JSF no dog fighter

[FlyNavy]

peter75, it is silly for both of us to be making these statements without some goodwill. Of course I myself personally can only use statements in the public record and for the moment I have not kept any references because for one thing I did not realise until yesterday that the JSF stoush would have started so early. I guess 9/11 has people pumped. As I have indicated my reading of material in aviation magazines such as "Australian Aviation" and various online websites (that I think have credibility) have given such weight to my general statements you have quoted. As I recall even the Defence Department in media releases have said such things but surely it is early days. We have not even bought the JSF yet. Shirley the final specs are not in to make that decision. And I'm not privy to them I admit. Let me see you admit the same thing thanks. No need to 'prove anything'.

About dogfighting: If by 'dogfight' the more general ACM or specifically DACT (Dissimilar Air Combat Training) is meant then we are in a pickle. To me dogfighting is close in air combat where guns or close in missiles are the only weapons available. I guess in this day and age the Sidewinder would be usable in that situation. The BVR missile is Beyond Visual Range so no 'dogfighting' there and whether or not this is DACT someone else will have to answer that question. I'm out of the OODA loop on that one.

If I happen to be the only one to respond then so be it. I do not carry myself in any respect that you attribute to me in any way. I was invited to join this forum and stay here to see what I can see especially about the RNZAF Skyhawks. As for your expertise I'll take your word for it. No need to be troubled by my sense of humor. Hang around any jet pilots for one second and you will be bagged unmercifully no matter who you are. I'm not bagging you personally but taking issue with your arguments and you can do the same back. I'm not bothered. Don't be bothered either. Thanks.

Humor is essential otherwise life is deadly boring. Like a BVR missile in fact. Boring up the tail pipe. ;D If you think being humourous is immature then...

[Leyland P75]

Your humour isn't the issue FN, in fact I mostly enjoy it a strange way, it's the way you "Goon" me that's so hard to "Kopp"! In fact it feels every time I bring up a fact to illustrate a point, the standard response is "Oh, been to APA have we". I find that not humourous and more than a little disrespectful...... to the point where I seriously wonder what the point is.....

To be honest I could sit here all day and argue these things but you obviously don't put a great deal of credence in the things I have to say. To be honest, and I'm not trying to have a go at you, but it seems to be born of possessing only a rudimentary understanding of the technology. Fair enough, the experts are arguing and these debates are happening in some of the meetings that I attend so there isn't a definitive answer. Yet. The point is that stealth is a much vaunted technology that the west is putting a lot of faith in at (in the case of JSF') the expense of more traditional performance. Which is great while the technology works......

[FlyNavy]

OK I'll go with what you are saying and I do take note. I'm here to learn but I enjoy 'attempting' to debunk some of the more silly news reports I see on this forum. Henceforth the Goons will not feature in my 'Koppalotta flak' sideshow. Did not a great Oz PM (you may disagree of course) like to turn the dial to 'vaudeville'. ;D

Notwithstanding your knowledge of radar I question why you ignore my statements about the JSF radar to concentrate on JSF stealth. I ignore the stealth UNTIL the Sukhoi gets better radar and BVR missiles that will detect and clobber the JSF first. Then the JSF obviously will have to be improved and doubtless it will in the ongoing upgrades that every modern long lived aircraft enjoys.

Perhaps 'winning' these debates is what you are after. Futile I reckon. The same claim is made about my own point scoring. 'Winning' is impossible in these circumstances and is not a factor as such. Merely I point out the flaws in your statement or argument. I am the Devil's Advocate and Lucifer is my callsign. ;D

[oldnavy]

peter75, you seem to have excellent access to really interesting stuff. Unfortunately I am now retired and cannot possibly compete with technical detail or criticise yours too much.

I suppose my question is, "How can we know something was "comprehensively beaten in highly classified simulated dogfights against Russian-built Sukhoi fighter aircraft"? Highly classified information is not released...that's why they call it highly classified. If you get to see something happening as recently as this is suggested then it wasn't highly classified and it is very likely to be media spin from a particular party with a particular message. Maybe Lockheed want some more funding? Or maybe the Russians want to get you worried. Maybe even somebody reads your threads and wants to feed you a line? I don't know...

All the feedback I am hearing from my reliable sources is that the F35 is a really good aircraft. Its present performance is outstanding, and with continued development it will get even better. You already know my position on the Su27 family of aircraft. You also know I believe Australia should get 200 x F22s along with 3 large deck carriers (equipped with 75 x F35C a piece) and 1000 main battle tanks. Given that we can't afford that, I believe F35A is the right choice for the RAAF and that a workable number of F35Bs should be considered as an enhancement to the main fleet.

Straight up...we have all seen how computer programmes can make some types appear better than others. Why is this different? This computer gaming is not real life, it clearly wasn't highly classified and it clearly has an ulterior motive.

You have met Kara Wade, haven't you? www.truthorfiction.com/rumours/s/stealth.htm She really clobbers those Su27s big time!!

[corsair67]

I have to admit that my feeling is that this report from the West Australian is probably somewhat of a beat up - after all the West Australian doesn't have a good reputation for quality reportage, and for this very reason it is apparently known to many people as the "Worst Australian".

That being said, even if it is only partially true, then it must have sent a shiver up the spines of the US DoD, Lockheed Martin, and other personnel present!

As has already been stated, the combination of stealth AND radar AND weapons should still mean the F-35 will have advantages over the Sukhoi fighters, as there should be no need for the F-35 to become involved in the "knife fight in a phone booth" air combat scenario.

A problem I can see developing is that if the rules of engagement dictate that the F-35 has to close to within Mk 1 eyeball distance of any enemy to make a positive identification, then the F-35 loses the valuable BVR weapons advantage.

By the way, did anyone see Joel on the 7.30 Report last night? He was discussing this very issue with Kerry O'Brien, and I couldn't help but have a little chuckle to myself when he said that he has a contingency in place where the Super Hornet can help Australia buy more time before having to commit to a final purchase of the F-35, if the program runs into any major hitches. For someone who was a little unconvinced by the capabilities of the Super Hornet, he sure has changed his tune now!

Does this also mean that the Govt will be ordering more Super Hornets in the not too distant future?

[flycookie]

This thread is in dire need of a beer break, with snacks.

Bonhomie is both compulsory and BYO.

First pints and nibblies are on me, so help yourselves fellas.





Any complaints about my jukebox selections will be dealt with via cruel and unsual punishment, of a particularly painful and heinous manner.

Cheers!

[corsair67]

Any complaints about my jukebox selections will be dealt with via cruel and unsual punishment, of a particularly painful and heinous manner.

No, not Country AND Western again! ;D

[flycookie]

Sept 12, 2008 14:25:20 GMT 12 corsair67 said:

No, not Country AND Western again! ;D

You can count on it.

Nonstop Emmylou Harris. Maybe some Johnny and Lucinda Williams as well.



Suck it up, city boy.

[oldnavy]

corsair67, Would that be a complaint? Or is Country AND Western the cruel and unusual punishment of a particularly painful and heinous manner?

[FlyNavy]

Geez, I missed the SevenFurtive report last night because I was typing drivel in this white window here. ;D Can't youse youfs lighten up. Beer? Come on.

Yes Sir Corsair67 the DefMin has changed his tune. Makes sense to us all. He need only refer to this forum to get it straight beforehand.

However Sir, I question your reference to 'sighting the enemy' before blasting them with a broadside. Oh no not on my watch. This is a discredited politically ordered bit of nonsense from the Vietnam era. If anyone suggests one should sidle up to a Sukhoi to identify it today then send that man in a 'ManOwar' 'Top of the line' to do the job and pray for him. ;D

[oldnavy]

BVR ROE are currently in vogue. All you need is the electronic means of doing it, and most modern fighters have several such means.

[flycookie]

This excerpt from the full transcript of Joel's wee confab with Boring Bluey on the 7.30 Report.


++++Second, was a report in the West Australian newspaper that a top secret war game involving Australian and US military experts last month had cast serious doubt on the capacity of Australia's next big strike aircraft purchase from America.

The Joint Strike Fighter or JFS, to perform against jets used by Russia and China. I spoke with Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon from Newcastle this afternoon.

(To) Joel Fitzgibbon, there's a report in the West Australian newspaper today that a top secret war game involving Australian and US military experts and defence personnel in Hawaii has cast what they call 'deep doubt' over the capacity of the Joint Strike Fighter, the F35 to perform against jets used by Russia and China, some of which would be with some of our neighbours in this region, does that concern you?

JOEL FITZGIBBON, DEFENCE MINISTER: I've seen the report Kerry and I have asked for a full report from Defence, and I'll rely upon that report to come to some conclusion about whether there is merit in the newspaper article.

But I think this vindicates my stand on the JSF, despite the urgings of Brendan Nelson and Nick Minchin I'm determined not to sign on the dotted line on the JSF until I'm absolutely certain it's capable of delivering the capability it promises, and that that capability can be delivered on time and on budget.

KERRY O'BRIEN: But do we actually have any alternatives because the F22 was the one that many defence analysts would like to see Australia have, at this stage it's not available and even the future of the F22 is in doubt.

So what would our alternative be to the JSF anyway even if you decided that it wasn't up to what Australia requires?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Certainly within the mid point of the next decade we will want a fifth generation aircraft and it's true that there's only one flying at the moment that's the F22 Raptor and there's an internal debate in the US about whether they will sustain that aircraft.

So that reduces the odds of that being part of the combat mix. Then, of course, there's the development of the Joint Strike Fighter.

Now, we will need now to rely upon the eventual delivery of the Joint Strike Fighter and all of its capability, but some innovative things I'm looking at with the Super Hornets which will get taxpayers better value for money and will deliver greater capability could, for example, provide us with the opportunity to push the purchase of the JSF out to the right therefore giving more time to secure the capability we are looking for.++++

Full transcript here, but I hereby warn yez all that it's drivel - www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2008/s2362344.htm


And now, I'm heading back to the bar, for more of this.....


And this...

[FlyNavy]

And its good night from him... ;D

[Leyland P75]

.

[corsair67]

BVR ROE are currently in vogue. All you need is the electronic means of doing it, and most modern fighters have several such means.

Yeah, but then what happens if you have a nervous nelly Prime Minister/President/Mein Fuhrer who changes the ROE to visual ID only?

Ah drinkin' beer - the sport of champions! ;D

[oldnavy]

Nervous politicians can indeed kill brave servicemen.

I suppose the answer must be that if you don't have the ROE you don't engage.

The nervousness you fear is a bit old fashioned now though. Various recent conflicts have allowed BVR engagement of bandits and that is the whole idea of the modern electronic id. NB: it is very good and multi-faceted. Also NB: the modern weaponry is quite specific and with the electronic magic it is much harder to go blue on blue.

BVR ROE and the western alliance technological advantage is all about not sending our people into harm's way. If the poli's don't want it then they shouldn't deploy the forces.

It is very close to beer o' clock in my town.

[FlyNavy]

I'm awake today without a hangover having voted in local council elections here in NSW, Oz. Here is a MayDay spray from the unmentionable to the incredible:

news.smh.com.au/national/jsf-at-risk-from-new-russian-radars-20080501-29yn.html

JSF 'at risk' from new Russian radars [glow=red,2,300]May 1[/glow], 2008 - 1:24PM

Advertisement
Australia's new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) combat aircraft could be vulnerable to a Russian radar technology which appears to overcome their key stealth advantage, a defence analyst has warned.

Dr Carlo Kopp, an analyst with the defence think tank Air Power Australia, says the risk was demonstrated almost a decade ago when Serbian air defences shot down a US F-117A Nighthawk stealth aircraft.

That wake-up call evidently was not heeded in the west, he said.

But the Australian Defence Force says stealth technology has advanced significantly since the Nighthawk and JSF will be very stealthy, even against the new Russian radars.

Under present plans, the RAAF is set to buy 100 of the Lockheed F-35 JSF which will enter service around the middle of 2016 and serve as Australia's principal combat aircraft to mid-century.

JSF is a very advanced combat aircraft specifically designed to be virtually invisible to radar.

Australia also is buying 24 Boeing Super Hornet aircraft which provide some stealth capability.

Stealth technology - much of which remains top secret - works by a combination of technologies designed to absorb the radar signal and ensure it doesn't bounce back to the transmitting station.

Radar operates by transmitting a signal, then detecting its return echo when it bounces off a distant aircraft.

Russian publications stated quite bluntly that US stealth designs had been largely optimised to defeat widely-used radars operating in the centimetric and decimetric bands, Dr Kopp said.

Such radars feature wavelengths around 10-100 millimetres, but new advanced Russian digital radars, now being actively marketed, operate in the VHF (very high frequency) band with wavelengths about two metres.

Dr Kopp said stealth technology was very effective at defeating centimetric and decimetric radar but much less so at remaining invisible to VHF radar.

An analysis of JSF suggested it was particularly vulnerable to detection by radars in this band because of its small size and particular design, he said.

"What is abundantly clear is that VHF radars will have much better detection performance against fighter-sized stealth aircraft compared to decimetric and centimetric band radars," he said.

Once the Russians deployed their counter-stealth radars, it was to be expected that other nations such as China would follow, Dr Kopp said.

As well, older widely-used Russian VHF radars and their associated anti-aircraft missile systems, could also be digitally upgraded to provide a substantial capability against stealth aircraft.

"The US has enjoyed an unchallenged technological monopoly on stealth capabilities for almost three decades and the notion that potential opponents would sit by idly is not realistic."

A defence spokesman said the very low observable (VLO) stealth characteristics of the JSF, as with all stealth aircraft, were optimised for specific radar frequency bands.

"However, even outside of these optimised bands a VLO aircraft is much harder to detect than a conventional aircraft," he said.

"The F-117 is an example of an early version stealth aircraft with its distinctive external shapes.

"Stealth technology has progressed significantly since the F-117 design and the latest technologies have been incorporated into the F-35 Lightning II."

Hidden at the end for those that read to the end or only read last para (always a good strategy for bumpf) here is the 'incredible':

elpwarpigs.blogspot.com/2007/10/jsf-nemesis.html

[FlyNavy]

This was new to me also about the JSF-C carrier version difference: "Australia has not made a decision as to which variant of the F-35 to purchase. In the past Australia has purchased longer range US carrier aircraft for land use, suggesting the F-35C. The design of the F-35C was changed, further extending its range.

One recent change to the CV aircraft was an increase in wing size to reduce carrier recovery speed. This and other changes to increase fuel capacity and reduce drag pushed the F-35C's radius of action close to 1,300km (700nm) - "100nm more than the requirement" ...
www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/jsf/index.shtml
From: "Future fighter, Graham Warwick, Flight International, 27 June 2006

[jb]

Dr Dennis Jensen, Dr Carlo Kopp and Eric 'ELP' Palmer the un-holy trinity, of JSF commentators in Australia.

[corsair67]

From The Fort Worth Star-Telegram -
www.star-telegram.com/metro_news/story/916882.html




At home and abroad, criticism of F-35 persists


Lockheed official disputes reports such as one that calls fighter a 'dog’

By BOB COX
Thu, Sep. 18, 2008.


It will be years before the F-35 Lightning II takes off on its first combat mission, but the next-generation military aircraft is certainly flying through a lot of flak in the meantime.

As Lockheed Martin builds and tests airplanes in Fort Worth, it continues to fight off attacks from media and political skeptics at home and abroad.

The latest dogfights took place in the past week. A former Pentagon official involved in the development of the F-16, F-18 and A-10 aircraft in the 1970s said in an influential defense publication that "the F-35 is a dog."

Newspapers in Australia, where the government’s plans to eventually buy F-35s are a subject of intense political debate, reported that the planes were "clubbed like baby seals" in a computer-simulated war game conducted by the U.S. Air Force.

Lockheed and the Pentagon’s F-35 program office have tried to counter criticism that they call ill-founded, ill-informed and just plain wrong.

"The critics seem to get credibility, but the program doesn’t," said Tom Burbage, Lockheed executive vice president, F-35 program manager and designated political fireman.

The latest anti-F-35 volley was fired by Pierre Sprey, who as an aide to then-Defense Secretary James Schlesinger in the early 1970s was a key part of the Fighter Mafia that outmaneuvered the Air Force brass and launched the "lightweight fighter program" that became the F-16.

Sprey and Winslow Wheeler of the Center for Defense Information in Washington authored a scathing op-ed piece that ran in the authoritative Jane’s Defence Weekly.

Citing technical problems and cost increases, Sprey and Wheeler said that F-35 costs will rise sharply and that the armed services will be forced to buy fewer than needed.

The piece said that "even without new technical problems the F-35 is a dog. If one accepts every performance promise the DOD [Department of Defense] makes for the aircraft, the F-35 will be overweight and under-powered."

Burbage and Gen. Charles Davis, the top Pentagon official overseeing the F-35 program, fired off a rebuttal, which Burbage said doesn’t seem to have gotten as much attention.

The problem with the Sprey-Wheeler analysis, Burbage said, is that the nature of air warfare has changed. The air-to-air, close-quarters dogfight, he says, has been made obsolete by long-range radar and precise guided missiles.

"People see fighter-jet maneuvers at air shows, and that’s really not relevant," he said.

The Australian media reports really have Burbage’s dander up. Based on comments by a political leader who claimed to have been briefed by defense officials, the reports said the F-35 came off badly in computerized combat exercises in Hawaii against Russian Sukhoi jets.

The exercises were secret, Burbage said, but Air Force officials told Davis that they didn’t even involve pilots "flying" simulators.

"To have somebody extrapolating that into clubbing baby seals is pure B.S.," Burbage said.

The opposition to and skepticism of the F-35 seems to be growing as the program inches forward. Opposition political parties in the nations planning to buy F-35s, often prodded by fans and officials of competitors, keep raising new questions and can usually find local military support for their views.

Burbage says that back in his Navy pilot days, he saw a similar reaction from many colleagues who were skeptical that the new F/A-18 Hornets could adequately perform the roles of the existing A-7 Corsair II, which was the backbone of the Navy’s carrier air arm.

"The more real the project is, the more capable the plane becomes, the more entrenched the legacy program becomes," Burbage said.

By all accounts, the Pentagon and the U.S. military services remain reasonably happy with the F-35’s progress. Budget planners are trying to devise scenarios that would provide increased funds for the Air Force to buy more planes sooner, beginning in 2010.

Congress is another matter. The House and Senate, in their 2009 defense budget deliberations, have proposed cutting two planes from the planned 16 to pay for development of a second engine that the Pentagon doesn’t want to buy.

That’s a troublesome development, Burbage says, because the key to reducing the cost of airplanes lies in increasing production rates.

Much could yet go wrong in F-35 production and testing, as critics point out, but Burbage says data from flight testing and production efforts indicate that the program is on track to meet the revised budget, timetable and performance goals set more than two years ago.

"We just have to keep proving to everybody we are doing what we said we would do. And we think we’re doing a pretty good job of that."