PDA

View Full Version : JSF Stealth downgraded


ORAC
14th Mar 2006, 06:36
Sydney Morning Herald: Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters

THE ability of Australia's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to evade detection and enemy attack has been substantially downgraded by the US Defence Department.

And a Liberal MP and former senior defence analyst, Dennis Jensen, warns that the fighters - at $15 billion the most expensive defence purchase in Australia's history - will be unable to maintain air combat dominance. "Do we really want our pilots to be caught in a knife fight in a telephone booth with an aircraft that, aerodynamically, is incapable of mixing it with the threat?" he said in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry.

A crucial 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. Peter Goon, a former RAAF flight test engineer, said that would mean the difference between it appearing as a "marble and a beach ball" on enemy radar. The problem with the fighter, Dr Jensen says, is that it can be relatively easily detected from the rear. A Federal Government source conceded yesterday that the stealth capability definitions had been changed, but maintained that the "design requirements" for the fighter to "avoid detection" had not.

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. When the Herald contacted the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter program office in Washington, a spokeswoman said the latest table on its website was correct. "There is no reason to pull it from there," she said. A Lockheed Martin spokesman said yesterday: "We will have to defer to our clients, the US Government, if that is their decision."

The downgrading in the stealth capability is only one issue that concerns Dr Jensen, who has a doctorate in applied physics and used to work at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation. He said the Joint Strike Fighter could not match the Russian-built Sukhoi strike jets operated by air forces around the region in important respects. 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, he said.

He also said the fighter would almost certainly be more expensive than the Defence Department admits. "[The Joint Strike] is essentially a second tier bomb truck. It lacks the necessary aerodynamics to defeat the [Sukhoi] Flankers, never mind future aircraft that may proliferate," he told the parliamentary inquiry into Australia's regional air superiority. The Sukhoi family of Russian aircraft are, or will be, operated by most Asian air forces, including China, Indonesia, Malaysia and India.

It is understood Dr Jensen's concerns are shared by another Liberal MP, David Fawcett. Before he entered politics at the last election, Mr Fawcett was the commander of the Defence Force's flight test and evaluation centre.

Dr Jensen and Mr Fawcett raised their concerns with the Minister for Defence, Brendan Nelson, last month. Dr Jensen told the Herald yesterday he agonised before breaking with the discipline of the Howard Government to lodge his submission, but the issue was too important.

maxburner
14th Mar 2006, 16:53
I never understood how the thing was to be stealthy once it had a reasonable load-out on it.

Tarnished
14th Mar 2006, 18:04
Max B,

I've warned you before about that thinking thing. You don't want to be doing too much of that especially when taking those pills.

I have been searching all morning (ok well for half an hour) to find some sort of definition of VLO vs LO. Have so far drawn a blank. My thoughts are that it is just a change of editor on the DoD website that may have dropped the word "very", exactly because there is no exact definition of VLO or LO and if there was one it would probably mean killing everyone who had visited the site.

Current thinking is that its stealthy for the first few days, then you start loading it up when you need the payloads.

Tarnished

maxburner
14th Mar 2006, 19:10
Definitions (From the appropriate NATO handbook):

VLO. Even if you stare you can't see it.
LO. Blink and you'll miss it.
A10. So ugly that when you see it you wont believe it.

Hope that helps Tarnished.

Keep eating the Brontosaurus burgers.

Richard Spandit
14th Mar 2006, 19:32
Doesn't the F22 have internal missiles to keep it stealthy? I'm surprised the JSF doesn't either. Let's be honest, it's going to be an expensive, outdated concept - UAVs are the future, like it or not

RIDIM
14th Mar 2006, 20:49
The JSF or JCA as it is known here has a limited internal weapons carriage ability, but anything bigger than a 1000 lb bomb and it is out on a pylon.

Tarnished
14th Mar 2006, 20:59
Thanks Maxburner, I had been looking for them all day. Bronto burger on the way to you by DHL err I mean UPS...... oops Beadwindow zero five....

Anyway, JCA is going to be on contract for internal AMRAAM, ASRAAM and Paveway IV.

flighthappens
14th Mar 2006, 21:24
Peter Goon & Co have a history of being against the JSF.

Theyre still in love with the F-111.

Take anything they say with a grain of salt.

bakseetblatherer
15th Mar 2006, 01:58
Diversion from the thread: Can anyone tell me how an internally loaded IR missile (such as ASRAAAAAAAAAMMM...) would work:confused: ; I never listened to the QWI's.

Tarnished
15th Mar 2006, 13:32
I can, but then I'd have to kill you....

Should listen you your QWI, your QWI is your friend.....

Depends if your ROE dictate LBL or LAL, the former requires the missile to be deployed on its trapeze for however long you need to get an acquisition. The latter can go off in the same manner as a radar missile.

Enough said??

Anyway, judging by MinDP's attack yesterday you won't be having the discussion ......

Tarnished

LowObservable
15th Mar 2006, 15:15
Hey, I don't have to kill anybody. It's called Lock On After Launch and was best summed up by the pilot-turned-manager who said "it's like putting a rottweiler in a sack, shaking him up a bit and tipping him out. He's gonna bite the first thing he sees."
The other way to do it is to stick the ASRAAM on a big honking extending rail and let it see the target before you light the blue touch-paper. Look at the AIM-9s on the F-22 (or IR AIM-4s on the F-106 for that matter), but to do that you can't carry internal bombs because you can't use the door mount on the JSF. And it would have a restricted view anyway (look at the F-22 again).

LowObservable
15th Mar 2006, 15:17
I hadn't heard of "extremely low observable" either and every time I try to type the acronym I get "Mr Blue Sky" stuck in my head.

Jackonicko
15th Mar 2006, 15:41
I had thought I'd dimly remembered being told about some means by which the ASRAAM's seeker head could be cued to 'look' through the weapons bay door almost as though it were open, in the same way that the helmet and EO sensors could let a pilot 'see' through the cockpit floor.

Too much alcohol at lunch, a hot, stuffy, dark lecture theatre in the LM pavilion and day-dreaming about Saab's PR girlies and you'd be amazed at the ****e I can come out with by the end of a Paris week ....

Tarnished
15th Mar 2006, 18:51
Jacko, you clearly didn't have enough to drink, or the SAAB girlies were not the same ones I saw, because you are right. The weapon will be pointed in the right direction to go towards the point of interest whatever that might be while it is still on the rail, on the trapeze in the bay. But the seeker itself needs an unobscured line of sight before it is capable of confirming to the pilot that it has acquired the desired target. It all depends what the ROE are at the time as to whether LAL or LBL will be required.

Like the rottweiler analogy however.

LO - you can drop a bomb past a door hinge mounted missile, just not when its deployed on the trapeze. There is also the slight issue of the contractor delivering what the customer asked for rather than what the customer really meant to say....

Tarnished

ORAC
16th Mar 2006, 06:31
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon should slow funding of Lockheed Martin Corp.'s next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the costliest international warplane project, until it is proven in flight tests, U.S. congressional investigators said Wednesday.

"Significant development risk remains, and it is likely that current cost and schedule goals will not be met," said the non-partisan Government Accountability Office, Congress's audit and investigative arm.......

GAO said low-rate initial production was scheduled to start next year despite "inadequate testing to prove a mature design" for any of the three variants -- conventional, carrier-based and short-takeoff, vertical-landing.

None of the three "production representative" models would be in flight testing until 2009, nor would a fully configured, integrated development aircraft until 2011 -- four years after production begins, GAO said. "To improve the chances for a successful outcome, we are recommending the JSF program delay production and investments in production capability until ... aircraft variants have been proven to work in flight testing," it said.

The Pentagon, in comments included in the report, said its current acquisition strategy would achieve the GAO objectives, making new limits on production unnecessary......

Capt W E Johns
16th Mar 2006, 07:41
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2152035/joint-strike-fighter

Britain warns US over jet software codes

£12bn Joint Strike Fighter order could be scrapped
Matt Chapman, vnunet.com 15 Mar 2006

The UK has warned America that it will cancel its £12bn order for the Joint Strike Fighter if the US does not hand over full access to the computer software code that controls the jets.

Lord Drayson, minister for defence procurement, told the The Daily Telegraph that the planes were useless without control of the software as they could effectively be "switched off" by the Americans without warning.

"We do expect this technology transfer to take place. But if it does not take place we will not be able to purchase these aircraft," said Lord Drayson.

The problem stems from strict US guidelines on the transfer of technology to other countries. Under current rules any British requests for the use of US technology can take 20 days to go through, obviously limiting the usefulness of a jet strike force.

Lord Drayson is currently in Washington to speak to members of Congress. His tough talking on the project includes the fact that Britain has a 'Plan B' if the Joint Strike Fighter deal falls through.