F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Courtney Mil]

A1Bill,

We went through the whole simulation evaluation thing for JSFfan's benefit back in 2013, so I don't intend to back over the predicted kill ratios now. From my years of involvement with BVR Combat Simulation (COEIA process) I should remind you of two important points regarding the JSF "trials".

First, even with extremely high-fidelity aircraft, systems and weapons modelling, this simulation is extremely effective at predicting the effects of changes to any subject model, but not so good at running direct, baseline comparisons between aircraft types. This latter issue is especially true when when using desired or expected performance data - all that is available in early development or concept phases.

Second, the outcomes are extremely sensitive to minor changes in aircraft, systems and weapons characteristics. These outcomes are further influenced by the statistical analysis applied to the raw data - don't think for a moment that twenty blokes disappear into a fancy sim for a couple of weeks and come saying "we beat them 6:1 so we know how good it is."

With two "features" of BVR combat simulation in mind you should be able to understand that the results of comparing Aircraft A against Aircraft B need to be properly understood in the context of EXACTLY what the trial was designed to evaluate. The effect of minor inaccuracies in aircraft, systems and weapons characteristics on outcomes is often disproportionate to the scale of the inaccuracies; this means that assumptions about future aircraft performance are critical limitations. The JSF trials were conducted at a very early stage of development when certain characteristics were still reasonable, but ambitious aspirations AND certain elements of the baseline data were reset in 2012. The outcomes would certainly be affected by both those factors.

The results of the trials that were used to support the LER figures must be caveated anyway and are invalidated to an unknown degree by the changes in baseline data.

[a1bill]

So the air force sims are wrong, in your opinion. public announcement and know baseline are two different things. back in early 2000's they announced the f-35 isn't going to reach all non-KPP. the base line was announced in 2012, the report to parliament was 2012.

Although they do say they are conservative with sim specs and give the example of the f-22 in exercises exceeding the sim data. They also say the piloted sims give better results too. They also gave the increase from 3:1 to 400% to 6:1 because of the greater knowledge.

I hope you don't mind if I take the various air forces opinions, rather than forum chatter. I also think the UK have a fair idea of the Typhoon, if they ran it as the 4th gen with the F-35 in a sim.
The RAAF said it's possible to lose with the f-35 in the sim (statement to parliament) but you have to try hard.

[PhilipG]

a1bill,

A simulation is an approximation of what is thought might happen. As far as many people know the performance envelopes of the F35, be these software, aerodynamics or communication performance envelopes have yet to be established.

As such it is quite easy to give the F35 performance characteristics in the simulator that show the plane up in a positive light, sadly these performance characteristics may well not be the ones that the final IOC / FOC aircraft has.

You may recall that according to the simulator the F35C could land on an aircraft carrier, when the test aircraft tried to land on a dummy deck with arrestor wires it became apparent that a redesign was required.

A very good simulator as CM states is good at showing the effects of changes to a system not necessarily the interactions of two systems.

I think that we all accept that the performance of the F35 is as yet an unknown quantity thus difficult to accurately simulate, how much comfort do we have that the performance characteristics of the red force is accurate?

[Courtney Mil]

Originally Posted by A1Bill

So the air force sims are wrong

Where, exactly did I say that? I was simply explaining the facts behind this type of simulation, the sensitivity of modelling to data accuracy and the caveats associated with derived data analysis and interpretation.

Your response is based on the usual attempt to rubbish what I'm telling you from first-hand knowledge and to dismiss it as "forum chatter". Just restating the same public forum claims does not address the limitations of the simulations. I think even you should be able to do better than that.

You might also explain two more things for us all. Which "Air Force" simulators do you think they used? What do you mean by running Typhoon with F-35 in a sim? These are important points to clear up because your statements about both points suggests that you may not understand how the simulator trials have to be run and therefore you wouldn't know what the limitations are. PhilipG has just given you further insight into the reasons for this.

[MSOCS]

a1Bill,

CM is right. Highly subjective and without the full story and setups it's just another pro-F35 story that irritates many on this forum.

Anything that really gives an indication of capability is deeply protected and not in the public domain so a 6:1 LER is a sound bite without credibility. I'm sorry but as CM says, this issue was table tennis-ed in 2013 around 4,000,000 posts ago.

The higher echelons of the military, politicians and senior government wheels will have been briefed categorically on the capability and potential capability of the jet. That's a big reason that these little snags (as we wade through the custard of SDD) don't really make a huge difference on their opinion. Gilmore is paid and employed to turn over every stone and say exactly what he sees is wrong. He's holding the Program to account and rightly so. It's the ONLY way to ensure it's fixed ASAP and gets prioritised. If he's knocking heads with the Program then I can only imagine it's because a lot of folks there have vested time and care about the JSF, so take it personally. That's a human reaction but probably futile. There's a lot of that on this thread as you know.

[KenV]

KenV: You're still here. a1bill is still here, as are MSOCS and FODPlod. So it's hard to see how you're being suppressed.

L.O., It's interesting you mention that you find it "hard to see." I find that a rather telling admission. To help you see:

1. I was declared a troll, a liar, a phony, a wannabe, a poser and various and sundry other epithets not worthy of posting here and to be personally attacked at every opportunity. To quote another poster on this forum: "What is avoidable and rather sad is that much of this chatter is aggressive and personal in nature." Is such aggressive and personal "chatter" suppression? Dunno. No longer care. But it sure felt like suppression at the time. Interestingly, some of it is still going on. Very recently (as in three days ago) I was repeatedly baited by multiple members of the orthodox faith and I had to say repeatedly: "I'm not biting" and "Still not biting". I'll let you decide if that is a form of suppression or not.

2. I was NOT "here" for several weeks. Locked out. I'll let you decide if that is a form of suppression or not.

[Engines]

Use and Fidelity of Simulations

PhilipG,

Perhaps I can help shed some light here.

Unfortunately, your example of the F-35C tail hook is a little off beam. The simulator process on F-35C certainly looked at the ability of the aircraft to approach the carrier in a controlled way at the required speed and sink rate. (Plus lots of other stuff) Engagement with the arresting wire was assumed, because (and this is important) there is no way of reliably simulating the engagement of a moving hook with a deck wire.

This is why a deliberate series of physical tests were planned and carried out to check hook/wire engagement. The F-35C's problem was found on the first series of tests (low speed taxying into the wires). The fixes were developed and re-tested, leading to successful hook/wire engagements on board. This is not an unusual issue - a number of naval aircraft have encountered hook or landing problems. Taking the wire is a hard thing to do, and that's why the USN relied on physical tests, not simulations.

With modern combat aircraft that rely on a large number of factors to achieve success (including signature. complex weapons and data linkages), and the massive increases in simulation capability, the role of simulations has increased. Indeed, in some areas (e.g. defensive aids systems) the ONLY way that a system can be really tested is via some form of simulation (often called 'hardware in the loop').

In the USA, DOT&E has a lot of clout, and its business is (mostly) conducted in public. It would be nice if the UK had an independent OT&E system (it doesn't) and the results were aired in public (they most definitely aren't). That would stop some of the shenanigans that have taken place in the UK in the last few years, (that I can't reveal in open forums) to achieve a supposed 'IOC'.

It's not a binary case of 'simulation bad' or 'real world testing good'. There are good reasons to use simulations, and good reasons to question the outputs. Like most aspects of combat aircraft development, you use all the tools available.
I remember analysing the UK's simulation of air to air gun engagements, which was so badly set up that it was giving ridiculous results. Sadly, the results were accepted as 'truth' and influenced the decision to delete the Typhoon's gun. As ever it's 'garbage in garbage out'.

MSOCS is bang on the money. Simulations give an indication, the actual data and results are very highly classified, and much of what is going on here (both pro and anti) is 'forum chatter'. What is avoidable and rather sad is that much of this chatter is aggressive and personal in nature. Which is why I now seldom post.

Best regards as ever to those sorting the data, making the decisions, and working the programme.

Engines

[a1bill]

MSOCS, The air force had it at 3:1 in 2008 and the air force/s has increased it to 6:1 in 2012, because of more knowledge. If the groups involved in the sim weren't confident of their simed assessment, wouldn't they would have left it at 3:1 till they fly it in full exercises? It's of no consequence to general public whether it's 3 or 6 to 1.

this is where the 6:1 came from. Jensen repeats APA for political points.
ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 20/03/2012 : Department of Defence annual report 2010-11

[Backinblack]

The epic of the F-35 will never end

[MSOCS]

a1Bill, I'm aware of the background and content but thanks for the link nonetheless. The problem is that posting such things will invoke a hard response because a lot of folk around here understand the nuances and sensitivities of simulation all too well. I'm trying to help get things back to reasoned, educated debate, as pointless as that seems.

Engines - thanks for the background re:F-35C. As always, a pleasure to learn from you.

I too despair at the constant goading that goes on here. It is far too personal at times. Those who have been bullies know it.

Anyway, back to the grind!

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Backinblack

The epic of the F-35 will never end

Then maybe it should be called Ben Hur, or The Last Air Ben Hur. (Obscure movie reference, play on words).

It's expensive and late to the party. That's been my position for about a decade. That it will be put to good use I don't doubt.

[a1bill]

MSOCS, I understand that it has a hard response from those that have had previous experience from the era in which they served. However Liberson isn't a slouch when it comes to sims either.
Gary Liberson, who is on his right, has 22 years of experience as an operations analyst and research engineer with McDonnell Douglas, the RAND Corporation, and Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. He has extensive experience with combat analysis, methodologies and analysis techniques. He is considered an expert in Brawler, Thunder, Suppressor, SeaFan and PacWar constructive simulation tools. His areas of expertise include combat aircraft systems and tactics as well as advanced threat analysis.

The link is a long page but this is my summary of it.

Mr Burbage : We do a lot of analysis at Lockheed Martin. We use validated and accepted air force detailed campaign-level tools. We also put loop in simulations and high-fidelity cockpit type simulations. I do not know where that data (3:1) came from—Gary may have a better feel for it—but that is not what the current assessment shows. Again, you are pulling information from before we had the full definition of what this airplane can do.

Mr Liberson : Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than six to one relative loss exchange ratio against in four versus eight engagement scenarios—four blue at 35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.

Mr Burbage : It is probably also important to add that pilots from the Royal Australian Air Force, all the participating nations' air forces and all three US services have come into the manned tactical simulator, the pilot-in-the-loop high-fidelity simulation of an advanced high-threat environment. They have actually flown the airplane in that environment, and the results of those simulations show that the airplane is effectively meeting its operational requirements.

Mr Liberson : And it is very important to note that our constructive simulations that Mr Burbage talks about without the pilot in the loop are the lowest number that we talk about—the greater than six to one. When we include the pilot in the loop activities, they even do better when we include all of that in our partner manned tactical simulation facility.

Mr Burbage : We actually have a fifth-gen airplane flying today. The F22 has been in many exercises. We have one of the pilots here who flew it and they can tell you that in any real-world event it is much better than the simulations forecast. We have F35 flying today; it has not been put into that scenario yet, but we have very high quality information on the capability of the sensors and the capability of the airplane, and we have represented the airplane fairly and appropriately in these large-scale campaign models that we are using. But it is not just us—it is our air force; it is your air force; it is all the other participating nations that do this; it is our navy and our marine corps that do these exercises. It is not Lockheed in a closet genning up some sort of result.

Air Cdre Bentley : All of the defence officials who are appropriately cleared in all of the nations that are participating in this country know exactly what we have briefed, what those briefings entail and what the analysis entails, and they have chosen F35. .... Believe the nine best air forces in the world as far as their operators and their analysts are concerned and I think that you will come to realise that it is not us telling the story; it is them telling the story to their governments and their governments making a decision to go forward with this aeroplane.

[MSOCS]

a1Bill, let me phrase my point another way.

Folks on this thread that don't like the Program or the jet are, frankly, of no consequence to its success. It will, inexorably, march forward and continue to deliver - orders in LRIP and FRP will fluctuate a little, that's a given. The last paragraph you've pasted, from Air Cdre Bentley, reflects my opinion 100%.

This aircraft will be the backbone of 9 'Air Forces' and many more, for the next half century. That prospect worries a LOT of companies that make tactical fighters. They like to poke holes and distrust where they can to preserve their future piece of the fighter pie. Media is the only real way to do this.

Of course, if one wants an argument, this is the place to come for sure.

[ORAC]

This aircraft will be the backbone of 9 'Air Forces' and many more, for the next half decade. That prospect worries a LOT of companies that make tactical fighters.

Geez, a service life of only 5 years.... built in obsolescence is getting really crazy these days.

[KenV]

Air Cdre Bentley : All of the defence officials who are appropriately cleared in all of the nations that are participating in this country know exactly what we have briefed, what those briefings entail and what the analysis entails, and they have chosen F35. .... Believe the nine best air forces in the world as far as their operators and their analysts are concerned and I think that you will come to realise that it is not us telling the story; it is them telling the story to their governments and their governments making a decision to go forward with this aeroplane.

Pffffft. What does he know? Besides, he's probably a bought and paid for stooge of LM anyway.




And for those who missed it last time.............yes, that was sarcasm.

[LowObservable]

As CM stated, this topic has been wrung out exhaustively over this thread.

I also agree with CM (because it's clearly the truth) that small changes in the ground rules and assumptions in a simulation can bring about large changes to the outcome.

It's also a question of fact, not opinion, that the F-35 doesn't bring any improvement in firepower, speed or agility to air combat; consequently (and this is backed up by many briefings and statements) its claimed loss-exchange-ratio advantage must stem from stealth and fusion creating a highly asymmetric "see first, shoot first" situation.

Although properly that should be "see first, identify first, shoot first". And that's where the questions arise. DRFM jamming, digital passive EW and selective RCS reduction make LPI radar much more challenging than it used to be. IRST has made some very important advances.

It makes things more complicated, and I think it's ambitious to assume in the 2020s that you'll be able to track an aircraft on radar without being detected.

[Courtney Mil]

A1Bill,

As you decline to answer my points, let me make a comment on your "summary" and compare just your first three quoted paragraphs with the original. For some reason you have moved things around and ommitted parts of the discussion and in so doing changed the context of the discussion in a way that makes it appear that the statements that were made were accepted as you have represented them.

I have used bold on the bits you edited out.

I have marked in red a paragraph that is from much earlier in the discussion that you have moved and, therefore, changed its context completely.

Mr Burbage : We do a lot of analysis at Lockheed Martin. We use validated and accepted air force detailed campaign-level tools. We also put loop in simulations and high-fidelity cockpit type simulations. I do not know where that data came from—Gary may have a better feel for it—but that is not what the current assessment shows. Again, you are pulling information from before we had the full definition of what this airplane can do.

Mr ADAMS: These guys need to know where we are getting this—

ACTING CHAIR: I told them Aviation Week and Space Technology.

Mr ADAMS: Okay—sorry.

Mr Liberson : Our current assessment that we speak of is: greater than six to one relative loss exchange ratio against in four versus eight engagement scenarios—four blue at 35s versus eight advanced red threats in the 2015 to 2020 time frame.


ACTING CHAIR: What are those advanced threats?

Mr Liberson: I cannot get into the specifics of those advanced threats. They are classified.

ACTING CHAIR: This says Su27. My concern with that is that Su27 is an old aeroplane. You could be analysing it against camels. How are we supposed to take this when you are saying, 'We're not going to tell you what threats we're analysing'?

Air Cdre Bentley: Doctor, I think I have already answered that. We have provided that analysis to all the participating nations and to all their officials. They have all of the details of those threats and all of the details of those analyses. Each of those nations, each of those experts in those nations, have taken that analysis and have done analysis of their own and have come up with an agreed position, that the F35 is the best aeroplane for them.

ACTING CHAIR: The point that I am making is that here you have obviously reported, as has the United States Air Force, when you were wanting to sell a story. You have said what the threats were; you have said it is Su27 and MiG29. We are not asking for details of the exact geometry of the analysis, what assumptions were made about ECM or anything else. All we are asking is, for instance: was the MIG29 analysed; was the PAC FA analysed; was the J20 analysed? We do not want to know the specifics.

Air Cdre Bentley: Dr Jensen, if you were to receive a classified briefing, you would be able to understand what those threats were and how that analysis was done.

Mr Burbage: It is probably also important to add that pilots from the Royal Australian Air Force, all the participating nations' air forces and all three US services have come into the manned tactical simulator, the pilot-in-the-loop high-fidelity simulation of an advanced high-threat environment. They have actually flown the airplane in that environment, and the results of those simulations show that the airplane is effectively meeting its operational requirements.

Your final paragraph is again moved and was actually in response to a question from the Acting Chair who was trying to ascertain what the trials had involved. Burbage and Liberson were continually dodging the question on the grounds of security. You also missed off the beginning of the quote thus; again the bits you missed out is in bold:

Air Cdre Bentley : No, it is not an excuse. All of the defence officials who are appropriately cleared in all of the nations that are participating in this country know exactly what we have briefed, what those briefings entail and what the analysis entails, and they have chosen F35. If you are purporting to be a huge—

ACTING CHAIR: So what you are saying is, 'Believe us; we've got all the classified data in a brown paper bag'—

Air Cdre Bentley: Believe the nine best air forces in the world as far as their operators and their analysts are concerned and I think that you will come to realise that it is not us telling the story; it is them telling the story to their governments and their governments making a decision to go forward with this aeroplane.

Now why would you deliberately change the order of those statements in such a misleading way? Unlike your version of events, the briefing was not accepted quite as readily as you suggest.

[a1bill]

The link was there and I said "The link is a long page but this is my summary of it.." I posted the answers, I saw relevant and left out the stuff I thought wasn't. "No, it is not an excuse." isn't relevant. Jensen was on a roll with his APA stuff, demanding that LM disclose classified stuff.. as I said when I posted the link. "Jensen repeats APA for political points."

I was thinking of putting this in from on of jensen's questions "Lockheed Martin and USAF analysts put the loss-exchange ratio at 30:1 for the F22, 3:1 for the F35 and 1:1 or less for the F15, FA18 and F16. Is that Lockheed Martin's view? It says here that that was both analysis by Lockheed Martin analysts and the USAF" but went with (3:1) in an answer instead..

" Yes, and you can take that on notice. In terms of simulations and so on there was a report in Aviation Week and Space Technology called 'Raptor's edge', written by David Fulghum. It said the operational arguments focus on combat effectiveness against top foreign fighter aircraft such as the Russian Su27 and MiG29. Lockheed Martin and USAF analysts put the loss-exchange ratio at 30:1 for the F22, 3:1 for the F35 and 1:1 or less for the F15, FA18 and F16. Is that Lockheed Martin's view? It says here that that was both analysis by Lockheed Martin analysts and the USAF.

Mr Burbage : Time has moved on since 2008 and we know a lot more about this airplane now than we knew then."

"Mr Burbage : We do a lot of analysis at Lockheed Martin. We use validated and accepted air force detailed campaign-level tools. We also put loop in simulations and high-fidelity cockpit type simulations. I do not know where that data (3:1) came from—Gary may have a better feel for it—but that is not what the current assessment shows. Again, you are pulling information from before we had the full definition of what this airplane can do."

This is really nit picking of you in my view.

[LowObservable]

What sources, methods, capabilities or other sensitive information would be compromised by identifying the "advanced threat" as, for instance, an Su-27S, an Su-30MK, or an Su-35S? None at all.

However, the threat level that each one presents is very different. The first-gen aircraft had analog RWR and were very dependent on ground control. The MK can carry jamming systems that can give an AIM-120 a few problems. The Su-35S has digital passive EW, integrated jamming and RCS reduction. That doesn't mean it can't be detected but it complicates LPI detection and tracking.

You may think those issues are nit-picking, but you'd be wrong.

[a1bill]

MSOCS, Yes, I did agree with your points, but was highlighting where I differed a bit. I think that the Air Force has the best data and sims going. What they say has to be very high acceptance in my view and they would be aware of all that is good and bad in sims. yet they doubled it from 3 to 6:1

"Media is the only real way to do this." that and buying politicians with donations though having jurno's on the payroll doesn't hurt either.

@LO. your link said what 4th gen they sim from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-relea...-65133117.html didn't you read it?

"F-35 Lightning II is at least
400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best
fighters currently available in the international market.

The Air Force's standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also
used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance, pitted the 5th
generation F-35 against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety
of simulated scenarios. The results were clear: the F-35 outperformed the
most highly evolved fighters in aerial combat by significant margins.

"In all F-35 Program Office and U.S. Air Force air-to-air combat
effectiveness analysis to date, the F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss
Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to
include Sukhois," said Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis, F-35 program executive
officer."