F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bevo, don't tell me, I'm not disagreeing, It's CM that is speculating on what is said "I suspect there is a tougher obstacle and that will be truly understanding what the capability is. As the design relies so heavily on its three dimensional RCS, the starting point will have to be a thorough (and honest) understanding of its detectability at various aspects against various systems. And that doesn't just mean sticking it up as Red Air in an all US exercise against F-16s in that big container just north of Area 51 where its speed disadvantage is no longer a factor. Getting that part wrong will be potentially fatal to any tactical development."
my point is if you accept what is said about the f-22 RCS, they how can you say the f-35 RCS is questionable? I'm missing the logic.
my point is if you accept what is said about the f-22 RCS, they how can you say the f-35 RCS is questionable? I'm missing the logic.
The general claim is that the f-22 has -40db and that's generally accepted on the internet
Well, then, it must be right!
I'm willing to guess that the testing done on the f-22 was also done on the f-35 and if one accepts the F-22 as stated, then one should also accept the f-35 as JPO stated that the f-35 has better RCS than anything except the f-22.
1 - See Bevo's post, 2 - define "better". And I'm willing to guess that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
As to the bands, the pilot didn't say, what he did say was that "the f-35 had better RCS than the f-22" and then corrected himself saying "at least in the search bands" my guess is he was going say better 'stealth', which is being said
Radars search. That's what they're for. Some systems use different bands for detection, acquisition and tracking, but all bands can be used for search, which is why the phrase "search bands" is utterly meaningless except in the context of a specific class of multiband system.
'FMS buyers don't get the RCS data till they place an actual order' is publicly said.
And any government official recommending a contract signature on those terms should be publicly shot, if this is true. But it probably isn't.
although I read that the f-22 is getting a new skin in the MLU
Source for that?
Well, then, it must be right!
I'm willing to guess that the testing done on the f-22 was also done on the f-35 and if one accepts the F-22 as stated, then one should also accept the f-35 as JPO stated that the f-35 has better RCS than anything except the f-22.
1 - See Bevo's post, 2 - define "better". And I'm willing to guess that you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
As to the bands, the pilot didn't say, what he did say was that "the f-35 had better RCS than the f-22" and then corrected himself saying "at least in the search bands" my guess is he was going say better 'stealth', which is being said
Radars search. That's what they're for. Some systems use different bands for detection, acquisition and tracking, but all bands can be used for search, which is why the phrase "search bands" is utterly meaningless except in the context of a specific class of multiband system.
'FMS buyers don't get the RCS data till they place an actual order' is publicly said.
And any government official recommending a contract signature on those terms should be publicly shot, if this is true. But it probably isn't.
although I read that the f-22 is getting a new skin in the MLU
Source for that?
A1bill,
Your two statements there are vey much at odds with Bevo's very good explanation and with the laws of physics; and that, partly, is the crux of my "speculation". The RCS data I refer to is that from the various aspects, elevations in different frequency bands and varying polarisations. Not just a single figure. Put very simply, head sector I or X Band RCS is fine for air-to-air pre-merge, not so much for air-to-ground ingress where lower frequency systems may be present. That said, one cannot always present the head sector, so the full RCS model becomes very important, especially if the aircraft's performance parameters have been compromised to achieve improvements in RCS reduction. For obvious reasons and with that in mind, the complete RCS picture becomes incredibly sensitive, which is why your repeated reference to internet data is so flawed - not to mention your assumptions and guesses.
You also repeatedly try to link F-35 with F-22. There is a massive difference that you carefully avoid in your statements. F-22 is purely air-to-air and, as such, faces vastly different threats and has the option to engage, disengage and re-engage depending on the tactical situation and threat, making maximum use of its stealth model. F-35 in its primary role will not enjoy the same tactical freedom and is more likely to be forced to expose its higher RCS aspects to enemy systems. So, for that reason, it is vital for operators to understand fully the RCS model of the aircraft - a blanket -40db figure simply does not cut it. Also, your insistence in drawing comparisons between F-22 and F-35 is both illogical and irrelevant.
Going back to your statement at post 8154,
Please compare that with your subsequent statement at post 8157,
When challenged, I note you have changed your statement of fact that data has been shared to "they keep saying the [sic] share the data with the partners..." and "FMS buyers don't get the data till they place an actual order".
Going back to
My point, if you read it properly, was nothing to do with being concerned about RCS, it was about fully understanding the entire model in order to exploit its capabilities (see LO's post 8151). As usual, you assume that any discussion of F-35 is automatically a criticism. For the record, CM is not "speculating on what is said", CM is pointing out the massive errors in your interpretations of "what is said".
You still have not demonstrated what data is released (or to be released), nor to whom or with what caveats; a point that I hope you can now see is entirely relevant and vitally important.
In just two posts you have now used the terms 'guess', 'generally accepted', 'general claim', 'implies', 'assume' and 'speculation' seven times. That seems odd when one considers the certainty with which to state your internet-based assertions as facts. You also need to understand the difference between informed people discussing areas of tactical interest surrounding an important military project and people simply being critical of the project.
Happy to discuss RCS and its tactical implications further if it will help you fill an obvious gap in your understanding.
Radix,
You are absolutely correct.
Originally Posted by a1bill
Bevo, don't tell me, I'm not disagreeing, It's CM that is speculating on what is said
Originally Posted by a1bill
the general claim is that the f-22 has -40db and that's generally accepted on the internet
Your two statements there are vey much at odds with Bevo's very good explanation and with the laws of physics; and that, partly, is the crux of my "speculation". The RCS data I refer to is that from the various aspects, elevations in different frequency bands and varying polarisations. Not just a single figure. Put very simply, head sector I or X Band RCS is fine for air-to-air pre-merge, not so much for air-to-ground ingress where lower frequency systems may be present. That said, one cannot always present the head sector, so the full RCS model becomes very important, especially if the aircraft's performance parameters have been compromised to achieve improvements in RCS reduction. For obvious reasons and with that in mind, the complete RCS picture becomes incredibly sensitive, which is why your repeated reference to internet data is so flawed - not to mention your assumptions and guesses.
You also repeatedly try to link F-35 with F-22. There is a massive difference that you carefully avoid in your statements. F-22 is purely air-to-air and, as such, faces vastly different threats and has the option to engage, disengage and re-engage depending on the tactical situation and threat, making maximum use of its stealth model. F-35 in its primary role will not enjoy the same tactical freedom and is more likely to be forced to expose its higher RCS aspects to enemy systems. So, for that reason, it is vital for operators to understand fully the RCS model of the aircraft - a blanket -40db figure simply does not cut it. Also, your insistence in drawing comparisons between F-22 and F-35 is both illogical and irrelevant.
Going back to your statement at post 8154,
Originally Posted by a1bill
The f-35 stealth data is fully shared with the partners and none have raised it as a concern that I know of.
Originally Posted by a1bill
'FMS buyers don't get the RCS data till they place an actual order' is publicly said.
RAAF say they have embedded staff and receive relevant data, I assume RCS would be relevant data, I could probably google a quote or two from LM and such, they keep saying the share the data with the partners, although there was the 'for US nationals only' mix up.
RAAF say they have embedded staff and receive relevant data, I assume RCS would be relevant data, I could probably google a quote or two from LM and such, they keep saying the share the data with the partners, although there was the 'for US nationals only' mix up.
Going back to
Originally Posted by a1bill
none have [sic] raised it as a concern that I know of.
You still have not demonstrated what data is released (or to be released), nor to whom or with what caveats; a point that I hope you can now see is entirely relevant and vitally important.
In just two posts you have now used the terms 'guess', 'generally accepted', 'general claim', 'implies', 'assume' and 'speculation' seven times. That seems odd when one considers the certainty with which to state your internet-based assertions as facts. You also need to understand the difference between informed people discussing areas of tactical interest surrounding an important military project and people simply being critical of the project.
Happy to discuss RCS and its tactical implications further if it will help you fill an obvious gap in your understanding.
Radix,
You are absolutely correct.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: England's green and pleasant land
Posts: 697
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM,
F-22 is not purely A-A. The mantra was once, "not a pound for air-to-ground" but F-22 has had JDAM and SDB capability for some time now.
I agree with those who have posted that, on the subject of RCS, it "depends." It always gives me a wry smile when stealth seems the be the only thing people care about; it is but one part of the system after all.
Anyway, good to see the debate continues to rage.
F-22 is purely air-to-air and, as such, faces vastly different threats and has the option to engage, disengage and re-engage depending on the tactical situation and threat, making maximum use of its stealth model.
I agree with those who have posted that, on the subject of RCS, it "depends." It always gives me a wry smile when stealth seems the be the only thing people care about; it is but one part of the system after all.
Anyway, good to see the debate continues to rage.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the general claim is that the f-22 has -40db and that's generally accepted on the internet, now this was taken nicely out of context.
It's just a internet myth about the marble size. it's not an official statement from anyone. the point was even this about the f-22 isn't carried on about.
As opposed to official statements and interviews from those within the program
that the F-35 has the lowest RCS other than the f-22 and better 'stealth' than the f-22.
My own comparison with the f-22 is that the same data and testing ranges for the F-22 would have been used for the f-35. so accept or reject both.
my opinions are guesses and assumptions, unless it's an official statement or interview.
It's just a internet myth about the marble size. it's not an official statement from anyone. the point was even this about the f-22 isn't carried on about.
As opposed to official statements and interviews from those within the program
that the F-35 has the lowest RCS other than the f-22 and better 'stealth' than the f-22.
My own comparison with the f-22 is that the same data and testing ranges for the F-22 would have been used for the f-35. so accept or reject both.
my opinions are guesses and assumptions, unless it's an official statement or interview.
a1bill:
From my experiences in Anti Submarine Warfare (using acoustics rather than radar) and targets that are of irregular shape, I find the points raised by Radix and Courtney about the rcs variations very familiar territory. The actual versus theoretical signal a receiver will have available to process, when trying to get a good paint on the target (such as an F-35 or a Tornado or whatever) will vary with aspect. (See page 4 of this paper on the acoustic version of this non uniform target signal ... which btw is a non-military application).
As Courtney points out, how the rcs varies with aspect (since the F-35 is not a perfect sphere) is classified ... and I'll add for a Damned Good Reason. While I hope that it remains so, I have some doubts in this age of people not being able to keep their traps shut.
From my experiences in Anti Submarine Warfare (using acoustics rather than radar) and targets that are of irregular shape, I find the points raised by Radix and Courtney about the rcs variations very familiar territory. The actual versus theoretical signal a receiver will have available to process, when trying to get a good paint on the target (such as an F-35 or a Tornado or whatever) will vary with aspect. (See page 4 of this paper on the acoustic version of this non uniform target signal ... which btw is a non-military application).
As Courtney points out, how the rcs varies with aspect (since the F-35 is not a perfect sphere) is classified ... and I'll add for a Damned Good Reason. While I hope that it remains so, I have some doubts in this age of people not being able to keep their traps shut.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not all Airframe Stealth
I feel that the point is slightly being missed in this part of the thread, Airframe Stealth however measured is not the be all and end all of stealth.
The F35 is meant to be rather a noisy plane, it is meant to be part of a net centric solution to war fighting, it is neither small nor fast and does not have a great range.
I understand that what are now considered LPI links are being used for the data communication between the planes and other members of the strike package, how long will these links remain LPI?
The engine in an F35 is quite large and as discussed the plane cannot super cruise, except when loosing height and then allegedly only for a certain short time, implicitly the thermal signature of the engine will be quite high and thus moderately easy to target.
The cloak of invisibility and invincibility that the F35 is alleged to have I don’t think anyone is suggesting is like the Emperor with no cloths, non-existent, rather it is of rather lower quality than that worn by an F22 or a B2.
Once the true performance of the F35 has been understood, I am sure that appropriate tactics can be developed, slightly different ones will obviously be needed for first day of war strike as to those needed for an F35 engaged in National Air Defence with externally mounted missiles.
The F35 is meant to be rather a noisy plane, it is meant to be part of a net centric solution to war fighting, it is neither small nor fast and does not have a great range.
I understand that what are now considered LPI links are being used for the data communication between the planes and other members of the strike package, how long will these links remain LPI?
The engine in an F35 is quite large and as discussed the plane cannot super cruise, except when loosing height and then allegedly only for a certain short time, implicitly the thermal signature of the engine will be quite high and thus moderately easy to target.
The cloak of invisibility and invincibility that the F35 is alleged to have I don’t think anyone is suggesting is like the Emperor with no cloths, non-existent, rather it is of rather lower quality than that worn by an F22 or a B2.
Once the true performance of the F35 has been understood, I am sure that appropriate tactics can be developed, slightly different ones will obviously be needed for first day of war strike as to those needed for an F35 engaged in National Air Defence with externally mounted missiles.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf_50,
thanks for the link, water is just very thick air
and the similarity with radar would be there. It does need more than theory and I guess it's one of the reasons they put the f-35 on a pole on an outdoor range for some of the testing.
PhilipG,
they are saying the f-35 has better RCS than a B-2 and is only second to the f-22. They are also saying the f-35 has better 'stealth' than the f-22
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/g...-war-starts/3/
. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”
Bear in mind that the F-35 is the first US aircraft designed to the requirement that it be highly effective at neutralizing S-400 systems and their cousins.
“The F-35 was fundamentally designed to go do that sort of thing [take out advanced IADS]. The problem is, with the lack of F-22s, I’m going to have to use F-35s in the air superiority role in the early phases as well, which is another reason why I need all 1,763. I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,” the general says. “Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”
thanks for the link, water is just very thick air
and the similarity with radar would be there. It does need more than theory and I guess it's one of the reasons they put the f-35 on a pole on an outdoor range for some of the testing.PhilipG,
they are saying the f-35 has better RCS than a B-2 and is only second to the f-22. They are also saying the f-35 has better 'stealth' than the f-22
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/g...-war-starts/3/
. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.”
Bear in mind that the F-35 is the first US aircraft designed to the requirement that it be highly effective at neutralizing S-400 systems and their cousins.
“The F-35 was fundamentally designed to go do that sort of thing [take out advanced IADS]. The problem is, with the lack of F-22s, I’m going to have to use F-35s in the air superiority role in the early phases as well, which is another reason why I need all 1,763. I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,” the general says. “Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”
Last edited by a1bill; 16th Dec 2015 at 15:16.
“Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”
I guess one has to dumb this down when speaking to those outside the profession --- the press.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[So] I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”
-RP
That statement is a contradiction in terms surely? If 'he' needs eight F-35's to go after a target which only requires two F-22's, then how can the (8) F-35's be 'equally or more effective'? By definition if you need eight of one aircraft instead of two of another, the eight aircraft are less effective!
-RP
-RP
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf_50, that was what the smile was for.
my take on it is for A2A, where they make up for the f-22's ability to 'turn and run' is 8 f-35 = 2 f-22 and is a very bold statement that the f-35 wouldn't need to "turn and run' with those numbers and the f-22 could have to.
my take on it is for A2A, where they make up for the f-22's ability to 'turn and run' is 8 f-35 = 2 f-22 and is a very bold statement that the f-35 wouldn't need to "turn and run' with those numbers and the f-22 could have to.
Last edited by a1bill; 16th Dec 2015 at 16:33.
A1bill,
I still fail to see why you keep pushing this assertion in response to people's replies to you. I do not question the source, content or value of the data collected. If you read posts properly you will see (although, given your record in that department, I doubt it) that it is the full sharing and application of that information that I am discussing.
As usual, you carefully ignore all the other points that members here address to you.
Originally Posted by a1bill
My own comparison with the f-22 is that the same data and testing ranges for the F-22 would have been used for the f-35. so accept or reject both.
As usual, you carefully ignore all the other points that members here address to you.
A1bill,
I wouldn't be too worried about a link concerning the sharing of classified US information - it is not an area that anyone is likely to discuss in any detail in the media.
You might explain a statement you have made twice now.
So, you claim "they" are saying that RCS goes in the order F-22, F-35, B-2, but that the stealth properties put F-35 ahead of F-22; you don't place B-2 in that latter league. The important aspect of this apparent dichotomy is what other EM properties lead to your conclusion?
I wouldn't be too worried about a link concerning the sharing of classified US information - it is not an area that anyone is likely to discuss in any detail in the media.
You might explain a statement you have made twice now.
they are saying the f-35 has better RCS than a B-2 and is only second to the f-22. They are also saying the f-35 has better 'stealth' than the f-22
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they are saying the f-35 has better RCS than a B-2 and is only second to the f-22.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CM, as soon as I see someone say the f-35 has better 'stealth' than the B-2, I will tell you, until now I haven't seen it.
we talled about this back on P404 and I think by stealth he means REC given his statement
"We’ve taken it to a different level," O’Bryan said. The stealth of the production F-35—verified in radar cross section tests performed on classified western test ranges—is better than that of any aircraft other than the F-22.
I'm still waiting for you to say why you think the testing doesn't resolve what you said
Bevo, in the public forum, this is all we have. general and sweeping statements
we talled about this back on P404 and I think by stealth he means REC given his statement
"We’ve taken it to a different level," O’Bryan said. The stealth of the production F-35—verified in radar cross section tests performed on classified western test ranges—is better than that of any aircraft other than the F-22.
I'm still waiting for you to say why you think the testing doesn't resolve what you said
I get your point, LO, but I suspect there is a tougher obstacle and that will be truly understanding what the capability is. As the design relies so heavily on its three dimensional RCS, the starting point will have to be a thorough (and honest) understanding of its detectability at various aspects against various systems. And that doesn't just mean sticking it up as Red Air in an all US exercise against F-16s in that big container just north of Area 51 where its speed disadvantage is no longer a factor. Getting that part wrong will be potentially fatal to any tactical development.
That very sensitive data is also going to have to be communicated to partner nations without the usual NOFORN deadlock. A real version and a releasable version should make for interesting times.
That very sensitive data is also going to have to be communicated to partner nations without the usual NOFORN deadlock. A real version and a releasable version should make for interesting times.
Last edited by a1bill; 16th Dec 2015 at 18:10.
You're still waiting? Then read! As I told you, I have no issue with the source, content or value of the data. Disclosure is a different matter as is the analysis and tactical application. The bottom line is that the RCS models will have shapes that are relevant to my statement and to tactical deployment. Do you have any experience in tactics and analysis? You might also consider Bevo's point.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...