More delays for the F-35
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly the potential opposition to the F-35 think there must be something in this stealth idea, otherwise why develop PAK-FA and J-20?
What gnaws away at me about stealth, is the way that it imposes limitations on what would otherwise be more straightforward design matters, and it is a one-shot system. If it gets busted by a spotty kid in a attic with an IPod, two baked bean cans and a bit of string, this would seriously undermine it's credentials. We will have paid a huge price for the capability.
In my own simplistic way, I rationalise the airframe as being one of the (relatively) more standard parts of an airborne weapon, and lots of the differentiating bits being the wizardry that gets stuffed inside it or in the pods hanging under the wing. That way, longevity can be improved and even some of the very old-timers learn new tricks by upgrading that wizardry and glueing any structural airframe bits back together when they break (does my lack of technical expertise show?). When the airframe is also part of the wizardry, is that just as upgradeable?
NaB - I'm not quite that pessimistic regarding the availability of skills, talent or ideas for follow-on combat aircraft - whatever they may look like.
Our problem is that since 1995, two of the world's few combat aircraft design enterprises have been locked into the mind-set that the future is one aircraft, with a particular balance of "classic" fighter attributes and stealth. Until Boeing started thinking aloud a few months ago, nobody had shown so much as an air-show model of anything else.
I suspect that if the call went out to take Block II SH (or similar) avionics, and a pair of 414 EPEs, and wrap them in a longer-range, lower-sig dustcover - but with some serious limits as to how much the customer could pay for RCS - we could see some very interesting ideas.
Also, if you look at where the French have gone and are going, they seem to be saying that reduced signatures + EW + DEAD (Rafale) has continued potential, and that very low signatures are a better match with a UCAV (Neuron) to deal with double-digit SAMs.
Not to say they are right - but so far, despite a ton of money, we haven't seen that the F-22/JSF philosophy is right either.
Our problem is that since 1995, two of the world's few combat aircraft design enterprises have been locked into the mind-set that the future is one aircraft, with a particular balance of "classic" fighter attributes and stealth. Until Boeing started thinking aloud a few months ago, nobody had shown so much as an air-show model of anything else.
I suspect that if the call went out to take Block II SH (or similar) avionics, and a pair of 414 EPEs, and wrap them in a longer-range, lower-sig dustcover - but with some serious limits as to how much the customer could pay for RCS - we could see some very interesting ideas.
Also, if you look at where the French have gone and are going, they seem to be saying that reduced signatures + EW + DEAD (Rafale) has continued potential, and that very low signatures are a better match with a UCAV (Neuron) to deal with double-digit SAMs.
Not to say they are right - but so far, despite a ton of money, we haven't seen that the F-22/JSF philosophy is right either.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
or types - if we eventually found a crock of gold at the end of the rainbow and went down the Growler and Hawkeye routes as well
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When is everyone going to understand that by the time the F-35 comes into service, its stealth technology will be irrelevant? Advancing technologies in passive radar will make the current coatings pointless. If the B-2 and F-117 could really be picked up by disturbances in the signals from mobile phone masts ten years ago, it fair to assume that by the time the F-35 starts to become available in numbers in ten years time, then 20 years of development of passive techniques will have rendered todays stealth technology obsolete. Some of yo are talking of these aircraft flying for another 40 years - by which time the "stealth" will be 50 years old.
Its not as if thee aircraft will be capable of re-engineering as new technologies arrive: new techniques such as the visible and radar metamaterials now been worked on need to be incorporated at the design stage. not bolted on later.
These aircraft will only have a short windows of time in which they will be useful - and at present speeds they are going to be 7-10 years too late
Its not as if thee aircraft will be capable of re-engineering as new technologies arrive: new techniques such as the visible and radar metamaterials now been worked on need to be incorporated at the design stage. not bolted on later.
These aircraft will only have a short windows of time in which they will be useful - and at present speeds they are going to be 7-10 years too late
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Milo,
Genuine question if I may. I am aware that the early LO technologies could be detected by disturbance etc, I had it explained to me once that they would be detected by the WW2 style 'chain home' system for example.
My question is: How do you construct a kill chain armed with this knowledge?
Sounding slightly sarcastic (which I promise you I'm not being) I am not aware of a 'disturbance in mobile telephone system-homing missile'.
Which I think leads me to the conclusion that so long as LO defeats one link in the kill chain, be it AI radar or target illuminator, or target tracking radar, IR seeker head (you get the point) then it has beaten the threat, hasn't it?
If I were flying one is it not immaterial if RAF Uxbridge could see me, if the SU-30 driver and the SA-15 gunner couldn't?
As always, prepared for incoming.
Genuine question if I may. I am aware that the early LO technologies could be detected by disturbance etc, I had it explained to me once that they would be detected by the WW2 style 'chain home' system for example.
My question is: How do you construct a kill chain armed with this knowledge?
Sounding slightly sarcastic (which I promise you I'm not being) I am not aware of a 'disturbance in mobile telephone system-homing missile'.
Which I think leads me to the conclusion that so long as LO defeats one link in the kill chain, be it AI radar or target illuminator, or target tracking radar, IR seeker head (you get the point) then it has beaten the threat, hasn't it?
If I were flying one is it not immaterial if RAF Uxbridge could see me, if the SU-30 driver and the SA-15 gunner couldn't?
As always, prepared for incoming.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well...it is runoured (and I stress rumoured...) that the F-117 in Serbia was tracked partly through the phone network, before being killed visually when in range. The active radar was supposedly left "off" to avoid anti-radiation missiles, and only turned on briefly for confirmation
Think about it - all you need to know is the standard electromagnetic pattern in an area. Anything passing through it will case perturbation. All you need to do is have suitable detection equipment to measure the changes - its not much of a conceptual jump from monitoring magnetic anomalies produced by submarines...
If you push the technology far enough it should be possible to use other transmission systems as well - for instance the national grid power lines, which kick out a heck of an EMF field. Or more interestingly perhaps - its now becoming clear that fluorescent street lamps can be used for generating radio signals. If they were A:LL set to radiate in a known pattern, detecting low level anomalies shouldn't be too difficult
OK I'm talking hypothesis and conjecture here - and a lot of research cash. But it should be do-able
But to answer the question - if the defenders can avoid detection they don't need the passive radar to guide the missile. They just need to wait until the attacking aircraft is known to be in the kill zone - and then use other precise targeting.
Think WWII - the Chain Home / Chain Low stations didn't guide missiles. They simply guided other aircraft who then made the targeting decision.
Think about it - all you need to know is the standard electromagnetic pattern in an area. Anything passing through it will case perturbation. All you need to do is have suitable detection equipment to measure the changes - its not much of a conceptual jump from monitoring magnetic anomalies produced by submarines...
If you push the technology far enough it should be possible to use other transmission systems as well - for instance the national grid power lines, which kick out a heck of an EMF field. Or more interestingly perhaps - its now becoming clear that fluorescent street lamps can be used for generating radio signals. If they were A:LL set to radiate in a known pattern, detecting low level anomalies shouldn't be too difficult
OK I'm talking hypothesis and conjecture here - and a lot of research cash. But it should be do-able
But to answer the question - if the defenders can avoid detection they don't need the passive radar to guide the missile. They just need to wait until the attacking aircraft is known to be in the kill zone - and then use other precise targeting.
Think WWII - the Chain Home / Chain Low stations didn't guide missiles. They simply guided other aircraft who then made the targeting decision.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, to a degree.
GCI can see hostile. They could 'talk me onto it' but I can't employ any BVR AAM against it using my own gadget, so the kill chain is broken. So it's heater, gun or some other shot for me.
Meanwhile, the baddy knows I am here and is running a kill chain on me.
GCI can see hostile. They could 'talk me onto it' but I can't employ any BVR AAM against it using my own gadget, so the kill chain is broken. So it's heater, gun or some other shot for me.
Meanwhile, the baddy knows I am here and is running a kill chain on me.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Orca
But if the defending aircraft is a dedicated air-defence aircraft, surely its going to have the advantage? Especially if it has numerical superiority over the attacker.
Of course at the nub of your point is the detectability of the defender's comms signals by the attackers
But if the defending aircraft is a dedicated air-defence aircraft, surely its going to have the advantage? Especially if it has numerical superiority over the attacker.
Of course at the nub of your point is the detectability of the defender's comms signals by the attackers
Let's just say that if you hang out at defense shows, you'll see a lot of Chinese and Russian radar brochures and models that look like things from the 1950s, or giant mattress springs covered with BBC2 antennas (for those of us who remember when you could tell whose telly had BBC2)....
I'm not aware of how the F-35 handles VHF - the textbook answer is that it can't, very well. The next problem is that (1) the higher bands are in AESA, which means that if I think there is something out there in a one-mile-or-so box, I can look at it very closely and (2) tricks like track-before-detect are doable with modern processing. I can also network in my IRSTs.
Clearly it is the old cat-and-mouse game of radar, LO and EW. But it's not Central Europe or Desert Storm any more.
I'm not aware of how the F-35 handles VHF - the textbook answer is that it can't, very well. The next problem is that (1) the higher bands are in AESA, which means that if I think there is something out there in a one-mile-or-so box, I can look at it very closely and (2) tricks like track-before-detect are doable with modern processing. I can also network in my IRSTs.
Clearly it is the old cat-and-mouse game of radar, LO and EW. But it's not Central Europe or Desert Storm any more.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 53
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just some FYI,
March 6th today, the USAF will begin its first day of flight ops from Eglin.
very scripted and limited for now, but it's a start nonetheless.
USAF to begin F-35 JSF flight operations next week :: Strategic Defence Intelligence
March 6th today, the USAF will begin its first day of flight ops from Eglin.
very scripted and limited for now, but it's a start nonetheless.
USAF to begin F-35 JSF flight operations next week :: Strategic Defence Intelligence
USAF to begin F-35 JSF flight operations next week
By
Editorial
7 hours ago
The US Air Force’s (USAF) Air Education and Training Command (AETC) head general Edward Rice has issued a Military Flight Release to begin initial flight operations of F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JFS) at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, US.
The approval follows after an assessment conducted by an airworthiness board that evaluated potential risks and mitigation actions to conduct unmonitored flights.
Test pilots from the Eglin AFB, Lieutenant Colonel Eric Smith and Marine Major Joseph Bachmann will begin the operations on March 6,2012.
Initial flight operations will demonstrate the 33rd Fighter Wing’s new F-35As readiness and assess the robustness of the unit’s maintenance procedures while flying a series of local area flights.
Flights will be limited, scripted, conducted within the restrictions of the release while increasing pilot and maintainer familiarity with the aircraft.
By
Editorial
7 hours ago
The US Air Force’s (USAF) Air Education and Training Command (AETC) head general Edward Rice has issued a Military Flight Release to begin initial flight operations of F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JFS) at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, US.
The approval follows after an assessment conducted by an airworthiness board that evaluated potential risks and mitigation actions to conduct unmonitored flights.
Test pilots from the Eglin AFB, Lieutenant Colonel Eric Smith and Marine Major Joseph Bachmann will begin the operations on March 6,2012.
Initial flight operations will demonstrate the 33rd Fighter Wing’s new F-35As readiness and assess the robustness of the unit’s maintenance procedures while flying a series of local area flights.
Flights will be limited, scripted, conducted within the restrictions of the release while increasing pilot and maintainer familiarity with the aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With an LO airplane a little bit of jamming goes a long, long, way.
If only we had a high speed long range airplane, with enough power to carry 10 3000-5000 watt jammers to assist these LO airplanes.
Perhaps with a crew of pilot/EWO and a terrain following radar to help it sneak in to the edge of the high threat area.
Would not an airplane like that go with an LO airplane like peanut butter goes with jelly?
If only we had a high speed long range airplane, with enough power to carry 10 3000-5000 watt jammers to assist these LO airplanes.
Perhaps with a crew of pilot/EWO and a terrain following radar to help it sneak in to the edge of the high threat area.
Would not an airplane like that go with an LO airplane like peanut butter goes with jelly?
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Localised jamming of a passive system is surely going to simply highlight the presence of the aircraft you are trying to hide.
To make it work you would have to take out the countries entire potential passive networks. You'd need something on the scale of the old Russian "Woodpecker" OTH radar - remember how that used to completely blat out short wave radio, but the harmonics would also be picked up by the phone system - blocking calls. I can even remember it blocking TV signals. That was 10MW or thereabouts. How much power would you need to flatten a countries mobile phone networks? Could that be broadcast continuously from an aircraft? And how do you localise it so the neighbours don't complain? But whats the danger that the signal itself can be used as a radio source for passive tracking of the aircraft you are trying to hide....???
A lot of imponderables that no-one who knows is going to answer. But I stand by my view that the delay in production will render the aircrafts technology totally irrelevant
PS and before anyone starts shouting that third world countries don't have mobile phone networks - many of them do. In many cases a mobile network is a cheaper capital project to build than a cabled system.
For instance, I suspect this map of the coverage of just one of Iran's six or so mobile phone networks covers most likely targets
Mobile World Live - Coverage Maps
To make it work you would have to take out the countries entire potential passive networks. You'd need something on the scale of the old Russian "Woodpecker" OTH radar - remember how that used to completely blat out short wave radio, but the harmonics would also be picked up by the phone system - blocking calls. I can even remember it blocking TV signals. That was 10MW or thereabouts. How much power would you need to flatten a countries mobile phone networks? Could that be broadcast continuously from an aircraft? And how do you localise it so the neighbours don't complain? But whats the danger that the signal itself can be used as a radio source for passive tracking of the aircraft you are trying to hide....???
A lot of imponderables that no-one who knows is going to answer. But I stand by my view that the delay in production will render the aircrafts technology totally irrelevant
PS and before anyone starts shouting that third world countries don't have mobile phone networks - many of them do. In many cases a mobile network is a cheaper capital project to build than a cabled system.
For instance, I suspect this map of the coverage of just one of Iran's six or so mobile phone networks covers most likely targets
Mobile World Live - Coverage Maps
Last edited by Milo Minderbinder; 6th Mar 2012 at 02:16.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Localised jamming of a passive system is surely going to simply highlight the presence of the aircraft you are trying to hide.
How much power would you need to flatten a countries mobile phone networks?
But whats the danger that the signal itself can be used as a radio source for passive tracking of the aircraft you are trying to hide....???
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US has dedicated jamming aircraft, but, as I understand it, this is not a capability the UK possesses. I believe it is a potential weak-point across most European defences.
An attraction of F35 to the UK would be if it could act independently of such support, as we are struggling to afford carriers and strike aircraft, before we get to things like AEW and jamming platforms. If F35's Day 1 capability depends upon dedicated jamming support, it is difficult to see when the UK would be able to operate F35 independently of the US in a sophisticated IADS environment, at least until we could afford our own capability - which looks a very long way off at present.
Or have I got my facts wrong here?
An attraction of F35 to the UK would be if it could act independently of such support, as we are struggling to afford carriers and strike aircraft, before we get to things like AEW and jamming platforms. If F35's Day 1 capability depends upon dedicated jamming support, it is difficult to see when the UK would be able to operate F35 independently of the US in a sophisticated IADS environment, at least until we could afford our own capability - which looks a very long way off at present.
Or have I got my facts wrong here?
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in the magical land of beer and chocolates
Age: 53
Posts: 506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Australian evaluation
Evaluation of the Australian overseeing commitee for the JSF program
has been made public, quite an interesting read for those that are interested;
ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 07/02/2012 : Department of Defence annual report 2010-11
and short excerpt,
Australian Committee Hearing Reveals Details of F-35 Performance in Wargame
has been made public, quite an interesting read for those that are interested;
ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 07/02/2012 : Department of Defence annual report 2010-11
and short excerpt,
Australian Committee Hearing Reveals Details of F-35 Performance in Wargame
These results have been compared with a rare public disclosure and they show that the model is scaled correctly. It is putting it in the right order. You would not expect an F35 to be able to take on an advanced fighter like the C35 (chinese Su 35). Its correct nomenclature should not be F35; it should be A35. It is an attack aircraft. To reinvent it as an air superiority weapon is a complete mistake. It is not.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Evaluation of the Australian overseeing committee for the JSF program....., quite an interesting read....
Cpl Jones: 'Don't panic, don't panic..'
Pte Fraser: 'We're doomed, doomed I tell you'
edit: Apologies to non-UK readers - a reference to catch-phrases from characters in a well-known UK TV comedy programme.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That certainly makes interesting reading, although the Defense Aerospace article notes that those giving evidence are already noted opponents of the F-35, so perhaps not completely objective....
Where do they get the full capabilities of the Su 35 from, compared to the obviously common knowledge of the full capabilities of F35, to model from? I can't see the RAAF, USAF or LM handing over anything like the required information to be accurate whereas the Russians and Chinese are renowned for being free and easy with their military capabilities.
This statement also worries me: 'hypothesis that in 2018 the Chinese would have developed high frequency over-the-horizon radar which would defeat the stealth characteristics of both the F22 and the F35".
I read this as they ran the simulation using a capability that does not exist - where do you get performance data sufficent to accurately model on those systems??
Other comments such as:" the T50 PAK FA has been specifically designed to go up against, and be competitive with, and defeat, the F22A, the Raptor" seem to automatically conclude that they can.
"Russia and China are now well advanced in their production of advanced stealth fighters specifically intended to be competitive with the superior United States F22A Raptor" - Russia have 3 PAK-FAs, China has possibly 2 J20s in early flight test. Sounds like he's overstating the case a wee bit.
The report concludes with the statement that Australia is buying the wrong aircraft as the Russians and Chinese already have better. Does this mean that Australia should actually buy Su 35 instead?
I'm not saying that F-35 would wipe the floor with Su35, how would I know, but I feel that this 'simulation' and subsequent briefing to a Parliamentary Committee has significant holes in its logic.
Where do they get the full capabilities of the Su 35 from, compared to the obviously common knowledge of the full capabilities of F35, to model from? I can't see the RAAF, USAF or LM handing over anything like the required information to be accurate whereas the Russians and Chinese are renowned for being free and easy with their military capabilities.
This statement also worries me: 'hypothesis that in 2018 the Chinese would have developed high frequency over-the-horizon radar which would defeat the stealth characteristics of both the F22 and the F35".
I read this as they ran the simulation using a capability that does not exist - where do you get performance data sufficent to accurately model on those systems??
Other comments such as:" the T50 PAK FA has been specifically designed to go up against, and be competitive with, and defeat, the F22A, the Raptor" seem to automatically conclude that they can.
"Russia and China are now well advanced in their production of advanced stealth fighters specifically intended to be competitive with the superior United States F22A Raptor" - Russia have 3 PAK-FAs, China has possibly 2 J20s in early flight test. Sounds like he's overstating the case a wee bit.
The report concludes with the statement that Australia is buying the wrong aircraft as the Russians and Chinese already have better. Does this mean that Australia should actually buy Su 35 instead?
I'm not saying that F-35 would wipe the floor with Su35, how would I know, but I feel that this 'simulation' and subsequent briefing to a Parliamentary Committee has significant holes in its logic.
Last edited by WhiteOvies; 6th Mar 2012 at 17:40.