More delays for the F-35
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
Chinese -over the horizon- radar
Specifically commented on in the interview.
Senator JOHNSTON: Forgive me, I have not read the RepSim submission, if there is one. I think it is obviously important that we examine the assumptions that were made by you in the simulation with respect to the engagement in 2018. The interesting thing that I found is that you mentioned HF over-the-horizon radar. Can you tell me the range of that radar?
Mr Price : In December 2011, an ITU report on Chinese HF radar gives it a range of about 4,250 nautical miles. I have earlier 2011 reports that are further out, but that is the latest one—
Senator JOHNSTON: And you understand that that radar has the same capacity and capability as JORN?
Mr Price : No. I would say, from the imagery I have seen, that it is significantly different; it is based on circular array technology. I would think it is probably more like the American AN/FPS95 OTHR radar which was traded off during the SALT talks in the 1970s.
Senator JOHNSTON: What assumptions did you make with respect to the detection of fighter aircraft by that particular radar?
Mr Price : Once you have a resonant frequency equal to a particular length on your aircraft you ring like a bell. You dial the frequency-
Senator JOHNSTON: You made the assumption that these aircraft will ring like the proverbial bell?
Mr Price : Yes, because I know what they are looking for.
Mr Price : In December 2011, an ITU report on Chinese HF radar gives it a range of about 4,250 nautical miles. I have earlier 2011 reports that are further out, but that is the latest one—
Senator JOHNSTON: And you understand that that radar has the same capacity and capability as JORN?
Mr Price : No. I would say, from the imagery I have seen, that it is significantly different; it is based on circular array technology. I would think it is probably more like the American AN/FPS95 OTHR radar which was traded off during the SALT talks in the 1970s.
Senator JOHNSTON: What assumptions did you make with respect to the detection of fighter aircraft by that particular radar?
Mr Price : Once you have a resonant frequency equal to a particular length on your aircraft you ring like a bell. You dial the frequency-
Senator JOHNSTON: You made the assumption that these aircraft will ring like the proverbial bell?
Mr Price : Yes, because I know what they are looking for.
WO - There are elements to the study (and to the famous RAND paper of 2008) that merit serious thought.
The most important single factor in play is the kinematics and load-out of the F-35/AMRAAM versus the Su-35S/R-77. The Sukhoi is a higher-performance aircraft and enters the fight higher and faster (more energy). The F-35 is firing AMRAAM uphill against an alerted (via MAWS) and evasive threat: the result is that it is not possible to fire AMRAAM with a high Pk without ending up inside the Su-35's detection range.
At this point, the risk is that the F-35s use most of their four missiles without destroying or damaging all of the Su-35s, or running them out of AAMs, fuel or energy. Since the Su is faster than the JSF, and the JSF's signatures increase in the beam or rear-on aspect, this is not a good situation.
I'm not saying this is necessarily accurate - being based on open-source information - but would add that if the AMRAAM was noted for its high Pk-at-range against an Su-type target, there would be no Meteor.
The most important single factor in play is the kinematics and load-out of the F-35/AMRAAM versus the Su-35S/R-77. The Sukhoi is a higher-performance aircraft and enters the fight higher and faster (more energy). The F-35 is firing AMRAAM uphill against an alerted (via MAWS) and evasive threat: the result is that it is not possible to fire AMRAAM with a high Pk without ending up inside the Su-35's detection range.
At this point, the risk is that the F-35s use most of their four missiles without destroying or damaging all of the Su-35s, or running them out of AAMs, fuel or energy. Since the Su is faster than the JSF, and the JSF's signatures increase in the beam or rear-on aspect, this is not a good situation.
I'm not saying this is necessarily accurate - being based on open-source information - but would add that if the AMRAAM was noted for its high Pk-at-range against an Su-type target, there would be no Meteor.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
kbrockman,
thanks for highlighting that:
So based on a single open source report (not sure who ITU are), some rough photo analysis and the admission it's 1970's technology. But that automatically means it will defeat the stealth techniology of F-22 and F-35? I'm still sceptical that this is sufficient info to simulate/model accurately.
LO - ok, that makes sense (I haven't read the RAND report). So it's a good thing that the UK is putting Meteor on F-35, maybe the Aussies should look into that too...
thanks for highlighting that:
So based on a single open source report (not sure who ITU are), some rough photo analysis and the admission it's 1970's technology. But that automatically means it will defeat the stealth techniology of F-22 and F-35? I'm still sceptical that this is sufficient info to simulate/model accurately.
LO - ok, that makes sense (I haven't read the RAND report). So it's a good thing that the UK is putting Meteor on F-35, maybe the Aussies should look into that too...
LO
Without knowing the full characteristics of the radar and associated detection systems and also all of the observability characteristics of the F35 the above statement is horse. Just a wild stab in the dark but I'm guessing you do not have all of the requisite information.
the result is that it is not possible to fire AMRAAM with a high Pk without ending up inside the Su-35's detection range.
Flap62 - Thank you for a reasoned counter-argument.
Yes, it is based only on open-source information. We do know that stealth aircraft are neither invisible nor invincible. We do know that missile people (on both sides) like to quote head-on launch ranges against non-reacting targets.
And if I or anyone had all the requisite information it could not be discussed here, as you very well know. Moreover, long experience tells me that explanations along the lines of "it really works much better than you think, but it's all secret so I can't tell you more" are usually, well, horse.
Yes, it is based only on open-source information. We do know that stealth aircraft are neither invisible nor invincible. We do know that missile people (on both sides) like to quote head-on launch ranges against non-reacting targets.
And if I or anyone had all the requisite information it could not be discussed here, as you very well know. Moreover, long experience tells me that explanations along the lines of "it really works much better than you think, but it's all secret so I can't tell you more" are usually, well, horse.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Back of beyond!
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen,
I must admit that I read this tome initially with some interest until I saw the protagonists involved. Frankly, articles by Messrs' Kopp and Goon should be taken with all the salt in Bonneville! They are rife with wilful aspersion, conjecture and [frankly] far-fetched analysis in some cases. Much of the assumption involved in their war games is fundamentally flawed and these individuals do not have any access whatsoever to the detail that would be needed to conduct a fair, objective war game to establish future requirements. The fact that they are even given the air time to show their results to others is astonishing in itself - the fact that some get completely taken in by it is lamentable.
The "Goon Show" hate F-35, view Super Hornet dimly and seem utterly bent on decrying most western platforms out there. Ultimately it comes down to their bitter resentment of knowing very little of those platforms' true capabilities and a persistent ignorance that clouds even their own judgement. F-35 has never been touted as an air superiority fighter a-la F22. It is a strike fighter and is therefore more akin to F/A-18 (Fighter Attack) in its role.
I'm not saying the F-35 programme is without flaws given the current cost/schedule situation but it irks me that those three individuals at AAP go way too far the other way every time they are given a soap box to stand on.
Their predictions are best suited for a Hollywood movie I think....
I must admit that I read this tome initially with some interest until I saw the protagonists involved. Frankly, articles by Messrs' Kopp and Goon should be taken with all the salt in Bonneville! They are rife with wilful aspersion, conjecture and [frankly] far-fetched analysis in some cases. Much of the assumption involved in their war games is fundamentally flawed and these individuals do not have any access whatsoever to the detail that would be needed to conduct a fair, objective war game to establish future requirements. The fact that they are even given the air time to show their results to others is astonishing in itself - the fact that some get completely taken in by it is lamentable.
The "Goon Show" hate F-35, view Super Hornet dimly and seem utterly bent on decrying most western platforms out there. Ultimately it comes down to their bitter resentment of knowing very little of those platforms' true capabilities and a persistent ignorance that clouds even their own judgement. F-35 has never been touted as an air superiority fighter a-la F22. It is a strike fighter and is therefore more akin to F/A-18 (Fighter Attack) in its role.
I'm not saying the F-35 programme is without flaws given the current cost/schedule situation but it irks me that those three individuals at AAP go way too far the other way every time they are given a soap box to stand on.
Their predictions are best suited for a Hollywood movie I think....
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICBM, I'm with you. This is the same Dr Kopp who argued black and blue to upgrade the F111, with new engines, avionics, yada, yada, yada, instead of getting something, or anything else. Very large grain of salt I think. Although the worrying thing is these pretenders appear to have the ear of government. As if the current government hasn't got themselves in enough trouble for incompetence!
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Age: 74
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it is healthy that there are some contrary views to those of the manufacturer. After all, if Air Power Australia has a bias, Lockheed Martin has a substantial bias too. It would help if the contrarians base their conclusions on sound data, but if that were the case then their debunking of the capability would be very bad news indeed.
It is sometimes healthy to try to shine a light on dark places, if only to keep those with the biggest vested interest (more) honest. If LM has nothing to fear then no doubt data substantiating that is in the hands of the decision makers who can make balanced judgements. Of course, they can always validly claim the need for confidentiality, which is a perennial difficulty when it comes to public accountability on military projects.
As far as America is concerned, the F35 projects looks firmly in the 'too big to fail' category and they will force it through. Given its record to date, it has given its detractors plenty of circumstantial ammunition with which to attack it even if they lack the heavy ordnance to deliver a knock-out punch. I am not unhappy that someone is asking awkward questions. There is a distinct whiff of bluster and fudge about this programme that gives the ignorant (of which there are many, including me) an uneasy feeling about how the government is spending our money.
I want to be wrong. I hope it eventually turns out a world-beater in its class, and that the UK then buys lots, and UK jobs are sustained by sales around the globe. If it were my decision though, I would wait until I was much, much more certain that it was going to be the bees knees before signing the contract.
It is sometimes healthy to try to shine a light on dark places, if only to keep those with the biggest vested interest (more) honest. If LM has nothing to fear then no doubt data substantiating that is in the hands of the decision makers who can make balanced judgements. Of course, they can always validly claim the need for confidentiality, which is a perennial difficulty when it comes to public accountability on military projects.
As far as America is concerned, the F35 projects looks firmly in the 'too big to fail' category and they will force it through. Given its record to date, it has given its detractors plenty of circumstantial ammunition with which to attack it even if they lack the heavy ordnance to deliver a knock-out punch. I am not unhappy that someone is asking awkward questions. There is a distinct whiff of bluster and fudge about this programme that gives the ignorant (of which there are many, including me) an uneasy feeling about how the government is spending our money.
I want to be wrong. I hope it eventually turns out a world-beater in its class, and that the UK then buys lots, and UK jobs are sustained by sales around the globe. If it were my decision though, I would wait until I was much, much more certain that it was going to be the bees knees before signing the contract.
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
Far from me to quote anything directly from the likes of Kopp but since this
where the transcripts of an official Australian parliamentary hearing they where
relevant nontheless.
If an official, decision making, institute like this lends its ears to Kopp and collegues than at least we should hear what they have to say, it becomes relevant.
All the speculation aside about their manner of evaluating and scoring different platforms it must be said that for the JSF program cost prediction part APA has been time and again more on the ball than LM and its partners.
They have predicted long in advance that their would be substantial cost and time overruns and have been very effective in determining fairly exact numbers.
Also apart from APA their is offcourse the so-called 'fighter maffia' in the US, they have warned time and time again about the problems the JSF would face ;too heavy, too high drag (fat fuselage) , T/W ratio too low, too high wingloading and too complex because it has to cater to all the different services.
In some , if not most, parts they have been vindicated more than once now.
About the Radar, sure they could be 70's design but because of the type and freq. band used (lower freq from above through ionospheric reflex) and even possibly used as a multistatic system (Xidian) they could still be very useful as a detection device against stealthy airplanes.
Like they said, it's not like the JORN, probably not as sofisticated and up to date but that doesn't mean its ineffective against stealth.
where the transcripts of an official Australian parliamentary hearing they where
relevant nontheless.
If an official, decision making, institute like this lends its ears to Kopp and collegues than at least we should hear what they have to say, it becomes relevant.
All the speculation aside about their manner of evaluating and scoring different platforms it must be said that for the JSF program cost prediction part APA has been time and again more on the ball than LM and its partners.
They have predicted long in advance that their would be substantial cost and time overruns and have been very effective in determining fairly exact numbers.
Also apart from APA their is offcourse the so-called 'fighter maffia' in the US, they have warned time and time again about the problems the JSF would face ;too heavy, too high drag (fat fuselage) , T/W ratio too low, too high wingloading and too complex because it has to cater to all the different services.
In some , if not most, parts they have been vindicated more than once now.
About the Radar, sure they could be 70's design but because of the type and freq. band used (lower freq from above through ionospheric reflex) and even possibly used as a multistatic system (Xidian) they could still be very useful as a detection device against stealthy airplanes.
Like they said, it's not like the JORN, probably not as sofisticated and up to date but that doesn't mean its ineffective against stealth.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
have you read that report? No amount of using growlers as band-aid is going to overcome the problems reported there.
If China were to really throw everything they had against Taiwan they'd probably win an island covered with smoking rubble, but the kill ratio wouldn't be anything like what is guessed here.
In any case, my point is that whatever LO airplane you have it really needs electronic warfare support to be effective. It doesn't need a lot, but even a little goes a long way.
All this stuff about 'radar cross section of a fly' is nonsense in the real world. 'Low Observable' does not equal 'No Observable'.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 495
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to let you know, these are public submissions, everyone in Australia has the right to make one. As for the table top Harpoon 3 Sim, garbage in garbage out. ADF will address the claims, as they did last time and all will be right with the world
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chinese steal F-35 secrets from BAE
Article from Todays Sunday Times (11 March 2012)
The Chinese have exploited vulnerabilities in BAE’s computer defences to steal vast amounts of data on the £200 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a multinational project to create a plane that will give the West air supremacy for years to come, according to the sources. The attack has prompted fears that the jet’s radar capabilities could have been compromised.
Details of the attack on BAE have been a closely guarded secret within Britain’s intelligence community since it was first uncovered nearly three years ago. But they were disclosed by a senior BAE executive during a private dinner in London for cyber security experts late last year.
One of those present said: “The BAE man said that for 18 months Chinese cyber attacks had taken place against BAE and had managed to get hold of plans of one of its latest fighters.
“He seemed genuinely concerned that the attack had gone on undetected for so long and that it posed a threat to the aircraft’s defences.”
Professor Anthony Glees, director of the Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies, who was also present at the dinner, said: “It seems the Chinese were getting plans which allow them to undermine the defence capacity of the country. It’s deeply unsettling that GCHQ [the government eavesdropping centre in Cheltenham] didn’t spot this for so long because they are the people who are meant to be leading the fight against cyber crime.”
There has been speculation within the aviation industry that delays and spiralling costs in the F-35 programme may be due to the cyber theft of technology that has left the jet open to detection and electronic attack.
Full article may be viewed in the Sunday Times
The Chinese have exploited vulnerabilities in BAE’s computer defences to steal vast amounts of data on the £200 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a multinational project to create a plane that will give the West air supremacy for years to come, according to the sources. The attack has prompted fears that the jet’s radar capabilities could have been compromised.
Details of the attack on BAE have been a closely guarded secret within Britain’s intelligence community since it was first uncovered nearly three years ago. But they were disclosed by a senior BAE executive during a private dinner in London for cyber security experts late last year.
One of those present said: “The BAE man said that for 18 months Chinese cyber attacks had taken place against BAE and had managed to get hold of plans of one of its latest fighters.
“He seemed genuinely concerned that the attack had gone on undetected for so long and that it posed a threat to the aircraft’s defences.”
Professor Anthony Glees, director of the Centre for Security and Intelligence Studies, who was also present at the dinner, said: “It seems the Chinese were getting plans which allow them to undermine the defence capacity of the country. It’s deeply unsettling that GCHQ [the government eavesdropping centre in Cheltenham] didn’t spot this for so long because they are the people who are meant to be leading the fight against cyber crime.”
There has been speculation within the aviation industry that delays and spiralling costs in the F-35 programme may be due to the cyber theft of technology that has left the jet open to detection and electronic attack.
Full article may be viewed in the Sunday Times
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surprised this took so long to hit the mainline press. It was reported in the IT press months ago, but I can't find the reports now
If my memory is correct, it wasn't just the f-35 data that was lifted - I'm sure the report mentioned other BAE projects such as the carriers, Taranis and Upholder
If my memory is correct, it wasn't just the f-35 data that was lifted - I'm sure the report mentioned other BAE projects such as the carriers, Taranis and Upholder
Could this have been the breach that (then) DepSecDef Bill Lynn referred to last summer?
"Announcing the Defense Department’s new cyberwarfare strategy in July, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn noted that “a foreign intelligence agency” had hit a major defense contractor in an exploit discovered in March, and exfiltrated 24,000 files concerning a developmental system. The Pentagon was still reviewing whether the system (which Lynn did not identify) will need to be redesigned. That could be necessary if the compromised information will not only help the intruder develop similar systems, but also methods of attack and defense."
Breaching Defense Contractor Data | AVIATION WEEK
"Announcing the Defense Department’s new cyberwarfare strategy in July, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn noted that “a foreign intelligence agency” had hit a major defense contractor in an exploit discovered in March, and exfiltrated 24,000 files concerning a developmental system. The Pentagon was still reviewing whether the system (which Lynn did not identify) will need to be redesigned. That could be necessary if the compromised information will not only help the intruder develop similar systems, but also methods of attack and defense."
Breaching Defense Contractor Data | AVIATION WEEK
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Glasgow
Age: 61
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LowObservable,
There have been security breaches at at least two of the main contractors involved in the F-35 contract. It would seem that is some cases the hackers were able to sit in on virtual meetings about the progress and developmental details of major weapons systems.
There have been a fair number of security breaches with other aerospace industry organisations involved with other contracts.
There have been security breaches at at least two of the main contractors involved in the F-35 contract. It would seem that is some cases the hackers were able to sit in on virtual meetings about the progress and developmental details of major weapons systems.
There have been a fair number of security breaches with other aerospace industry organisations involved with other contracts.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a multinational project to create a plane that will give the West air supremacy for years to come,
Perhaps it is desperation as this will be the 'air superiority' aircraft of choice for almost all the western world for no other reason that it is the only LO aircraft in 'production'. The USAF may have the F-22 (not that many of them either) but for a good part of the world it is the F-35 or bust.
The western world may have many years to regret the path it is on. If potential adversaries do manage to arm themselves with an LO, supercruising, M2.3+ capable, 9G pulling heavy internal AAM capability the single engined, limited internal stores sub-mach cruising and limited to M1.6 (they hope) and (for B & C) 7G capable F-35 may look a little pants.
The western world may have many years to regret the path it is on. If potential adversaries do manage to arm themselves with an LO, supercruising, M2.3+ capable, 9G pulling heavy internal AAM capability the single engined, limited internal stores sub-mach cruising and limited to M1.6 (they hope) and (for B & C) 7G capable F-35 may look a little pants.