|
|
Post by yak2 on Sept 11, 2008 12:26:01 GMT 12
New Aussie fighter 'clubbed like seal' September 11, 2008 - 9:46AM The federal opposition has dismissed new doubts about the capacity of the multi-billion dollar Joint Strike Fighter to perform against jets used by Russia and China. The JSF jets, for which Australia is likely to pay $16 billion, were comprehensively beaten in highly classified simulated dogfights against Russian-built Sukhoi fighter aircraft, it has been reported. The war games, conducted at Hawaii's Hickam airbase last month, were witnessed by at least four RAAF personnel and a member of Australia's peak military spy agency, the Defence Intelligence Organisation, The West Australian said. Opposition defence spokesman Nick Minchin said he was taking "with a grain of salt" the validity of the report. "This is based on a computer game, computer modelling of the aircraft," he told Sky News. "This is not real life." Senator Minchin said he had a classified briefing on the JSF from its US manufacturer Lockheed-Martin which had promoted the aircraft as the most advanced jet fighter ever. "I can't really say much about it, but this is a phenomenal aircraft. "As our chief of defence Angus Houston has said this is a most extraordinary aircraft, it is the right aircraft for Australia." The multi-purpose fighter would be the backbone of the United States military, Senator Minchin said. "We are fortunate to be in it and the government should move to make the decision to acquire it." WA Liberal backbencher Dennis Jensen said he had spoken to a third party with knowledge of the final classified test results who had claimed the JSF had been clubbed like baby seals by the simulated Sukhois, The West Australian reported. He said the government should demand that the US Government sell it the F-22 which was already in operation instead of the JSF. A response was been sought from the government. AAP  |
|
|
|
Post by Leyland P75 on Sept 11, 2008 12:48:17 GMT 12
Well I know I'm going to be extremely unpopular (as in the past) for suggesting that JSF is rapidly turning into an expensive irrelevance but that's the way it seems to be turning out. If we needed a "stealthish" (in the frontal aspect) battlefield bomb-truck that could dogfight a bit if it got into a pickle then it would be a great buy. But as far as I'm aware that's not what we're after.....
I know that there are certain amongst us here that don't rate the Sukhois.... because they're Russian.... but anything less than an F-22 is going to struggle, that's the reality we're facing.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Sept 11, 2008 13:04:25 GMT 12
Well the stoush has started early - no question. What to make of it all? Elsewhere on this same forum there is a story that the F-22 is considered to be already out of date, in urgent need of updating. Is this the F-22 we (don't) plan to buy?
Computers/Disputers. GIGO. Garbage In = Garbage Out. One would have to know what all the parameters fed into the simulation - and of course take a giant grain of salt - to get worked up about this. But we will. Sigh.
|
|
jb
Squadron Leader
Posts: 132
|
Post by jb on Sept 11, 2008 13:10:50 GMT 12
I have also spoken to a third party with much more knowledge then the senators expert, and can confirm that the JSF squashed the Sukhoi's like an ant under its mighty boot.
See what I did there?
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Sept 11, 2008 13:12:34 GMT 12
Well, my computer sim is better than your computer sim - so there. ;D (Much foot stomping.)
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Sept 11, 2008 13:30:18 GMT 12
And the club has vectored thrust to dazzle us all at air shows where no one is really convinced to buy them in any quantity. Oops reality check - naughty step. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by yak2 on Sept 11, 2008 13:32:14 GMT 12
Excuse my ignorance but aren't we past the dogfighting era? I'm a huge fan of the Sukhois, but isn't the idea to defeat them by seeing them first. Then having the weapon system to destroy them without engaging in a high G brawl?
|
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Sept 11, 2008 14:15:40 GMT 12
And I'm sure with a good quality computer and SIM combination most teenagers could probably down a F-35 or Sukhoi with a Spitfire.  Doesn't necessarily mean it's possible in real life though, does it! |
|
|
|
Post by Leyland P75 on Sept 11, 2008 14:24:32 GMT 12
Well there are the knowns, the unknowns, the known unknowns and the unknown unknowns.
I could go on about J band stealth optimisation etc. The point of the matter is that, as it stands, the ace in the JSF's sleeve is stealth. If that fails there seems to be little left in the JSF's hand, this is where the problem lies. The latest Russian radars are extremely capable and there are good analysis that indicate that against these threats the JSF might well not be invisible. A good example of this was when (and I'll try to dig up the quote) a Lockheed Martin spokesman said something to the effect of "An F-15 has an RCS of a basketball next to the JSF which will be like a tennis ball". Which is great, and certainly stealthier. The problem is that the radar's computer sees the tennis ball flying along at mach 1.2 at 34,000ft and quickly works out that it isn't a very well thrown tennis ball, but a combat aircraft.....
You are spot on in saying that the report can't really be relied on for a great deal given that we don't know the parameters of the test, nor can we be sure of the accuracy or veracity of the witness. What I would suggest is if the test was in fact being conducted, they would have made it as realistic as possible. Otherwise it kind of defeats the purpose.....
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Sept 11, 2008 14:54:07 GMT 12
That may be so (that this testing on computers is as realistic as humanly possible) however that is all it is. We still know nothing of the tests themselves (except as you say take someone's word for it; and I might ask what is their expertise to comment on the tests?). It is all a mystery shrouded in PR for something else methinks.
We both can quote other experts and their opinions. I guess what I rely on are other comments (given in secret briefings as reported in Australian Aviation Magazine for example) that have convinced Australia that things are on track. Remember the JSF is not finalised and it will be improved over its service life. The same will happen to the Sukhoi no doubt. But to me it would seem that there is more talk about what the Sukhoi might have in the future rather than what it does have today.
As we know the JSF is in quantity production (almost). This to me is a good indication of its worth in the real world. There are all kinds of analogies that can be appropriate such as basketball/tennis ball. However as I understand things the JSF radar will find the Sukhoi before the reverse and its more reliablle more capable BVR missile will get the Sukhoi.
Have read where computer scenarios have been tested whereby smart US pilots flying Sukhoi sims (knowing the capability of whatever they are flying against) do very well. There is a good point here. It is not just aircraft capability that does the job, it is not just numbers on a page. Training and skill are part of the equation for manned aircraft (and even UAVs).
Even so I reckon the JSF numbers on a page that we know about are better than the Sukhoi numbers on a page (or computer simulations). But don't take my word for it. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Leyland P75 on Sept 11, 2008 15:24:54 GMT 12
That's all very fair enough but isn't it the JSF that is just numbers on a page? I suspect the real reason we're buying them is because there isn't a viable alternative..... F-22 anyone? And don't be too quick to discount computer simulations because the industry uses them every day for pretty much everything. And on the whole they're very accurate. I can't speak for the program that may or may not have been used in this report, but the whole point of simulations is to simulate reality! You just cannot simulate every parameter in the real world, but you can go bloody close with a simulator. That's the whole point......
The argument about pilot training is becoming a bit old and tired, who says that our pilots will be better just because we're Australian? Surely an Indonesian or Mongolian or Biddelonian has every capacity to be as good a pilot as a western one? Why don't we just stick to Hornets and rely upon the ability of our pilots.....?
Remember, as it stands, the ONLY areas of performance advantage for the JSF is stealth and possibly radar. There are plenty of analysts that believe that Russian radar technology is as good as western technology. So we get back to stealth. Bare in mid, these planes are intended for a forty year service life so what happens when stealth is defeated? Chances are we won't know until the missiles are flying. When stealth is defeated we go back to the good old combat staples of radar, speed, weapons, range, maneuverability.....
We just can't sit back and say, "Oh, no, couldn't possibly happen". Remember, it isn't unprecedented. I don't think Serbia had the most advanced air defence system in the world.... and they managed to bring an F117 down....
The problem is.... what is the alternative?
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Sept 11, 2008 15:57:08 GMT 12
No need to waste energy on this one. The F22 is an air dominance fighter. It should never be beaten by anything...but I saw a movie where Ironman took one out of the sky! Could that be a fantasy? Similarly, I saw the website with the aircraft from the movie "Stealth" being reported as a true USN "top secret" development aeroplane! It seems people can do amazing things with computers!?
I am fairly sure Australia won't buy Sukhois, they will pay off F111s and the F22 will be out of production soon. The F35 is a good aeroplane. You know these computer programmes, know what they are for and how they use them. The idea is that you iron out bugs. There is no detail on the programmes or the simulations like what manouevres were flown, the capability and training of the respective pilots or what the planned outcomes were, except we are told the exercise was highly classified. In fact, it was so classified that some dude from our peak defence journal, The West Australian, got the scoop.
Have we all not seen the huge internet chat on how a Super Hornet handed an F22 its a#$se? Now you've gone and made me waste energy!!! Let's have a beer and I'll spin you some dits about the time I beat the pants off a
|
|
|
|
Post by Leyland P75 on Sept 11, 2008 18:29:55 GMT 12
oldnavy, The F35 is a good aeroplane. How do you know that and what are you basing it on? |
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Sept 11, 2008 20:08:10 GMT 12
"The argument about pilot training is becoming a bit old and tired, who says that our pilots will be better just because we're Australian?" If peter75 has spent any time in the Oz military he should be aware that our OzDefForces do receive excellent training which may or may not make the difference in real life.
Putting a Crash Test Dummy in the cockpit of an F-35 and (to even the equation) into a Sukhoi is not going to prove much. Train up those rock-apes into fighter pilots capable of using all their learnt skills with the machinery available will make a difference.
How can one pilot flying different machinery get the same superior training? Don't know and don't care. As long as our pilots get everything in a superior manner they will do the job required of them.
"How do you know that and what are you basing it on?" The question is batted back to you peter75. We are here in an ordinary forum. None of us have secrets we cannot reveal. We do our best to read between the lines of whatever public knowledge becomes available. There is a lot out there to trawl through; including for the Sukhoi boosters.
If we were having this discussion about our planned buy of umpteen Rafales or Typhoons then I would be worried. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Sept 12, 2008 8:28:32 GMT 12
peter75 quote from previous page: "...the ace in the JSF's sleeve is stealth. If that fails there seems to be little left in the JSF's hand, this is where the problem lies. The latest Russian radars are extremely capable and there are good analysis that indicate that against these threats the JSF might well not be invisible."
This is his statement (probably from the Kopp database) which has been refuted numerous times (or is it trumped?) by the acknowledgement that the JSF radar will detect the current Sukhoi before the Sukhoi detects it. No need for stealth for that situation. And if peter75 claims that there are improvements coming for the Sukhoi radar then I claim the same thing for the JSF. This is the 'Spy v Spy' nature of weapon development. My bet is that the USofA will always be ahead of the USSR (or whatever it calls itself now - Russian Federation + Georgia).
And as the original newspaper claim that "...comprehensively beaten in highly classified simulated dogfights against Russian-built Sukhoi fighter aircraft." Well duh, as others on this forum have pointed out. There is no need for dogfighting in the era of BVR missiles. If the JSF radar/missile combination is better than the Sukhoi - end of story. Dog fighting not required. End of.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldnavy on Sept 12, 2008 9:40:39 GMT 12
peter75
Point well missed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leyland P75 on Sept 12, 2008 11:20:08 GMT 12
Ten years in the ADF and the training is indeed excellent compared to what you'd probably get overseas. Today. What about in 2030 or 2040, within the service life of the F-35. Is it impossible for overseas nations to improve the quality of their training. You'll find the standard of our neighbours training has improved markedly over even the last 10 years, who's to say it won't continue to improve? Bare in mind it doesn't have to reach parity for it to be an issue.
The fact is that putting crash test dummies in each airplane and comparing them is the standard method of determining purchasing decisions because, as as rightly been pointed out, you can't really predict the decisions of the bum in the seat.
FN - I've answered the question heaps of times! The only measure by which the JSF will be superior is in stealth performance and perhaps, perhaps, radar performance! I've said it over and again. Stealth is, by it's very nature, reactive and so, in five years time, perhaps even today, when you defeat that feature, we go back to the old measures of performance in aerial combat. If we take away the JSF's stealth, which frankly is optimised in the frontal aspect only against decimetric radar types which are being superceded as we speak.
If you think that the us and the Yanks aren't concerned about this go down to Coogee Beach and look up into one of the apartment blocks. There is a radar detection array which is studying VHF radar frequencies. VHF has a wavelength in the metre range rather than the centimetre range of current radars. And it can detect stealth aircraft. And guess what? The Russians are ahead in this technology. The Russians haven't put a lot of effort into stealth because they have spent their money on radar technology. To defeat stealth.......
Detecting New Generation Radar from Coogee Beach
Australian Department of Defense | Sep 11, 2008
Share & Bookmark
Digg Reddit Del.icio.us Stumble It! Email Article
The Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO) is conducting an international experiment in Sydney this week to develop technology for detecting new generation radar systems.
The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel, The Hon. Warren Snowdon, MP, said that modern radars are becoming increasingly hard to detect and jam, and this week’s trial is an opportunity to use a realistic setting for collecting data.
“DSTO researchers are working with US and Canadian defence scientists on the trial that will assist DSTO to develop techniques and equipment that could detect challenging radar systems coming on the market.
“Unless we have appropriate radar detection and exploitation systems in place, Australia will be seriously disadvantaged in a conflict situation,” Mr Snowdon said.
A hired boat will travel along a zig-zag path out to sea and beam back radar signals which simulate the emissions from new generation radar. These signals will be intercepted by a passive receiver located on an elevated balcony overlooking the ocean at Coogee beach.
Mr Snowdon said the trial does not pose a health risk as there would be no radar emissions from the passive receiver. Radar emissions from the boat are 100 times lower than emissions from the boat’s own radar, or from any other boats in the area.
There also was no risk of interference with electronic equipment in the area as the power levels used were very low and in frequency bands used by radar systems.
“These experiments are important to DSTO and our Defence Force as they will collect “real” data that will help us to develop new radar detection technology,” Mr Snowdon said.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyNavy on Sept 12, 2008 11:27:25 GMT 12
Notwithstanding the current experiment to detect low power RADAR emissions (not stealth) you seem to miss the point. My point is not about stealth. Yes it is there and it is not as good as the Raptor stealth. My point is that with the superior detection radar carried by the JSF and with its superior BVR missiles then, with that combination, the superior JSF will defeat whatever is inferior in those departments. No stealth required for that job.
IF there are other aircraft with superiority in those departments then the JSF will improve the capability also over time. Perhaps stealth will help avoid detection but it is not essential in air to air if the JSF radar detection and missile performance can defeat the opponent.
One can argue about those points but please leave the stealth out of it. Is the Sukhoi stealthy?
|
|
|
|
Post by Leyland P75 on Sept 12, 2008 11:33:39 GMT 12
""...comprehensively beaten in highly classified simulated dogfights against Russian-built Sukhoi fighter aircraft." Well duh, as others on this forum have pointed out. There is no need for dogfighting in the era of BVR missiles"
Please tell me this is hyperbole. Please. I think you'll find that a dogfight is a byword for "Aerial Engagement".
"This is his statement (probably from the Kopp database)"
This is your strandard response. Give it a rest. If you can't carry on the conversation with a modicum of maturity there there really isn't any point. I work in the industry (BAE), so I'm going to claim a little more knowledge on the matter than you give me credit for.
As for the argument about my argument on radars "Being trumped"....... where, I certainly didn't see it. I'll go toe to toe with you on radar technology any day of the week my friend, because that's my job! You can be the expert on what aerial combat was like 30 years ago........
I was kind of hoping that you could carry yourself with a modicum of respect while expecting that you wouldn't. So why don't I leave it to you to be the almighty authority on everything on this board? It seems to ruffle your feathers anytime anyone disagrees with your ideas.....
oldnavy,
Not answering my question, or is it only me that answers questions?
|
|
|
|
Post by Leyland P75 on Sept 12, 2008 11:35:01 GMT 12
"superior detection radar carried by the JSF and with its superior BVR missiles"
That's a statement you're making. What evidence do you have for it?
|
|
