do 'deem necessary' to kill. Never wait for little Olie Twist to ask if he may have another. Send him 2-3 at a time.

In this manner, with just a few F-22 teams cycling in and out of the target area (on a 3 vice 7 hour cycle) /all the time/, I can quickly wear down a threat DCA effort with BOBian 'anticipation stress' (constant CAP/QRA). Even as I roll in the UCAV main force to start pounding the crap out of transport and military targets once a major break in the enemy IADS is achieved.

A UCAV which, not having a pilot to lose if it is not configured to fight off an air threat, nobody will cry over it's 'excessive exposure'.

A UCAV which, because it's ONE FIFTH the cost of a JSF, even though it has roughly similar (internal) payload options, is present in such numbers as to actually -increase- the number of shots and shot types available to a force commander.

A UCAV which, because of it's loiter, doesn't have to be regenerated as often, even though it shares the same basic sub-cruise lag in RTB. Thus allowing said AAM-configured robot to provide coverage for potentially multiple raids irrespective of whether there is an active threat up or not.

Finally, a UCAV whose _superior_ LO, when coupled to the ADAAM system, means that it can be further forward to /take/ the best shots, relying on the HALE platform to send the missiles into the seeker cube without adding cost to it's basic XTRA radar functions.

All of which together means I can keep my individual hunting pairs well distributed and penetrative (forcing the bad guys to come some considerable distance to engage each) without having to waste most of Stealth's advantages on package tactics and 'here we ALL are' collateralization of intent with just those two internal weapons available on each individual (manned) JSF.

Under these conditions, the JSF's lesser-LO factor (which has been stated since the program began folks) reflects more on lane commitments of jamming assets and predictable (ground) target coverages (to which a defense can shift airborne fire brigade assets) more than anything specifically important to the A2A game (S2A is another matter).

Yet even worst case, what the F-22 can do directly, the F-35 may be able to achieve (at least for our forces with their deeper AOD munitions purchasing pockets) simply by shifting to longrange weapons like FRSW or JASSM as external weapons for the first few missions.

Pushing and Pushing until eventually a combination of higher effective raid numbers (X4 cruise vs. X2 internal JDAM), deferred maintenance under constant combat turns and simple fuel and munition exhaustion catch the Flanker Team on the ground. Where they and/or their logistics are blown to itty bits 'anyway' because their weapons systems are not designed to deal with Mach 6-8 aeroballistic or -35dbsm stealth penetrators deliberately routed to achieve 'compass point' simultaneous surround sound attacks.

This last is critical because the false imperative (grabbing crotch) inherent to 'measuring an Air Force by it's fighter performances' is and always will be proven false _By The Numbers_ of /threat jets/ Flankers likely to be encountered in any given campaign setting (even one maximizing own force projection and persistence problems at long range). So that it is better to spend a day or three hunting them individually with very a high capability, limited, force. Before or even /as/ you bring in the Brand-X generic bus platforms to absolutely level the place with the cheapest, most efficient, _bomber_ that there is.

Right now, the individual aimpoint and standoff edge represented by the EIGHT, 64,000 dollar, GBU-39; marginally favors the return on deposit of a conventional airframe over the aeroballistic or cruise weapon. But _Only If_ you dump all pretense of currency training in peacetime which effectively gobbles up EIGHT BILLION dollars a year for our forces. As soon as you add UPT, fastjet pipe, squadron qualification and continuation/exercise/deployment prep, it becomes cheaper to do your entire high intensity war effort with 730,000 dollar Cruise Missiles.

The difference being that, through such a choice, you deny the 'other 70% of all war conditions' WHERE THERE IS NO AIR THREAT AT ALL. And instead you are acting as airborne artillery in support of ground forces. Or as surveillance assets helping to enforce remote border interdiction effort. UCAVs being better than JSF at that too. As they are in all other 'real' (high intensity=fantasy) conflict conditions where you emphasize the bullet over the gun. And especially the shooter.

I despise the JSF _for a reason_, beyond it's tremendous fiscal waste. I just don't believe it represents the best airpower modal for the jobs we need to do these days. Or the DEWS vulnerability we will face all too soon, tomorrow.


KPl.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos

Originally posted by urmomma158
did any of u even read the article the US is only downgrading it for exports the US version will be stealthier re read the article carefully!


"Only"? Thats the problem!


Another Yank who thinks their allies don't matter


Im sorry, Waynos. I'm not intending to be offensive, but if you truely believe that the US as a whole thinks that our traditional Allies "don't matter", you are sadly mistaken and oblivious of the history of the last 100 years or so.

The simple fact is that we are a sovereign nation of citizens and taxpayers, and our elected government has a basic responsibility to ensure our safety while simultaneously implementing geo-political policy that best serves our national interests. Its called "looking out for numero uno".

For decades, our national interests have been best served by ensuring that the US has a qualatative edge in electronic, aerospace, and military technology. It is a basic fiduciary responsibility of our government to make sure our military is the best equipped, bar none. Without exception.

The Joint Strike Fighter didn't just appear out of thin air. It is a product of dozens and dozens of years of applied advanced aerospace technology programs, paid almost exclusively by the US taxpayer, and it represent the current pinnacle of dozens of different attack aircraft we have designed and built over the last 50 years. The technology found in the JSF is leveraged from dozens of other aircraft and hundreds of other technology programs.

If the JSF was a completely new design, and the non-US participants were participating at a near 50% ratio, and new or proprietary technologies were being brought to the table by the non-US team members, I would certainly say that non-US team members are fully entitled to a fully-capable, fully equipped aircraft.

But since this is not true, and considering our national interests, it should come to no surprise that the "export" model will be (slightly) less capable. These are completely transparent facts, and no team members signed up to this program without taking them into account. The simple facts are that the non-US team members will be receiving a superior product for a minimal investment in R&D (nevermind actual fly-away costs per airframe - we will all get screwed here without a doubt).

We care about you guys plenty. Not everyone got invited to particpate on the program, and reap the benefits (if there are any). But you cannot begrudge us our own national interests, especially considering that they are never truly aligned with those of the EU (or the UK, for that matter). I personally believe that most Americans (and elected members of Congress) would consider it irresponsible to export fully-capable military systems to any foreign state, no matter how chummy our relationship might be.

You are free to choose you own path. We will get on with it, either way.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   


Im sorry, Waynos. I'm not intending to be offensive, but if you truely believe that the US as a whole thinks that our traditional Allies "don't matter", you are sadly mistaken and oblivious of the history of the last 100 years or so.


No, I didn't say the US as a whole, I was referring directly to his individual comment. There are plenty who do think that way however.

Regarding the JSF, the point, at least as far as the UK is concerned, is that this 'lesser spec' export model has suddenly appeared out of nowhere when, previously, the US and UK were in accord that as a tier one partner the UK STOVL version would be identical to the USMC version except for specific items of equipment dependant on the individual requirements of the services, nothing to do with secrecy.

Thats the thing, whatever new development came along we happliy shared it with you guys, and vice versa. Don't forget the RAF exchange pilots that were routionely and regularly flying the F-117 before its existance was revealed publically.

We were considered trustworthy enough to keep this secret but something has now changed and THAT is the problem. We have invested billions in it however small the sare overall, and we have brought unique advanced technologies to the programme, it is far from being an all-American wonder, If we had entered the programme knowing these barriers existed then there would be nothing to complain about, its the fact that the goal posts have moved that is leading to unrest.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
No mistake, it's a well known anecdotal part of the F-111's performance limitations reported by AvLeak and others from initial flight tests onwards. With full fuel and bombload, the F-111A is limited to about 14,000ft. i.e 'It can't clear Pike's Peak' (14,111ft)
KPl.


That said, the Aussies operate the F-111G and not the A.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   
Uhm, I took the following points from the article:

- An aspect of the fighter's "stealth capability" - radio frequency signatures, has been downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", according to the US Defence Department website.

- Signs that the stealth capability had been lowered first emerged last year, when key performance indicators on the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter website changed. The manufacturer of the aircraft, Lockheed Martin, insisted repeatedly to the Herald that the reported shift was an error. Australia's Defence Department also maintained there had been no change. But those assurances have proven false.

- It falls well short of the F-111 jet it is replacing in its long-range strike ability and would require air-to-air refuelling that would leave it and support aircraft vulnerable to enemy missiles and aircraft. It is essentially a second tier bomb truck.

- It lacks the necessary aerodynamics to defeat the [Sukhoi] Flankers, never mind future aircraft that may proliferate.





By far the most disconcerting thing to me, would be the denials by LockMart over the performance drops, which later proved 'true' - or at least were admitted. How can prospective buyers or existing partners have confidence in a company that has told lies?


[edit on 14-3-2006 by kilcoo316]



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 10:58 PM
link   
I think the F-35 is going to be a good plane. It definitly is bs that he US is downgrading the export models especially because the allies have poured sooooo much money into the program. The Brits have good reason to be mad. But the question is is it really all that bad? It still has a pretty small RCS and from what i understand is a pretty good multiplatform aircraft, even though its not up to speed with the Gripen.

P.S.-ch, not trying to start anything but is there anyway you can consolidate your posts? Its like reading a detailed essay.



posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 11:11 PM
link   
Kilcoo316,

>>
- Signs that the stealth capability had been lowered first emerged last year, when key performance indicators on the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter website changed. The manufacturer of the aircraft, Lockheed Martin, insisted repeatedly to the Herald that the reported shift was an error. Australia's Defence Department also maintained there had been no change. But those assurances have proven false.
>>

I don't know why it shocks people, it has been advertised as second best choir boy in the all-sector LO department since the program first kicked off in 1994.

>>
By far the most disconcerting thing to me, would be the denials by LockMart over the performance drops, which later proved 'true' - or at least were admitted.
>>

Well, we've known this since 1997 when the CBO said that much of the underlying technology was unproven and developmentally challenged for being so by the time the buy-pass decision was made for what is effectively concurrent development of three aircraft with one name. We knew it in 2001 when Boeing said that the F-35 _with misionized_ weight gains would be marginal as a STOVL fighter and yet nobody decided to spend a few billion to carry forward an alternative to keep Lunchmeat 'honest' through the SDD process. We've known it since July 2002 when the Preliminary Design Review 'lines freeze' was done conditionally on the notion of 'continued structural loads reduction' (thinner and thinner shavings) signalling that the weight of weapons bay, production avionics, landing gear and secondary propulsion systems all were providing significantly more difficult to 'fix' as a standard configuration, internally. We certainly knew by 2004 when the 3,700lb weight overage was 'announced incrementally'. As first 2,700 then 3,000 then 3,300 and 3,400lbs.

And it should be obvious to everyone that a Critical Design Review which has officially been rolled back until last month is likely not going to close out all issues until /after/ flight test of the SDD prototype. At which point the specs will be lowered (IOT&E and OPEVAL as pass:fail validations 'graded on a curve') until the production contract is guaranteed.

The very same thing was done, in reverse, on the F-111B back in 1968. Whereby the USN refusal to test the jet until it met specs, wrote a spec which guaratneed a weight overage of some 16,000lbs. And the delayed flight tests of what turned out to be a quite acceptable FADF, until after McNamara has been 'horizontally promoted' out of the Defense sector and private deals could be made to ensure Congress killed it.

If the services like a jet, no matter how ill-considered it is, they will cover up it's deficiencies until you are left with a 'this or nothing' choice and they get what their little boy brains want.

In this case, Congress is in like Flynn because giving the services their due means money for their bribed-to-the-gills local district politics. And the only people who lose are the non-flying uniformed services who are robbed not only of their own systems money. But also effective air support in OOTW.

And the taxpayer which Congress treats as sheep that can be shorn until the whites of the bone show through the bloody pulp.

>>
How can prospective buyers or existing partners have confidence in a company that has told lies?
>>

Oh please. Do you REALLY think they /care/? What has destroyed the JSF has been the Iraq war and our plummeting home buy which is set to obliterate our force structure of the last 20 years in 'lifting up the barbarians so that they can better bite our hands'. If the U.S. JSF is 104 million dollars. Then the FMS market is /hardly/ apt to be better which means a slow, plodding, pace on the Flubber/Rafale still buys you a mostly-developed airshow sextoy for about 40-60-80 million bucks (Gripen/Rafale/Flubber).

Along with (finally) some true munitions superiorities in systems like Meteor, Brimstone, AASM and NSM.

No money on the far side of development suddenly means the investors all /invent/ reasons like 'technology exchange' (which has _always_ been there, going back to the F-104) to drop the ball before they are commited to paying off Lunchmeat for USAF inventory shortfalls without another element of the Pyramid Scheme to themselves profit from.

If we were all truly friends, we would TRUST each other enough to commit to ONE (UN) defense/policing force with legal rights of intervention and policing for all members in pursuit of monsters like UBL.

As is, the only thing we 'believe in' in man's undying thirst for blood. And thus it all comes down to a deliberate policy of Vae Victis Vickers. No matter how ruinous the expenditures are on previously healthy economies.


KPl.



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   
CH

The F-111A wasn`t flying at the end of the vietnam war let alone 20 years later - so your comment about altitude is irrelevant ; AUS fly the F-111G , which are conversions of the FB-111

AMRAAM

you completely failed to address the primary concern with ANY bvr missile , which is guidance after launch - it has nothing to do with AESA or any other system , it has to do with updates , so you saying i don`t like AESA is rubbish.


put simply ; the data the missile has , of target position , is at the moment of launch - and unless it has updates or is guided to the target by SARH then it will miss.

Those updates has to come from somewhere - and it is usually the shooting aircraft, with or withour an AESA radar.

[edit on 15/3/06 by Harlequin]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 01:35 PM
link   
well i think britain will settle for no less than the ^full package^ that the US is having!!!

i think if theres issues on technogly sharing, then i think the UK govenment will just pull-out of the project (not sure about other nations).

its a nice aircraft, id rather have the F-35 than other alternatives ive heard (navalised eurofighter, rafale) etc.

but as far as i'm aware the JSF programme 'ORIGINALLY' started out as a ^joint contract^ between britain & america (before other nations came into the project).

the UK have already put a HUGE chuck of money into the project + gave details of (V/STOL) - (we've showed our dedication to the JSF).

as said in another thread, the only technological aspect the american govenment are being funny about is the 'STEALTH' part about the aircraft, (which isn't a big secret anymore anyways)
- MANY nations have stealth aircraft in the making!! (ucavs ect).

but end of the day to be honest i think the press are just making a big meal of it (something to write about isn't it)?
- and us lot read it and say 'THE END'


of course theres going to be some hicups in the projects and each govenment are going to have disagreements, but i think all will come good with the JSF (in the end)





[edit on 15-3-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Mar, 15 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Some things I dont understand....

From the first day onward I had the impression that it was absolutely clear that the export versions will have limitations and restrictions - IMO there never was a doubt that especially the Low Observability features (and possibly the Radar) wont have the US standard, and that the US WON´T share the inner secrets of that plane.

But suddenly all "ye faithful" come out of the closet and complain, along with your nation´s officials and media, about features that the F-35 wouldn´t have according to prior AGREEMENT.

Some earlier poster argued that all the fuzz about "multinational development only was a tool to ease the F-35´s way through congress. Honestly if you look at all the expenses that have flown into the development the meager single-digit billions of non-US $$$ contributed are absolutely insignificant - as well as I don´t think that the international sales are a live-or-die argument wether that Behemoth is a success or not. The F-35 will be purchased in numbers of ~2.500 by the US alone (if the current plans stay). That is ten times the number of the Rafale - and you still think those "couple of dozens" export F-35 would really matter during this late project stage?

The US will gladly accept any export request by nations on the whitelist - but these exports do not matter anymore for the domestic procurement of this a/c; and thus all you export customer nations either take that exact package they will offer to you - or you will hear a "Goodbye, and thanks for the fish" from them. I am confident that all these "Workshare" offerings of the past will look severely less sexy when that time comes. In any case the JSF project has already fulfilled one of its deeper reasons: It severely hurt the European aerospace success.

Nevertheless this will be a source of morbid humour (the fun you have on a sinking U-Boat while knowing your last Torpedo WILL hit, too
)for us countries that went with the Gripen, the Rafale or the Typhoon: The day when all those shiny new, but downgraded and return-for-service JSF will show up in your inventories and be 2nd line equipment from the first day...

No hard feelings


[edit on 15/3/2006 by Lonestar24]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join