JSF no dog fighter

[FlyNavy]

From someone who does know (but of course 'we' (not me) don't believe him): "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." AND "...Based on comments by a political leader..." Wot political leader. I don't recall Jensen being any kind of leader or even anyone with any credibility. Sheesh. ;D

[FlyNavy]

How BEER works:
mithuro.com/presscuefiles/january/beer_goggle.swf

[timmo]

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.

Since when has a single instance been a trend?

Stealth tech has never been 100% foolproof....but it does immensely increase a pilots chance of survival.

Are they suggesting that it isn't worth the extra cost?

[FlyNavy]

Check here tomorrow for tonight's LATELINE interview with MinDef about JSF and the exercise in Hawaii:
www.abc.net.au/lateline/ NOW AT:

www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2373457.htm (video report)
&
www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2373459.htm (transcript of interview with DefMin)

The GANG of THREE (Goon, Kopp & Jensen) have misrepresented what the exercise was about. It was not a head to head comparison and even the 'Gof3' say that it is about 'close combat' and NOT BVR combat. Basically the DefMin says these 'clowns' (my word - not his) have misrepresented the exercise (I'm suprised he did not call them liars) and to my eye Joel Fitzgibbon has learnt heaps in his OJT (on the job training). ;D My hero. I'm awaiting my test results. ;D

Here they are: DAS Northrop Grumman Distributed Aperture System promo video
au.youtube.com/watch?v=PxOu8RzmGjQ&e

[FlyNavy]

Transcript from ABC in case it disappears:
www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2373459.htm
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Broadcast: 24/09/2008
Reporter: Leigh Sales
Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon joins Lateline to discuss the controversy surrounding Australia's latest defence purchase, the joint strike fighters.
Transcript
LEIGH SALES: And earlier, the Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon joined Lateline from Canberra.

Minister, thanks for being with us.

JOEL FITZGIBBON, DEFENCE MINISTER: Good to be with you, Leigh.

LEIGH SALES: Based on the results of the recent Pacific Vision war game exercise in Hawaii, are you still convinced that the Joint Strike Fighter is the right aircraft for Australia?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Look Leigh, there is no doubt in my mind that if the JSF team deliver all the capability they have been promising, then the JSF will be just the right aircraft for Australia and will deliver all the capability we need to maintain air combat superiority.

The questions are, will it be delivered, and if so, when will it be delivered and at what cost?

LEIGH SALES: So did the results from that war game show that the JSF is equally matched with the fighters that China and Russia are using?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Well, what I have learned, Leigh, is the data from that exercise has been misrepresented. It wasn't an exercise about one platform against another. It was an exercise about other matters that I can't really discuss publicly. But it was unfair to interpret that exercise as one which sought to compare one aircraft against another.

LEIGH SALES: Four RAAF personnel and one defence intelligence officer from Australia attended that war game. Have you spoken to them directly to get their assessments?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: No, I haven't. I've now had two briefings from Defence and I don't mind saying publicly that I wasn't particularly impressed with the first briefing I received. I thought it left a number of questions unanswered. I demanded a more extensive brief, a classified brief, which I have now had and on that basis I am satisfied that the data from that exercise was misrepresented.

LEIGH SALES: What were the questions that were left unanswered from the first briefing that you felt needed follow-up?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: There were a number of questions posed by the media more generally that I didn't think were properly addressed in the original two-page unclassified report I initially received. And that led me to say publicly that I still think there are questions unanswered.

But thankfully, and I welcome the fact that Defence has since come forward with a classified version, a more comprehensive explanation, and I am satisfied that, again, the data from that exercise had been misrepresented.

LEIGH SALES: And when you say the questions were left unanswered that were raised by the media, do you mean about the performance of the Joint Strike Fighter versus other aircraft?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: The first brief didn't make it clear to me what the exercise was seeking to test and on that basis, didn't really answer all the questions that had been posed by public media reporting. But I've now had those answers fully from the second briefing.

LEIGH SALES: With the second briefing, does the information that you've got in that come from sources other than Lockheed Martin, who are the manufacturers of the Joint Strike Fighter?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: No. My briefing comes from the Department of Defence, which is of course a customer or potential customer, under the Joint Strike Fighter program. And I've got great confidence in my department and I know that they would not dare misrepresent the facts.

LEIGH SALES: But are they relying on information from Lockheed Martin or are they getting their information from other independent sources?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: They get their information from those who participated in the exercise, not only our own people but of course representatives of the United States.

LEIGH SALES: In July after a briefing in Lockheed Martin in Texas you said: "If I were a betting man I would say the Joint Strike Fighter will end up part of Australia's air combat capability mix." Is that still your bet today?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Absolutely, Leigh. Again, if it delivers all the capability it's been promising, it will be the right aircraft for Australia. But our planning has to be more cautious than that; what if it doesn't initially deliver all the capability? What if it delivers it very late? And what if the cost escalates considerably?

We might need, for example, to push some of our JSF purchases out to the right to accommodate some of those problems and do more in building our bridging capabilities. So the Opposition, for some bizarre reason, wants me to run out and sign up to the Joint Strike Fighter six months at least before I have to and before I've had guarantees to these, on these unanswered questions.

It makes no sense to me whatsoever, and I would have thought that they would have learned from all of their mistakes in Government, the mistakes for example like the Sea Sprite Helicopter debacle.

LEIGH SALES: So when do you think you will make a decision about whether we're going to go forward with the Joint Strike Fighter?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: We've had an air combat capability review and it will now form part of our white paper process. The white paper process will determine our strategic outlook and then inform our force structure and capability decisions. Therefore it will tell us how many fast jets we will need, when we will need them based on our current capabilities, et cetera.

So we will make some sensible and cautious decision about the Joint Strike Fighter as part of the white paper process.

LEIGH SALES: Will you release that air combat capability review? Because that could clear up some of the questions around the joint strike fighter's suitability and capability?

JOEL FITZGIBBON: Yeah, absolutely. The review came in two parts. Part A dealt with the immediate question of the Super Hornet as a bridging capability. You know I was highly critical of the former government in terms of its process of acquiring the Super Hornet. It was a rush decision to basically save them some political embarrassment.

But based on the review, I am confident that this Super Hornet is a sufficient bridging capability and we as a Government are doing now more to give it more capability and paying less for the purchase. So we're getting better value for taxpayers' money.

And of course we will deliver part B publicly of the air combat capability review, but we will [release] it in our own time as part of the white paper process.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

LEIGH SALES: Joel Fitzgibbon, Defence Minister, thank you very much for joining us.

JOEL FITZGIBBON: That's a pleasure, Leigh.

[yak2]

Good interview and response. There was also an item on the ABC 7pm news last night on the JSF's dogfighting ability, including footage of a Sukhoi performing a 'cobra'.

[FlyNavy]

If you watch the video at: au.youtube.com/watch?v=PxOu8RzmGjQ&e you will see why there is a 'so what' response to the fancy antics of the Sukhoi. ;D I reckon we ought to get a few for airshows and aggressor training aircraft. The Sukhoi Airshow formation team could be called the 'EasyBeats'? ;D

[Leyland P75]

"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."

At risk of being ridiculed by all and sundry, this is one thing that "Keystone" has spot on. What remains to be seen is how much more effective VHF will be. Like I've written in the past, you don't have to have a radar signature that big (say "tennis ball" sized) before the electronics identify parameters (speed, vector, ROC) that mark it as a combat aircraft. This new generation of radars might only have to increase the detectable signature by a small amount to make it possible for the electronics to do the rest. Like I've said plenty of time before, stealth is reactive. My argument has always been that there needs to be more focus on capabilities outside of Electronic Warfare in the shape of stealth, radar, active EW, because due to their reactive nature, once they're defeated, unless you have a sound combat aircraft that has the traditional combat aircraft capabilities, you have to take the design back to the drawing board.

I understand that doing a "Cobra" has bugger all utility in a BVR engagement. But speed, rate of climb, turn rate, power to weight, fuel (loiter, combat duration, range) and wing loading still do. These are all areas of design, on the public record, where JSF is frighteningly inadequate as an A2A airframe. Of the day comes where stealth is defeated we are left hoping we see the baddies first. It's a lot easier to install a new radar as they become available than redesign the fundamental characteristics of an airframe. Radar technolgy is an area the Ruskies are investing in heavily because they know they can't compete on stealth. So they concentrate on defeating it....

BVR will no doubt be 90% of A2A engagements in future, but if we strip away stealth what do we rely on then?

If this is all bollocks then why did they bother building the F-22?

[Leyland P75]

I should also point out that I believe that Defence and the political parties are also on the right track in that they are doing the best they can to make the best of the available equipment currently on the market. We don't have a lot of choice.

If I was putting together an Air Combat force with what is currently available (which I know I'm not), I would have JSF and some Growlers. So beef isn't in our procurement policies. My beef is what the Yanks are (or aren't) making available. What's the alternative at the moment? Eurocanard? Great for a European environment.....

[FlyNavy]

It would seem to me that IF I can see you and knock you out of the sky (so to speak) before you see me - then all else is irrelevant. To hanker after things that are not available and by new accounts themselves being obsolete (in need of expensive electronic upgrades) then you can see why the JSF is a good option. As the DefMin made clear last night the JSF builders need to be held to their promises etc.

It would seem to me (now that we are buying JSF) that how many and when (for any different block capability) and at what cost, become the points at issue. I'm always hoping that the mix of any JSFs (including JSF-C as pointed out earlier in this thread) will include the JSF-B for our new LHDs on the way.

Yes it is 'sad' there is not a lot of choice but the alternatives look very 'thin' in capability indeed. Now if these alternatives are viable why do not we hear about them? All we seem to hear is the 'knocking' of the JSF.

What the Sukhoi 'may' have in future (new radar) can be applied to upgraded JSFs don't forget. JSFs can be fitted with better radars and weapons down the track also. The fixation on close dogfighting in this era of BVR radar/missile combinations is quaint indeed. Yes in the days of close engagements then all the points about engines, wing loading, performance were relevant.

[Leyland P75]

I agree with you FN. But the problem is that VHF radars are being fielded now. There's no reason why you couldn't order a shiny new SU-30 with a highly advanced radar off the shelf. Just asked the Indians.

In which case, it might, just might be possible to "club" a JSF.....

[FlyNavy]

Then it becomes a matter of which radar detects which aircraft to be able to clobber them with a reliable missile from that distance. Do we know the numbers for both sets of aircraft?

[Leyland P75]

Well we both know you'll have a hard time finding numbers FN, but remember, we're largely relying on stealth to ensure air combat superiority until 2040..... As you can see, we've already got a situation where, potentially, the technology might already be defeated. Before it's fielded. Bare in mind also that we might not also get the full fruit stealth version either....

It reminiscent of the decision not to fit guns to the Phantom......

It's not that I'm anti JSF, it could well turn out to be an excellent A2A asset that works well. I suspect more likely it will turn out to be a brilliant strike aircraft that can look after itself if it gets into combat. Maybe do some air defence. The Americans are looking after number one here. They have no illusions of it as an interceptor (something we want it to be). That's why they have F-22, they don't really have air combat as a priority for this aircraft.....

[FlyNavy]

Before I forget having just watched the DAS video again. A statement is made that 'JSF dogfighting capability airframe-wise is irrelevant' (not verbatim) because the missiles do the work (along with DAS). If you have watched the video you will be astonished.

Stealth is irrelevant if one can detect the target before the target detects you. OK.

Our ADF (because I include the RAN for the sake of the STOVLie) need the best aircraft available. JSF.

[Leyland P75]

Again I agree. But I think we can see that there are legitimate concerns over whether the best aircraft available is up to the job.

EDIT: DAS = a nice bit of kit, no doubt!

[FlyNavy]

A random statement I have read about what we see in the DAS video: "Both ASRAAM and AIM9X will fire over the shoulder! You can actually designate them to a specific target using a variety of sensors or even just by looking at the target using the helmet mounted sighting." No longer is it necessary to point the nose of the aircraft in the vicinity of the target (always very frustrating in practice). LOOK & SHOOT rather than POINT & SHOOT is the new close dogfighting paradigm. Probably there will be a function that will allow automatic shooting without pilot input soon if it is not there already now in the JSF.

[FlyNavy]

We are posting at same time so now I'm responding to "legitimate concerns over whether the best aircraft available is up to the job.". You have answered your own question? I cannot read nor speak Russian or Indian for that matter so I have no idea if there is any discussion between Russians or Indians (if they are not using English) about their Sukhoi capability. There will be claims and counter claims and in the meantime the JSF will be built and upgraded over a long service life.

[Leyland P75]

"Both ASRAAM and AIM9X will fire over the shoulder!"

Not all that handy in BVR combat though.....

I thought the days of "dogfighting" were over?

[FlyNavy]

I'm not sure if you follow some points that have been made. Agree that close in missile capability is not BVR. BVR superiority will mean that close in dogfighting is remaindered to the dustbin of history.

[Leyland P75]

Sept 25, 2008 17:25:28 GMT 12 FlyNavy said:

We are posting at same time so now I'm responding to "legitimate concerns over whether the best aircraft available is up to the job.". You have answered your own question? I cannot read nor speak Russian or Indian for that matter so I have no idea if there is any discussion between Russians or Indians (if they are not using English) about their Sukhoi capability. There will be claims and counter claims and in the meantime the JSF will be built and upgraded over a long service life.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.