F-35 Clubbed like a baby seal by Russians and Chinese

reply to post by C0bzz


I dont know that much about jets. But this helps thx

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by GT100FV

 

I just got a question.

Is the radar signeture of the F-22 and F-35 always constent or is it weaker when tracked from the side,under or above. Or is it just constent from a head on tracking radar.

PS. The IRBIS radar is also a pasive tracking radar that can track radio and GPS signal. Now the F-22 and F-35 always need to fly with the GPS system on. Have do they counter that ?


I have read somwhere that the russians dont use a GPS system,because it it american made. What do they use as a positioning system?

I know they are working on their own GPS system but it is not in place yet.









[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

The F-22 and F-35 are designed to be stealthy from every angle, but are at their stealthiest from head on. Of course they will optimize their headings in relation to the Flankers to maintain the stealthiest attitude.

The IRBIS is a PESA(passive electronically scanned array) radar as opposed to an AESA(active electronically scanned array) radar which the F-22/F-35 carry. It does not detect GPS signals or radio transmissions(that would be an ESM system to detect any emissions). The F-22 isn't gonna be broadcasting on the radio anyway, when in hostile territory, and GPS is passive, so you're not gonna detect someone receiving GPS info. The Russians have an equivalent system called GLONASS. If the Flanker pilot is smart, they're gonna keep their radar off too, and fly passively, using AEW cueing, IRST, and whatever ESM/RWR systems they're equipped with. If they turn on their IRBIS, they're gonna let everyone know where they are.

Britain considers £9bn JSF project pullout.

BRITAIN is considering pulling out of a £9 billion project with America to produce the new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, intended to fly off the Royal Navy’s forthcoming aircraft carriers.

The move is part of an increasingly desperate attempt to plug a £1.5 billion shortfall in the defence budget. The RAF’s 25 new Airbus A400 transport aircraft could also be at risk.

The cost is only part of the problem. There is serious concern over the aircraft’s lack of firepower as it can only carry three 500lb bombs, compared with as many as eight on the Eurofighter.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

I feel I should make a list of news sources that suck. So far, it's TIMES & ABC.

[edit on 29/9/2008 by C0bzz]

Originally posted by C0bzz

I feel I should make a list of news sources that suck. So far, it's TIMES & ABC.

I guess we may all feel the same, especially since these sources are probably among the few that are actually bothering to address these matters. The bulk of the 'popular' media don't even bother reporting such matters these days. If that is reality, then that's what it is. It would almost appear that any news agency that reports on defense matters might make your list.

ABC Australia posted a report 30 minutes ago which in part says...

"RAND disputes Joint Strike Fighter assessment

The United States think tank, the RAND Corporation, has distanced itself from a document ........

The RAND Corporation document described the Joint Strike Fighter as inferior to modern Russian and Chinese fighters .....

But in a subsequent statement the organisation says RAND did not compare the fighting qualities of particular aircraft.

But Liberal MP Dennis Jensen has dismissed that.

He says a secret RAND briefing document for a war-game last month condemned the Joint Strike Fighter as being "double inferior", but he says now RAND is trying to distance itself from that assessment. "

OK, I know Jensen is, apparently, influenced by certain vested interests, but... he is actually making a direct accusation here (not something that politicians normally do) that there is a "secret briefing document", etc. Like this is not merely innuendo, it's a specific accusation.

So, I'll ask the question.... does anyone think that there is ANY possibility that he is correct? (And as an aside, if nobody thinks there is a conspiracy - could this be the only subject on ATS about which nobody thinks there is a conspiracy ?? )

If not, why would someone continue with such specific accusations (I accept however that it is clearly impossible to established that a 'secret document' doesn't exist).

Let me make this patently clear - I am not endorsing what he's saying (or the fact that the ABC reports it - is that not their job?) - I'd just like to know why he is so adamant about it.

Lastly, does nobody know the extent to which companies such as Boeing, Lockmart, etc operate their businesses on credit and therefore their vulnerability in the current financial climate.

The Winged Wombat

[edit on 29/9/08 by The Winged Wombat]

Here's the source for the above story if anyone wants it. We've seen the report, and the only part about the F-35 being inferior was only in kinematic performance, and truely had very little to do with F-35s total Air to Air effectiveness. The RAND press release was correct - the report had nothing to do with the F-35 getting 'clubbed'. So, unless there is a secret report, that RAND officially denies, then Dennis Jensen is wrong, like he has been in the past. Perhaps Jensen is in damage control? Or perhaps he's unaware the 'secret report' is all over the internet?...

But in a subsequent statement the organisation says RAND did not compare the fighting qualities of particular aircraft.

But Liberal MP Dennis Jensen has dismissed that.

He says a secret RAND briefing document for a war-game last month condemned the Joint Strike Fighter as being "double inferior", but he says now RAND is trying to distance itself from that assessment.

www.abc.net.au...

Hmmmm.... now where have we heard that before....? Double inferior... Ahah, the RAND REPORT ALREADY ON THE INTERNET!!! Page 80.

i35.tinypic.com...

And for various reasons I disagree with that conclusion too! There was no secret war game, there was only a RAND simulation! 'Secret report'? ... pffft.... page 1. "UNCLASSIFIED".

Regardless, the RAND report we've seen so far is typical of a think tank, and minus the pretty graphics, it is not much more than we'd see here on internet discussion boards - it doesn't show anything new. Perhaps only because it's by RAND, it's been getting media attention? It's rather hypocritical of Jensen, to use the report as anti - F-35, despite his fantastic F-22 getting 'clubbed' also. Furthermore, the report is not even applicable to Australia - we're not going to be in a war with China over the straights of Taiwan.

Had something of been applicable, I would of expected Jensen, to raise it at the enquiries on 'Australian Defence Force regional air superiority'. Page 53. He didn't. And was shot down. So for Australia, this report is moot. It shows nothing new, & does not even cover Australia.... and that's the end of THAT chapter.

[edit on 29/9/2008 by C0bzz]

Found this:

Setting the Record Straight on F-35

"It's not clear why they attacked the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin executive vice president of F-35 program integration. "It is clear they don't understand the underlying requirements of the F-35 program, the capabilities needed to meet those requirements or the real programmatic performance of the JSF team."

Here are the facts:

The F-35 is a racehorse, not a "dog," as Wheeler/Sprey suggest. In stealth combat configuration, the F-35 aerodynamically outperforms all other combat-configured 4th generation aircraft in top-end speed, loiter, subsonic acceleration and combat radius. This allows unprecedented "see/shoot first" and combat radius advantages.

The high thrust-to-weight ratios of the lightweight fighter program Wheeler/Sprey recall from 30 years ago did not take into consideration combat-range fuel, sensors or armament, which dramatically alter wing loading, thrust-to-weight ratios and maneuverability. We do consider all of this in today's fighters.

The F-35 has the most powerful engine ever installed in a fighter, with thrust equivalent to both engines today in Eurofighter or F/A-18 aircraft. The conventional version of the F-35 has 9g capability and matches the turn rates of the F-16 and F/A-18. More importantly, in a combat load, with all fuel, targeting sensor pods and weapons carried internally, the F-35's aerodynamic performance far exceeds all legacy aircraft equipped with a similar capability.

When the threat situation diminishes so that it is safe for legacy aircraft to participate in the fight, the F-35 can also carry ordnance on six external wing stations in addition to its four internal stations.

link

reply to post by C0bzz


i posted last year a huge problem with the royal navy and the F-35 - it cannot operate from the current carriers , as the (projected by lockheed) unloaded take off run is 50m longer than the deck!

given its being built for US carriers , which are much longer - the loadout quoted is for operations from RN carriers - hence why the second carrier is being built with mag-cat back fit , and imag-cat back fit would be available for the first one;



well - it might happen but since the french rolled back the production of there new carrier its not so hopeful

[edit on 29/9/08 by Harlequin]

reply to post by GT100FV


You may be right.

norway.usembassy.gov...
Page 5.

However...

norway.usembassy.gov...
Page 6.

... and here's what global security says...:

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be:
Four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air engagements
Eight times more effective than legacy fighters in prosecuting missions against fixed and mobile targets

www.globalsecurity.org...

...

Therefore, Legacy = F-16. F-16 = 4th generation. That's how I see it.

[edit on 30/9/2008 by C0bzz]

reply to post by C0bzz


Great find Cobzz. Looks as if they are using an F-16 for that generational comparison. However it seems to be a block 40/50, so still a capable "4" generation threat.

Also, the specific comparisons within a given battle arena are interesting. For example one states "Relative Loss/Exchange Rate", in air to air combat. It does not compare missile load out, top speed etc... That's pointless next to exchange rate. Simply put; losing more fighters than the enemy, sortie after sortie, every aerial engagment. With all of it's advance capabilities in situational awareness, stealth, and electronic attack the F-35 will simply, and naturally, be more survivable than any "standard" 4th generation fighter. And since this is the air-to-air comparison this means that all possible aerial threats are included. This comparison is not simply versus a possible F-35. It may not be that unreasonable of a figure after all.

Originally posted by The Winged Wombat
So, I'll ask the question.... does anyone think that there is ANY possibility that he is correct? (And as an aside, if nobody thinks there is a conspiracy - could this be the only subject on ATS about which nobody thinks there is a conspiracy ??

)

As a counterpoint, could the crux of the conspiracy be Jensen and his claims, rather than the evil industrial military complex?

If not, why would someone continue with such specific accusations (I accept however that it is clearly impossible to established that a 'secret document' doesn't exist).

How about the old adage that if you tell a lie frequent enough and loud enough those who hear will start believing the lie.
What if Jensen started out with an agenda, got shot down on his effort but in a face saving effort continues on with the allegation.
Makes perfect sense.
To admit error is to lose credibility, to stick to the story insinuates a conspiracy of those opposed to Jensen's slander.

Lastly, does nobody know the extent to which companies such as Boeing, Lockmart, etc operate their businesses on credit and therefore their vulnerability in the current financial climate.

Didn't this become an issue prior to the financial crisis?

Originally posted by bios

Lastly, does nobody know the extent to which companies such as Boeing, Lockmart, etc operate their businesses on credit and therefore their vulnerability in the current financial climate.

Didn't this become an issue prior to the financial crisis?

As far as I've understood the crisis has been all of Sept with more and more heaping on daily. As for when this was released or leaked I recall a week at most.

About an Austrailan F-22 buy
It would be expensive both per plane, and, there would need to be a M&R trail. The F-35 is supposed to replace the entire existing airforce, and allready the Auzzies are reducing their buy of F-35's, due to lack of funds. If they did buy the F-22 the most that they would likely buy is two dozen or so, and you would have to give up twice as many F-35's to free up the money to do so. Is that a good trade?

The F-35 isn't as bad as the naysayers would have you believe. The infamous press comment that "it was clubbed like baby seals" by Sukois in a wargame is unfair. The (classified) wargame in question is reputed to have been a clash over Taiwan bettween US and red China. The Taiwanese, & US air bases were taken out in the first few minutes by a massive launch of 2000 IRBM's at the airbases, and the refuelling tankers were also shot down by long range missles & "leakers". The F-35's & F-22's would have run out of fuel at that point. (Perhaps they should sell VTOL F-35B's to Taiwan and use dispersed basing)

Pierre Sprey designer of the F-16 and the rest of the "fighter mafia" have labeled the F-35 a "dog", they claim that the F-16(early model, he's disowned the later heavier models) is a better "pure" fighter plane. They claim the F-35 can't turn, can't run, and can't fight. The original F-16 of which he is so proud, had less than 40 minutes flight time in the air. Its top speed was only mach 1.6, It WAS NOT equiped with a radar AAM!
AA-11 Archer equipped (old)Mig-29's with helmet mounted sights slaughter F-16's in German visual range dogfighting combat air games(they aquired 'em when Germany was re-unified). The fighter mafia claim the F-35 can't turn, I find this preposterous. The F-35 has the same number of controll surfaces in the airstream as the F-16, but in addition it has 3-axis thrust vectoring! The F-35 is a newer design, its technology is 10 years newer than that of the F-22 even. It undoubtedly has even more dynamic instability than any other fighter in the world. The F-35A is a 9G fighter(more and you tend to kill the pilots even with G-suits) as is the F-16,Mig29,Su27-30-35, Eurofighter,Rafale etz. As for the F-35's speed, there are persistent rumors on the internet that the production variant in inflight testing keeps out-running the F-16 chase planes(they have to use afterburner to keep up) and this, with its landing gear down. Note, that due to performance shortfalls in the B version they uprated the engine power for ALL the versions. Now as to the top speed, Col. Robert Simm at the US embassy in Oslo recently confirmed publicly that the F-35 has a mach 1.05 supercruise capability in a "tactical layout" under "certain flight regimes". In a private correspondence mach 1.8 is ambiguously refered to as "probably at the edge of the aerodynamic placard". Whether accurate or not we can safely deduce that the F-35 will be faster than mach 1.6 in a lighter loadout than the quoted tactical configuration. (which is with 4000lbs of bombs aboard.) Also, the US, through careful computer studies, has found a way to squeeze 6 AMRAAM's in the main bay instead of bombs, though this requires extensive re-design of the internal missle racks, and there is no money for this at present. They ARE working on stealthy(somewhat) external pods & pylons, that when the stores are used, are ejected and little doors close tightly over the holes, for stealth. For the future it is likly that they will be able to swap out a 2000lb bomb, for a rack holding 4 standoff, precision, SDB's. Also consider the effect that unmanned (stealthy?)drones with refuelling pods could have on long range ops. Australia could get the combat range, without the price, of the F-22.
The F-35 IS stealthy, though NOT from the rear. The F-35 is less stealthy than F-22 which is very much less than F-117 (See AW&ST). Remember price is a key performance parameter too. The F-35, is a good plane for the price.

This was a test from a simulation, which means very little, unless they can be relatively certain that their spec's on the Sukhoi, which are most likely far better than the reality, are accurate. There is also a good possiblity that somebody would like to sell a few F-22's to the Aussies.

Originally posted by poet1b
This was a test from a simulation, which means very little, unless they can be relatively certain that their spec's on the Sukhoi, which are most likely far better than the reality, are accurate. There is also a good possiblity that somebody would like to sell a few F-22's to the Aussies.

the test were using downgraded exported su-27's and mig-29's

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Great post. Yes it is true that AA-1 (not the redesigned version) has consistently forced chase F-16's (Block 50/52) to use afterburner when it accelerates and climbs. Even when carrying over 50% internal fuel and a full weapons load. Compare this to a clean chase Viper. I suspect the F-35s true capabilities are underrated and will only become evident as the program matures, much like the Raptor.

Also, the F-22 was not designed with export in mind, the F-35 was. It would take a very significant effort and money to redesign the F-22 to become "export safe". Even then it would be risky because again, it was never designed from concept as an international fighter. The F-35 has very sophisticated and internal safeguards built into it. That and it's technology level, in some aspects, is not as advanced as those found on the F-22.

reply to post by WestPoint23


Westpoint at the same time I was just thinking that the fact that the 35 is multi role limits to begin with the area in which it can excel anyways with the tech it is given. From the ground up this wasn't designed as the 22 so why be worried about the tech in that regard. The tech that is present in the 35 with be as strong as it can be with the knowledge that security could be breached. I can't see how they would water down the tech though for none US fighters. Heck they are selling the majority of these plane to allies who will need that same security if expected to fly in support of the states ever ie Britain.

reply to post by WestPoint23


the technology on the f-35 will be superior or on par with the f-22. why? becuase the great Allied minds are working on this jet and was made possible. its less stealthy..which is why the f-35 is export safe.its avionics and weaponry are superior though.

reply to post by RussiaUSA


Not because of what you may think though for it be less stealthy. Any plane that is multi role in any regard will sacrifice something to achieve that. Stealth in the B version is my biggest guess. A version not so much in my opinion as why would they need to?

Originally posted by Canada_EH
reply to post by WestPoint23

 

Westpoint at the same time I was just thinking that the fact that the 35 is multi role limits to begin with the area in which it can excel anyways with the tech it is given. From the ground up this wasn't designed as the 22 so why be worried about the tech in that regard. The tech that is present in the 35 with be as strong as it can be with the knowledge that security could be breached. I can't see how they would water down the tech though for none US fighters. Heck they are selling the majority of these plane to allies who will need that same security if expected to fly in support of the states ever ie Britain.

its the allied that helped with the creation of the f-35. plus britain always had the capabilties of helping out the states... lol. and the f-22 raptor was created in the mid 80's.. and first flew in 1990. entering service years later. one wouldnt be surprised if the f-35 had superior technology aside from stealth.

Originally posted by Canada_EH
reply to post by RussiaUSA

 

Not because of what you may think though for it be less stealthy. Any plane that is multi role in any regard will sacrifice something to achieve that. Stealth in the B version is my biggest guess. A version not so much in my opinion as why would they need to?

sometimes i wonder why make advanced jets...no one in this world will go to war becuase there is too much on stake.. unless Iran becomes the nazi germany of the modern world lol.