F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken : "Agreed. But according to the nabobs, all those USAF, USN, USMC, and Air Guard procurement officials are all naive simpletons won over by lying LM marketeers, so they don't count."
that's like the pilots that fly them. LM have paid off the lot of them. Unless they can skew a comment to a negative. Then even the previously condemned lying scum pilots are risen to the status of gods.
re the growler, They may need more, if more are ordered for USN/tasked to USAF support, it is another subject as I see it. It's not the USAF will get 72 more f15/16/18's, which is being propagated.
that's like the pilots that fly them. LM have paid off the lot of them. Unless they can skew a comment to a negative. Then even the previously condemned lying scum pilots are risen to the status of gods.
re the growler, They may need more, if more are ordered for USN/tasked to USAF support, it is another subject as I see it. It's not the USAF will get 72 more f15/16/18's, which is being propagated.
Last edited by a1bill; 8th Dec 2015 at 16:45.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a1bill,
I am not quite sure of your age, but I suspect you were not around to know much about Dwight Eisenhower. Do you remember him? He became President of the United States after Harry Truman. General Eisenhower was a five star United States Army General and Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe as the plan and strategy developed for the invasion of France, D-Day, as it is known.
Now I have a tendency to believe him rather than your analysis from afar. Being a nabob, as you refer naysayers as, I challenge you to read a section of President Dwight Eisenhower's final speech to the Nation at the end of his second term as President, provided to you, below. You will note that part of alert and knowledgeable citizens (nabobs) and the compelling task he outlined for them. Today, the citizens (nabobs) of the United States lay out on the table nearly $700 billion for the Defense Department to spend in one year, I believe it to be important to be critical of military spending programs that are off the track in terms of promises, performance, on time delivery and costs. The F-35 program is the most expensive military program ever and because it fails to meet any of what is or was expected while using citizen's (nabob's) money, it is open for examination and criticism. It is too bad we are missing the DoD leadership Eisenhower represented or those that were in the West Point class the "Stars Fell Upon".
TD
Military-Industrial Speech by Dwight Eisenhower 1961
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
"Agreed. But according to the nabobs, all those USAF, USN, USMC, and Air Guard procurement officials are all naive simpletons won over by lying LM marketeers, so they don't count."
that's like the pilots that fly them. LM have paid off the lot of them. Unless they can skew a comment to a negative. Then even the previously condemned lying scum pilots are risen to the status of gods.
that's like the pilots that fly them. LM have paid off the lot of them. Unless they can skew a comment to a negative. Then even the previously condemned lying scum pilots are risen to the status of gods.
Now I have a tendency to believe him rather than your analysis from afar. Being a nabob, as you refer naysayers as, I challenge you to read a section of President Dwight Eisenhower's final speech to the Nation at the end of his second term as President, provided to you, below. You will note that part of alert and knowledgeable citizens (nabobs) and the compelling task he outlined for them. Today, the citizens (nabobs) of the United States lay out on the table nearly $700 billion for the Defense Department to spend in one year, I believe it to be important to be critical of military spending programs that are off the track in terms of promises, performance, on time delivery and costs. The F-35 program is the most expensive military program ever and because it fails to meet any of what is or was expected while using citizen's (nabob's) money, it is open for examination and criticism. It is too bad we are missing the DoD leadership Eisenhower represented or those that were in the West Point class the "Stars Fell Upon".
TD
Military-Industrial Speech by Dwight Eisenhower 1961
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
In response to LO's point of "Strategic mis-step" I mentioned that what has been going on with F-35 may be symptom of a larger acquisition issue. What follows is triggered in part by my recollection of what sank the A-12 (A-6 replacement): how much risk was built into the program and how successful the gov't/contractor combination was in overcoming or mitigating each element of risk. (As with Comanche, the program was unable to succeed). This theme repeats itself across platforms, or so it seems to me. Let's look at high tech, or "new generation" naval vessels to illustrate the larger acquisition and strategic point.
The Zumwalt starts sea trials.
At a price tag of about 4.5 billion a piece, can the Navy actually afford a "technology demonstrator?"
At a price tag of 100 million a piece, can the USAF and USN and USMC afford a strike aircraft that will likely become less "stealthy" as the tech on the sensor side also improves? (Yeah, it's a form of an arms race, isn't it?)
In both the F-35 and Zumwalt a low observable (electronic at least) core design is a hard requirement. Each was approached in its own way within the context of the program. (I suspect that the electric drive may reduce the Zumwalt's acoustic signature, but that's getting away from the point of raising this program). **
In both cases, the cutting edge or bleeding edge capability is being pursued, and each design will be optimized for (fill in the quality or feature that you think here) ________. That brings with it both a program risk, a tech risk, and a price tag that is eye watering.
It seems that twenty years later that what we've arrived at is what happened with the Seawolf Submarine: what started as a program for 29 ended up as three, and they were the most expensive submarines built to date. That program started in the early 80's and didn't get underway until about 1997.
Does this sound familiar?
So what is it that these cutting edge, bleeding edge "5th gen" platforms are being optimized for? It appears that in the case of the F-35, the close in fight isn't it from some of the early publicly available feedback on BFM. Beyond the "we are stuck with this, press on" imperative, I seem to hear an echo from some other programs.
The USAF could not build the full run of the original C-17 buy(200+) but they didn't cancel the program and did recover from the low point of 80 something to get more than 100.
The USN could not build the full run of Seawolf, but did not cancel the program.
They USN could not build the full run of Zumwalt, but did not cancel the program
F-22's fate was similar to C-17: original run truncated.
The Departments of Air Force and Navy may not be able to buy or build all 2000+ F-35's (I had thought the original number was nearer 3000, but memory does not serve) but there is no sign of cancelling the program.
On the strategic level, that might make more sense than on a single program's merit. It might not be a mistake at all. What I see as being optimized has little to do with the detail of war fighting and all to do with the capability to do so. What looks to me as the underlying theme is the need to support the industrial base to build ships and aircraft, and within that larger aim improving the state of the art in X sub systems of these platforms.
To answer post number 1: No, the F-35 won't be cancelled. The only question is how many will ultimately show up on flight lines in various nations. Keeping the capacity and ability to build advanced aircraft of this sort is apparently a strategic imperative.
-------------------------------------------
** = They are calling this a destroyer and it is 600 feet long. When I was on Ticonderoga class cruisers (which was derived from the Spruance Light Cruiser Hull that became a Spruance Destroyer Hull with a pencil whip back in the 1970's) was 560-570 long. I am not sure just what this ship is.
The Zumwalt starts sea trials.
Eric Wertheim, author and editor of the U.S. Naval Institute's "Guide to Combat Fleets of the World," said there's no question the integration of so many new systems from the electric drive to the tumblehome hull carries some level of risk.
Operational concerns, growing costs and fleet makeup led the Navy to truncate the 32-ship program to three ships, he said. With only three ships, the class of destroyers could become something of a technology demonstration project, he said.
Operational concerns, growing costs and fleet makeup led the Navy to truncate the 32-ship program to three ships, he said. With only three ships, the class of destroyers could become something of a technology demonstration project, he said.
At a price tag of 100 million a piece, can the USAF and USN and USMC afford a strike aircraft that will likely become less "stealthy" as the tech on the sensor side also improves? (Yeah, it's a form of an arms race, isn't it?)
In both the F-35 and Zumwalt a low observable (electronic at least) core design is a hard requirement. Each was approached in its own way within the context of the program. (I suspect that the electric drive may reduce the Zumwalt's acoustic signature, but that's getting away from the point of raising this program). **
In both cases, the cutting edge or bleeding edge capability is being pursued, and each design will be optimized for (fill in the quality or feature that you think here) ________. That brings with it both a program risk, a tech risk, and a price tag that is eye watering.
It seems that twenty years later that what we've arrived at is what happened with the Seawolf Submarine: what started as a program for 29 ended up as three, and they were the most expensive submarines built to date. That program started in the early 80's and didn't get underway until about 1997.
Does this sound familiar?
So what is it that these cutting edge, bleeding edge "5th gen" platforms are being optimized for? It appears that in the case of the F-35, the close in fight isn't it from some of the early publicly available feedback on BFM. Beyond the "we are stuck with this, press on" imperative, I seem to hear an echo from some other programs.
The USAF could not build the full run of the original C-17 buy(200+) but they didn't cancel the program and did recover from the low point of 80 something to get more than 100.
The USN could not build the full run of Seawolf, but did not cancel the program.
They USN could not build the full run of Zumwalt, but did not cancel the program
F-22's fate was similar to C-17: original run truncated.
The Departments of Air Force and Navy may not be able to buy or build all 2000+ F-35's (I had thought the original number was nearer 3000, but memory does not serve) but there is no sign of cancelling the program.
On the strategic level, that might make more sense than on a single program's merit. It might not be a mistake at all. What I see as being optimized has little to do with the detail of war fighting and all to do with the capability to do so. What looks to me as the underlying theme is the need to support the industrial base to build ships and aircraft, and within that larger aim improving the state of the art in X sub systems of these platforms.
To answer post number 1: No, the F-35 won't be cancelled. The only question is how many will ultimately show up on flight lines in various nations. Keeping the capacity and ability to build advanced aircraft of this sort is apparently a strategic imperative.
-------------------------------------------
** = They are calling this a destroyer and it is 600 feet long. When I was on Ticonderoga class cruisers (which was derived from the Spruance Light Cruiser Hull that became a Spruance Destroyer Hull with a pencil whip back in the 1970's) was 560-570 long. I am not sure just what this ship is.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. -Dwight Eisenhower
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. -Dwight Eisenhower
And yes, I'm quite familiar with Eisenhower's military industrial complex speech. I was alive when he uttered it and it was required reading where I went to school. I just happen to interpret its application VERY differently than you, and don't see Eisenhower's speech as even remotely applying to the F-35 program. You are welcome to disagree.
The USAF could not build the full run of the original C-17 buy(200+) but they didn't cancel the program and did recover from the low point of 80 something to get more than 100.
- The USAF received 223 C-17s.
- The USAF received 223 C-17s.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The USAF could not build the full run of the original C-17 buy(200+) but they didn't cancel the program and did recover from the low point of 80 something to get more than 100.
F-22's fate was similar to C-17: original run truncated.
F-22's fate was similar to C-17: original run truncated.
But the acquisition plans for B-1, B-2, F-22, and A-12 were certainly truncated. So was LRAACA. If memory serves, so was the F-111 (with the B model being especially truncated.) We'll have to wait and see what happens with the LRSB. So I'm not sure what the relevancy is of an acquisition program that gets "truncated."
But I agree totally with your statement regarding the F-35 preserving a national capability. The UK lost their capability decades/a few generations ago. I think it wise that the US not follow that lead. And it would appear that the UK partnering on the JSF program has helped them not only preserve what capability they have retained, but has improved/expanded on that capability.
Some very sound answers there, Ken. I'm particularly interested in your Growler point. I have been expressing concern here for some time (or was it just some time ago?) about F-35 stealth in the multiband era and, without knowing enough about F-35 ECM, Growler would seem a sensible means of support. Of course, if that were the answer, it would also open up other options concerning what might be supportable.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The discussion has taken an interesting turn for the better...
I do wonder how "they" are going to sell the latest stealth wonder jet requiring jamming support to survive though
I do wonder how "they" are going to sell the latest stealth wonder jet requiring jamming support to survive though
KenV - Are you trying out for a Coen brothers' movie?
This is what you actually posted: "And regarding the F-16 Block 60+/F-16V which is currently available to many Air Forces, many of those Air Forces are choosing the F-35 instead. I'm reasonably confident there is a very good reason for that, and that reason is not the oft repeated claim that LM lies thru its teeth and the various national procurement authorities are just too naive to see it."
Then you get all smug and offended because you really meant Israel. Korea and Japan, even though that was not what you said and none of them had been offered the F-16. I'm sure Tourist will spring to your defense, but this is just one of many examples of why you don't get respect: when your arguments are challenged, you retrospectively change them (Oh my, I didn't really mean to say there was a Gen4 helmet that would solve all the problems).
In any event, Israel is by all appearances buying the F-35 as a stealthy light bomber, its star role, and isn't using its own money. Korea's acquisition professionals selected the F-15 over the F-35 and were overruled by politicians. Japan's history included a fake Jaguar and an incredibly expensive Super F-16. Yah shur that.
I don't quite see F-35 sinking to the depths of DDG-1000 fail. The concern is that it will be so costly to buy and operate that it will force reductions in numbers without delivering capability, and that by the time it is fixed its key advantage will have been partially or completely negated by radar improvements.
This is what you actually posted: "And regarding the F-16 Block 60+/F-16V which is currently available to many Air Forces, many of those Air Forces are choosing the F-35 instead. I'm reasonably confident there is a very good reason for that, and that reason is not the oft repeated claim that LM lies thru its teeth and the various national procurement authorities are just too naive to see it."
Then you get all smug and offended because you really meant Israel. Korea and Japan, even though that was not what you said and none of them had been offered the F-16. I'm sure Tourist will spring to your defense, but this is just one of many examples of why you don't get respect: when your arguments are challenged, you retrospectively change them (Oh my, I didn't really mean to say there was a Gen4 helmet that would solve all the problems).
In any event, Israel is by all appearances buying the F-35 as a stealthy light bomber, its star role, and isn't using its own money. Korea's acquisition professionals selected the F-15 over the F-35 and were overruled by politicians. Japan's history included a fake Jaguar and an incredibly expensive Super F-16. Yah shur that.
I don't quite see F-35 sinking to the depths of DDG-1000 fail. The concern is that it will be so costly to buy and operate that it will force reductions in numbers without delivering capability, and that by the time it is fixed its key advantage will have been partially or completely negated by radar improvements.
Last edited by LowObservable; 9th Dec 2015 at 02:47.
The maintenance of the industrial base is a strategic imperative, and was still one while I was serving. (what that is, and at what level is a long running issue of policy and strategy both).
That wasn't what Eisenhower was on about in infamous his speech to Congress ... who are the third (and critical) leg of that particular triad.
Of course Eisenhower's MIC speech was not tied to any specific program, and to comment that "Eisenhower had the F-35 in mind when he stated the above more than half a century ago" would be unbelievably stupid if you weren't overused to pro-JSF trollicles, in which case it's all too believable.
Eisenhower's concern, I believe, was that industrial interests (sustaining production rates, keeping the "base" healthy) and military interests (once you lose force structure, whether it's bombers, fighters, carriers or submarines, it's hard to get it back) could converge to protect and sustain capabilities that the nation did not need.
According to his aide, Andrew Goodpaster, he wanted to add "Congressional" to the MIC to indicate the power of local votes.
Eisenhower's concern, I believe, was that industrial interests (sustaining production rates, keeping the "base" healthy) and military interests (once you lose force structure, whether it's bombers, fighters, carriers or submarines, it's hard to get it back) could converge to protect and sustain capabilities that the nation did not need.
According to his aide, Andrew Goodpaster, he wanted to add "Congressional" to the MIC to indicate the power of local votes.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For a short while, in May 1994, there was a proposal to curtail C-17 production at 32 aircraft. It was quickly rescinded.
Norway has solved the problem of producing F-35s at high rate, but nobody seems happy...
Norway Apologises For Making Gingerbread Jets
PS - Williams-Sonoma sells the F-35 cookie cutter. It's $249.95 if you order it today, and only an extra $99.95 to get it delivered by Christmas 2017.
Norway Apologises For Making Gingerbread Jets
PS - Williams-Sonoma sells the F-35 cookie cutter. It's $249.95 if you order it today, and only an extra $99.95 to get it delivered by Christmas 2017.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eisenhower's concern, I believe, was that industrial interests (sustaining production rates, keeping the "base" healthy) and military interests (once you lose force structure, whether it's bombers, fighters, carriers or submarines, it's hard to get it back) could converge to protect and sustain capabilities that the nation did not need.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't think of a better example of an evolved military-industrial program Eisenhower feared than that of the F-35. It fits all the criteria Eisenhower worried and fretted over:
- Developed and promoted by the DoD and L-M and sold to Congress as a win/win taking the citizenship out of the equation.
- Advertised and influenced like no other military program has ever been by L-M.
- Politically engineered so as to not be capable of being cancelled no matter its shortcomings or eventual cost.
No US Senator or Representative would dare think of challenging the scope of the F-35 program today. L-M would step into the fray by asserting it would be un-American and anti-job creation/preservation to do anything short of the F-35 master plan. The L-M Washington lobby would swing into gear and throw money into the campaign to defeat any political fool that swims against the F-35 military-industrial tide.
TD
- Developed and promoted by the DoD and L-M and sold to Congress as a win/win taking the citizenship out of the equation.
- Advertised and influenced like no other military program has ever been by L-M.
- Politically engineered so as to not be capable of being cancelled no matter its shortcomings or eventual cost.
No US Senator or Representative would dare think of challenging the scope of the F-35 program today. L-M would step into the fray by asserting it would be un-American and anti-job creation/preservation to do anything short of the F-35 master plan. The L-M Washington lobby would swing into gear and throw money into the campaign to defeat any political fool that swims against the F-35 military-industrial tide.
TD
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV,
I think you glossed over Eisenhower's overarching concern:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
This is the concern the F-35 program evokes in its current structure that's being ignored by the councils of government.
Eisenhower was quite clear what his concern was: "the economic, political, even spiritual" well being of the nation and the "very structure of our society" and "our liberties or democratic processes." He did not address those interests converging "to protect and sustain capabilities that the nation did not need."
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
This is the concern the F-35 program evokes in its current structure that's being ignored by the councils of government.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I'm particularly interested in your Growler point. I have been expressing concern here for some time (or was it just some time ago?) about F-35 stealth in the multiband era and, without knowing enough about F-35 ECM, Growler would seem a sensible means of support"
I don't have a lot of insight into the F-35s jamming capabilities, but my understanding is that it is all in the X-band. L-band radars do not have the resolution to provide targeting data, and require very large apertures (i.e. very large antennas) to get even moderate angular resolution. But they can be used to cue other higher resolution (X-band) radars where to look for a target so they can put a lot of energy into a small volume of space (and perhaps from multiple different directions at once) to pry out the low RCS objects in that space. But aircraft can passively detect L-band way before the radar can detect the aircraft, so there are effective countermeasures. One would be to jam the L-band radar and prevent it from cuing the other radars. That's where the Growler comes in. Another would be to use a modified HARM type missile to take out the L-band radar or force it to shut down to prevent it being taken out. However, the missile would have far worse low angular resolution problems than the radar because of its much smaller aperture, so designing and building an L-band HARM missile would be problematic. The better solution might be to jam it and use cooperative passive detection to locate it and then put a big warhead weapon on those coordinates. With a big warhead, "close" is probably good enough.
Russia's PAK-FA (as well as some later Su-35s) reportedly carries an L-band radar. But with such a small aperture the already low angular resolution of L-band will result in very poor angular resolution on an airborne L-band. And as soon as the pilot fires up that L-band, every aircraft in the area will know there's a PAK-FA in the air and using cooperative passive detection, will know pretty precisely where it is. On the other hand, the Russians aren't stupid and maybe they've made a breakthrough that alters the basic radar equation for low frequency radars, or maybe they have tactics in mind that use multiple airborne L-band radars linked together. I've even heard rumors of modulating individual radar pulses and embedding data in each pulse so bi/multi static radars can generate a fairly precise 3-D picture. Who knows?
But the bottom line is that even in the age of multi-band radars, stealth platforms have a significant advantage. The question is, is stealth needed all the time? For middle east style wars against unsophisticated enemies, stealth provides nothing. If we get into a fight with a peer or near peer, how long will stealth be needed? The first day? The second? Once the ground based air defenses have been neutralized, is stealth really all that useful anymore? Maybe that's why USN is not putting all its eggs into the stealth basket like USAF appears to be trying to do.
I don't have a lot of insight into the F-35s jamming capabilities, but my understanding is that it is all in the X-band. L-band radars do not have the resolution to provide targeting data, and require very large apertures (i.e. very large antennas) to get even moderate angular resolution. But they can be used to cue other higher resolution (X-band) radars where to look for a target so they can put a lot of energy into a small volume of space (and perhaps from multiple different directions at once) to pry out the low RCS objects in that space. But aircraft can passively detect L-band way before the radar can detect the aircraft, so there are effective countermeasures. One would be to jam the L-band radar and prevent it from cuing the other radars. That's where the Growler comes in. Another would be to use a modified HARM type missile to take out the L-band radar or force it to shut down to prevent it being taken out. However, the missile would have far worse low angular resolution problems than the radar because of its much smaller aperture, so designing and building an L-band HARM missile would be problematic. The better solution might be to jam it and use cooperative passive detection to locate it and then put a big warhead weapon on those coordinates. With a big warhead, "close" is probably good enough.
Russia's PAK-FA (as well as some later Su-35s) reportedly carries an L-band radar. But with such a small aperture the already low angular resolution of L-band will result in very poor angular resolution on an airborne L-band. And as soon as the pilot fires up that L-band, every aircraft in the area will know there's a PAK-FA in the air and using cooperative passive detection, will know pretty precisely where it is. On the other hand, the Russians aren't stupid and maybe they've made a breakthrough that alters the basic radar equation for low frequency radars, or maybe they have tactics in mind that use multiple airborne L-band radars linked together. I've even heard rumors of modulating individual radar pulses and embedding data in each pulse so bi/multi static radars can generate a fairly precise 3-D picture. Who knows?
But the bottom line is that even in the age of multi-band radars, stealth platforms have a significant advantage. The question is, is stealth needed all the time? For middle east style wars against unsophisticated enemies, stealth provides nothing. If we get into a fight with a peer or near peer, how long will stealth be needed? The first day? The second? Once the ground based air defenses have been neutralized, is stealth really all that useful anymore? Maybe that's why USN is not putting all its eggs into the stealth basket like USAF appears to be trying to do.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you glossed over Eisenhower's overarching concern:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
When warship programs are justified because they sustain the shipbuilding base; when people shrug their shoulders and say "whatevs" about the value of the V-22 or F-35B, because they believe that Marine influence is such that they will be bought anyway; when you can't touch bases or depots that eat a disproportionate amount of the budget; these are all cases where the MICC is manifest.
Eisenhower's concern at the time was more with the growth of nuclear arsenals, which at the time threatened to go geometric. He knew, but most people did not, that the "bomber gap" of the mid-1950s was hooey, a combination of bad intel and deliberate marketing promoted by the General Turgidsons of SAC and the industry. (The U-2 had demolished it, but that was secret.) His administration was being beaten up on the "missile gap", which was little better founded.
Eisenhower's concern at the time was more with the growth of nuclear arsenals, which at the time threatened to go geometric. He knew, but most people did not, that the "bomber gap" of the mid-1950s was hooey, a combination of bad intel and deliberate marketing promoted by the General Turgidsons of SAC and the industry. (The U-2 had demolished it, but that was secret.) His administration was being beaten up on the "missile gap", which was little better founded.