# Too much faith in stealth technology?



## wuzak (Nov 28, 2011)

I have been reading a lot about the F-35 in the past few days, trying to discover whether they will be the solution to Australia's needs in the future.

Reports and videos tend to be either extremely positive or extremely negative on the aircraft, its capabilities and its cost.

One of the big selling points of the JSF is the stealth design. It is often stated that in the future aircraft without stealth will be unviable. The counter argument is that the JSF is stealth-lite, not being as effective as the F117 or F22.

There have been some suggestions that anti-stealth radar technology is being developed and/or deployed.

Stealth technology and the counter-stealth response - Airforce Technology

The normal defence to the F-35's lack of manouevrability vs the latest Flankers is that the Flanker will be shot down before it knows the F-35 is there. But is this the case? If it is the case, then will it be in the 8-10 years time when the F-35 is scheduled to be deployed?

Australia signed onto the JSF program in 2002 before a competitive evaluation could be done. A few years prior to that the Russians apparently offered us a pair of Su-35s for 6 months for evaluation for free. And we turned them down. What's that about?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 28, 2011)

I don't know what "accessories" the Australian government is being offered with their F-35s (I would guess it would be pretty close to what the US would operate). The F-35 is a lot more capable than what is being said and I believe in time its naysayers will be silenced. This was a recent article.

RPT-F-35 makes headway amid criticism, US budget crunch | Reuters


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 28, 2011)

Hi Joe,

I tend to agree with your assessment. All too often, new aircraft get a bad rap before they've even had a chance to prove themselves. Sometimes the bad rap sticks but sometimes it doesn't. For example, most Brits will always associate the Tornado F3 with the "Blue Circle" radar (many Brit radars have the word "Blue" in the name - "Blue Parrot" was, IIRC, the radar on the Buccaneer). When the Tonka F2 entered service, the radar wasn't ready so the aircraft flew without the radar fitted but with weights instead to keep the CofG within limits.  Some wit then claimed that the F2 was fitted with the "Blue Circle" radar, Blue Circle being a well-known cement company in the UK. Switch now to the F-15 - who remembers, today, that when the F-15A entered service, the radar had considerably worse performance than the F-4s it was supposed to replace? Short answer...hardly anyone.

The proof of the F-35 pudding will be in seeing how it rises when it deploys on operations (plus how it copes in NATO exercises). If it does well, all ills will be forgotten, if not....well, that's for the historians to write.


----------



## evangilder (Nov 28, 2011)

Back when I was in the USAF, the Marines were testing the Blackhawk helicopters. Nary a week went by without one crashing and killing more Marines. It was heart-wrenching to read about them in the Stars and Stripes. In those days, I wouldn't dream of stepping into one of those. Today, they have served very well and will be more remembered for their great service. 

I also think that testing is more under a microscope than it has ever been. And it has been a long time since we have had a new fighter, so there are bound to be some teething problems. I have faith that the F-35 will deliver.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 29, 2011)

The problem with the F-35 is that when it deploys with the USAAF and RAF it will be complimentary with other aircraft - like the F-22 and the Eurofighter. When Australia deploys them it's all we'll have.

And the opposition will have moved on substantially by the time we get them. 

Also, both the current F-18E/F and the F-35 promise less striking capability than the retired F-111s.

While the F-35 would probably fare quite well now, I wonder if its stealth capabilities will have been left behind by 2018.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kssZua8MVc_


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 29, 2011)

In 6 years? I doubt it. The counter to stealth has been known for a very long time - it's called bi-static radar where the transmitter and receiver are located far enough apart that signals reflected by a stealthy aircraft are still able to be collected (basically using the stealth design against itself). The challenge is making such a system work viably in an operational setting, and then to use such a system to get a weapon onto the target. Oh, and it has to be survivable too so fixed facilities are a no-no. The cost and technical complexity of such systems pretty much puts them out of reach for most of the world, and the rest are too busy making money or staying alive to care about such esoteric pieces of military hardware. In short, I think Oz will do very well with the F-35 - it may not be a "Pig" but I think it will do the job it's designed to do.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 29, 2011)

evangilder said:


> I also think that testing is more under a microscope than it has ever been. And it has been a long time since we have had a new fighter, so there are bound to be some teething problems. I have faith that the F-35 will deliver.



Well, the last fighter introduced for the US was the F-22 in 2005. Does that count as a long time ago? And they're still debugging them 6 years on.

What will the F-35 actually deliver?




evangilder said:


> Back when I was in the USAF, the Marines were testing the Blackhawk helicopters. Nary a week went by without one crashing and killing more Marines. It was heart-wrenching to read about them in the Stars and Stripes. In those days, I wouldn't dream of stepping into one of those. Today, they have served very well and will be more remembered for their great service.



I assume the Blackhawk had reliability issues? 

Surely the F-35 has as many concerns over performance as it has reliability?


Also, why 3 versions? Couldn't the Navy and Air Force use a common version?


----------



## evangilder (Nov 29, 2011)

I consider the F-22 and F-35 to be in the same generation. So, yes, it has been a long time. The last "new" fighter the US built prior to the F-22 was the F-18, and it's first production model was built in 1980, 30+ years ago. Everything else has been updates or upgrades to aircraft that were built in the 1970s. The F-22 is the most advanced fighter ever built by the US and with new technology comes new challenges. If you compare it to the B-1 program, there are similarities.

The F-35 will deliver a multi-role fighter, capable of fighter, attack and bomber roles with the advantage of stealth technology. While I agree that three different variants is a little crazy, the three variants will all be used in different mission profiles. 

The Blackhawk initially suffered a few shortcomings. Rotor blade delamination was one of the things I remember and they had some mechanical issues IIRC. Today though, they are solid and used in many nations with good reliability.

I don't think issues on the F-35 currently will cause the project to be shelved. Remember that today, the enemy is quite different and the days of waves of fighters attacking each other are probably not going to happen. You need a swift light force that can be deployed quickly to a hot spot. 

I have heard the argument about the F-111 and while I am a huge fan of the F-111, it's operational record was far from outstanding. Plus the fact that the last F-111 was built in 1976, so that is also an aging airframe.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 29, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> In 6 years? I doubt it.




What about 10, 15, 20 years? Remembering that RAAF F-35s are expected to see 30-40 years of service.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 29, 2011)

evangilder said:


> I consider the F-22 and F-35 to be in the same generation. So, yes, it has been a long time. The last "new" fighter the US built prior to the F-22 was the F-18, and it's first production model was built in 1980, 30+ years ago. Everything else has been updates or upgrades to aircraft that were built in the 1970s. The F-22 is the most advanced fighter ever built by the US and with new technology comes new challenges. If you compare it to the B-1 program, there are similarities.



I understand all that. But the F-22 and F-35 are not the same program. So the last new fighter the USAAF received was the F-22.

As I understand it, the F-22 was chosen over the F-23 in part because it posed slightly less technical risk.





evangilder said:


> The F-35 will deliver a multi-role fighter, capable of fighter, attack and bomber roles with the advantage of stealth technology. While I agree that three different variants is a little crazy, the three variants will all be used in different mission profiles.



Surely the USAAF and USN versions will be performing essentially the same role(s)? The only difference being the USN one will launch and recover to carriers.





evangilder said:


> I don't think issues on the F-35 currently will cause the project to be shelved. Remember that today, the enemy is quite different and the days of waves of fighters attacking each other are probably not going to happen. You need a swift light force that can be deployed quickly to a hot spot.



No doubt the F-35 program will soldier on. After all, there is a lot invested in it already.

But will the issues with the F-35 have some bearing on its long term competitiveness?

I am not an expert in aerodynamics or combat aircraft, but from what I am reading the F-35's combat ability is mostly about the stealth design, and its sensors and electronics suites. Negate them and the aircraft becomes vulnerable.

The F-35 force will definitely be a "light" force. But will it be "swift" and quickly deployable? How much will the F-35 require the back up of tankers and AEWCS to perform at optimum?


----------



## wuzak (Nov 29, 2011)

Hypothetically, _if_ the F-35's stealth abilities were effectively negated _now_, what would it mean for its effectiveness, particularly in the air to air role?

It would seem that Russian BVR missiles have a range advantage over the AMRAAMs - so Russian built jets so equipped would hold the advantage if they could detect the F-35 at range.

And at close range the likes of thrust vectoring Su-35s would surely run rings around an F-35?


----------



## evangilder (Nov 29, 2011)

And when was the last close range air-to-air combat? The F-35 is not being billed as an air-superiority fighter, but a multi-role fighter. 

The F-18 is a multi-role fighter and the old mission of the F-14s is being done by F-18s, which are not as good at air-superiority as the F-14. Yet they are doing the job against the current threats. I don't think we will see a war like WWII again, and the more recent conflicts have been asymmetrical warfare. 

Issues today as they find them get worked and engineered to not become operational problems later on. I don't really think they will have any bearing on long term competitiveness. Whatever electronics and avionics and sensors they go into production with will get upgraded as better technologies evolve. That is how we have been able to keep using F-15s, F-16s and the like.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 29, 2011)

wuzak said:


> And at close range the likes of thrust vectoring Su-35s would surely run rings around an F-35?



Close vectoring is for airshows. My father in law used to deliver F-15s to USAF Squadrons. He once told me that if one allows themselves to get in close in modern combat they probably deserve to die. The only time you're going to get "close in" if you have to fight without radar, and if you're in that situation, you shouldn't be in combat to begin with.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 29, 2011)

There are a lot of questions here I would like to address. First, a bit of info on myself, I was on the proposal team on the B-2 and was a design manager and/or project engineer on that aircraft for maybe 25 years. After that, I worked on the proposal team for the JSF with Lockheed Martin. While not directly involved in stealth design, or mission profiling, I was exposed to the design philosophy of advanced aircraft and stealth design.

Also, I have been around a looong time and remember the abuse of such programs as, the F-111, which I think, became one of the most underrated fighters, F-15, Abrams tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, etc., and have seen their successes, so I have little patience with these types of comments.

The aircraft design activities are not only applied to effectiveness of the enemy defenses at the time of aircraft design but also to the effectiveness of the expected enemy defenses seen over the projected lifetime of the aircraft. Now, the engineers and scientist assigned to project the enemy threat are as capable as the ones designing the revolutionary aircraft itself. They are well aware of the techniques that could be applied to defeat stealth; in fact, efforts must be applied to defeat enemy stealth. They know the complexities of each concept, the difficulties of fielding such a design and the up-and-coming concepts of defeating the defeaters. These issues were all planned in the implementation of the aircraft. Of course unanticipated, unknown unknowns, capabilities can always pop up.

The F-35 is designed to be a replacement for the F-16, a light, cheap (?), relatively capable aircraft and is not as capable, or expensive, as the F-22. It is designed with sophisticated avionics which integrate into a network with many supporting assets. It is a “wolf pack” type hunter. I have no doubt it will be effective over its assigned lifetime.

Two types of the F-35 for the Navy and AF are required due to the complexity and weight difference of naval aircraft compared to AF. If the YF-17 had been selected by the AF, the Navy version would still look like the F-18, which is significantly different.

An enemy missile may indeed have a longer range, but would that fighter radar be able to detect and lock on at fifty plus miles? Or would that little five inch antenna radar seeker in the missile have the sophistication of those big, powerful ground base radars such that it can lock on at five miles? There are lots of issues to overcome.

Stealth has more advantage than just reducing cross section; it magnifies the effectiveness of any electronic countermeasures. An F-15, hit by a powerful beam must generate a powerful countermeasure to defeat it because the reflection is so great. That beam, hitting a stealth aircraft can be defeated by a relatively minute power countermeasure to defeat the very small return signal. Now, I must say, I know of no active countermeasures used on any stealth aircraft, I am just stating the obvious.

I think the F-35 will join the ranks of those weapons systems that were lambasted by critics and yet performed magnificently in combat.


----------



## parsifal (Nov 30, 2011)

Im feeling pretty old right now, because i cant really comment on this generation of aircraft. But i can say that big criticisms were levelled at the F-111 up to the time they were introduced. After they were introduced all of that criticism went away. suddenly we had the fastest, most potent strike aircraft in the region, and it just got better and better. after the half life update, these aircraft were potent......stand off missiles, smart bombs, advanced computer systems and sensors. They were considered unstoppable and long ranged. When they exercised against the RAN, we had to introduce speed and electronic limits on their cpability, otherwise they would sink us every time. I can tell every regional air force in our part of the world feared these aircraft.

They will be a very hard aircraft to replace. i know nothing about the JSF, but it will take an exceptional aircraft to fully replace the F-111Es that we recently retired.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 30, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Close vectoring is for airshows.



So why do the likes of the F-22 have 2d vectoring engine nozzles? Was not agility a goal in that design?





FLYBOYJ said:


> My father in law used to deliver F-15s to USAF Squadrons. He once told me that if one allows themselves to get in close in modern combat they probably deserve to die. The only time you're going to get "close in" if you have to fight without radar, and if you're in that situation, you shouldn't be in combat to begin with.



So, all engagements will beyond visual range?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2011)

wuzak said:


> So why do the likes of the F-22 have 2d vectoring engine nozzles? Was not agility a goal in that design?


It is/ was - but not the way the Russians are advertising it with maneuvers like "the cobra."


wuzak said:


> So, all engagements will beyond visual range?


They should if tactically possible.


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 30, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It is/ was - but not the way the Russians are advertising it with maneuvers like "the cobra."
> 
> They should if tactically possible.


 Isn't this what happened with the F4's in Vietnam?


----------



## gjs238 (Nov 30, 2011)

Wonder how the P-38, P-39, P-40 would fare being introduced with today's climate?
I can see 60 Minutes doing a piece on P-38 compressibility or P-39 flat spins.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> Isn't this what happened with the F4's in Vietnam?


Vietnam had "rules of engagement" introduced my some moronic politicians. In the early part of the war a US fighter could not fire until fired upon and had to make visual contact with an agressor. Things changed later in the war that enabled the F-4 to engage when radar contact was made.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 30, 2011)

In reality, we are probably witnessing a historic evolution, the demise of the manned fighter aircraft. There may never be another one in the West. No manned aircraft can out maneuver a missile and as netting become more prevalent, smarter and smarter air-to-air missiles will more likely be carried by smarter and smarter UAVs and targeting will be done miles, maybe thousands of miles, away. The airspace near the FEBA will be no place for a person. All they need to do is name the system Skynet!


----------



## tyrodtom (Nov 30, 2011)

What if a opponent just swamps the defense system with cheap, low tech, UAVs, or even old obsolete aircraft, more or less a airborne human wave ?

We're never going to able to afford many F-35's, and each one doesn't carry many AIM missles, and the onboard gun only has like 300 rounds. I know the F-35 can supercruise at supersonic speeds, but it's top speed is lower than first line jets of 40 years ago.


----------



## The Basket (Nov 30, 2011)

The replacement of the F-15 and F-16 has to be better than the old fighters otherwise why bother. An interesting point was made that the Raptor would have been a Cold War warrior and designed to fight a convential war but what changed when that ended? Is the F-22 and F-35 needed now? 

I wonder what the threat driving American defence policy is nowadays. China? Russia? I still believe that the F-15 flown by USAF is still a match for any Flanker. Although any loss ratio could be about 1 for 1.

The.issues with ww2 fighters were less controversial because they were needed and the country was at war. Its far more difficult to justify multi billion dollar projects when the threat is far less tangible.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 30, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> What if a opponent just swamps the defense system with cheap, low tech, UAVs, or even old obsolete aircraft, more or less a airborne human wave ?
> 
> We're never going to able to afford many F-35's, and each one doesn't carry many AIM missles, and the onboard gun only has like 300 rounds. I know the F-35 can supercruise at supersonic speeds, but it's top speed is lower than first line jets of 40 years ago.



Rather than "swarms of UAVs", why not just launch missiles (cruise or ballistic...take your pick)? What would be the target(s) for a swarm attack? CONUS? That's a heck of a reach for anyone and would be political (and, in all probability, actual) suicide for the aggressor. 

Western military powers, with their focus on qualitative rather than quantitative advantage, are susceptible to massed swarm attacks whether you're equipped with F-16s, F-15s, F-22s or something else. However, swarm attacks are much harder to implement than might at first appear. Every technology has a counter if we remove the pesky impact of geography and assume unlimited resources on the part of our adversaries. Neither simplification will work in the real world. For example, in order to pull off a successful swarm attack, the adversary would have to procure the UAVs (or missiles), train operators and maintainers, select targets and then implement the operation...and do all of that undetected by Western intelligence services. Frankly, the odds are zero that such an attack could succeed. 

As for top speed being slower than front-line jets of 40 years ago, that's the current nature of the operational environment. In the 1960s, speed and altitude were seen as protection from missile defences. That's no longer the case. Now agility rather than straight-line speed is more valued - and I mean that not in the sense of a close-in knife-fight between 2 aircraft, rather that the aircraft which can bring superior weapons systems to bear earlier, at longer range, will always win.

Finally, we must not forget the human element. Even UAVs are not robots - the USAF is now using the term RPV for Remotely Piloted Vehicle. The West maintains a significant qualitative advantage when it comes to training of its personnel, both aircrew and groundcrew, which ensures we can continue to win force-on-force contests. The biggest threat is from reduced defence budgets which, by necessity, tend to get focussed on the current war(s), which are counter-insurgent based, and not the next war which might be more traditional, force-on-force but I doubt it.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 30, 2011)

tyrodtom said:


> What if a opponent just swamps the defense system with cheap, low tech, UAVs, or even old obsolete aircraft, more or less a airborne human wave ?
> 
> We're never going to able to afford many F-35's, and each one doesn't carry many AIM missles, and the onboard gun only has like 300 rounds. I know the F-35 can supercruise at supersonic speeds, but it's top speed is lower than first line jets of 40 years ago.



My understanding is that the F-35 cannot supercruise. The F-22 is currently the only aircraft in service with that ability, with the Su-35 getting a limited supercruise ability in the near future. The PAK-FA, and its Indian equivalent, and the Chinese J-20 will have supercruise. The PAK-FA is expected to begin entering service around 2015.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 30, 2011)

The Basket said:


> I wonder what the threat driving American defence policy is nowadays. China? Russia? I still believe that the F-15 flown by USAF is still a match for any Flanker. Although any loss ratio could be about 1 for 1.



Really?

IAF Sukhoi Su-30s soundly defeated F-15Cs (9:1) in joint exercises a few years back - although there were some restrictions on both sides - the F-15s weren't fitted with the latest radars or AMRAAMs and were outnumbered 3:1, though the Su-30s didn't use their radars either.


----------



## wuzak (Nov 30, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> Finally, we must not forget the human element. Even UAVs are not robots - the USAF is now using the term RPV for Remotely Piloted Vehicle. The West maintains a significant qualitative advantage when it comes to training of its personnel, both aircrew and groundcrew, which ensures we can continue to win force-on-force contests. The biggest threat is from reduced defence budgets which, by necessity, tend to get focussed on the current war(s), which are counter-insurgent based, and not the next war which might be more traditional, force-on-force but I doubt it.



If counter-insurgency is the basis for weapons buys in teh current climate, wouldn't the A-10 be the high priority replacement, isntead of the F-16/F-18?

On budgets, if aircraft such as the F-22 become prevalent in the Air Force, with its much higher than normal maintenance requirements, won't it be difficult to maintain the current level of training operations?


----------



## The Basket (Nov 30, 2011)

wuzak said:


> Really?
> 
> IAF Sukhoi Su-30s soundly defeated F-15Cs (9:1) in joint exercises a few years back - although there were some restrictions on both sides - the F-15s weren't fitted with the latest radars or AMRAAMs and were outnumbered 3:1, though the Su-30s didn't use their radars either.



Exactly. The Indian exercise is pinch of salt stuff. The Russians have good new machines but where are they? Su-34 is a good example of not many built.

It could be proven that the Phantom was outclassed and a replacement needed. Cant be said of the Eagle. Dont forget SAMs. They are bad news for ansy fighter up against a modern Russian system. So stealth is good for those threats.


----------



## buffnut453 (Nov 30, 2011)

wuzak said:


> If counter-insurgency is the basis for weapons buys in teh current climate, wouldn't the A-10 be the high priority replacement, isntead of the F-16/F-18?
> 
> On budgets, if aircraft such as the F-22 become prevalent in the Air Force, with its much higher than normal maintenance requirements, won't it be difficult to maintain the current level of training operations?



Aircraft development schedules are so long that it's impossible to initiate a design and complete it in time for current conflicts so governments do what governments do best - they change the requirements of existing programmes to show that the expenditure really is supporting current needs and then bitterly complain about cost hikes and schedule overruns.

What's your source for the F-22 maintenance requirements? Better maintenance does not equate to longer maintenance or lower availability. And if we go back to your original complaints about the F-35, that beast was designed from the very beginning to be an easy aircraft to maintain.


----------



## nuuumannn (Nov 30, 2011)

Losing to the Sukhoi in a non-realistic training scenario is surely no indication of how the F-15 would perform in combat against them. Also, although the F-15 lost to the Indian Sukhois (remember, the F-15 also lost to the Sea Harrier FRS.1 in exercises in the 1980s), the opportunity for F-15 drivers to see how their potential adversary was likely to perform in combat first hand would have been extremely valuable to them.

Regarding the F-35 and its relevancy, it is most certainly relevant. I've never thought much of that old chestnut that states the F-35, the Eurofighter and the F-22 were no longer relevant because the Cold War has ended for the following reason. A country's armed forces is like an insurance policy; you sure as hell hope you don't have to use it, but its there just in case you need it. Like insurance policies, when situations change and what went before becomes obsolete, the old stuff needs to be replaced and the new stuff designed to meet the requirements of the new situation. The B-1 is a classic example, it was designed as a high altitude supersonic bomber, but because philosophies changed, so did it. Its combat record has proven its worth.

From an engineering persepctive, aircraft design is incorporating more and more avionics and non metallic structures that engineers need to become trained in new disciplines; black handers are learning avionics and composite repair, and this isn't just happening in military aircraft either. Therefore, the justification for maintaining the development of Cold War era combat programmes is advancing technology that came about as a result of the Cold War. Even if the first marks of the F-35 prove to be troublesome, the US are going to throw money at the aircraft until it gets better, as they did with the F-111 and B-1. It has to work; they've put some much into it and so much is riding on its success.

I don't know much about the performance of modern combat aircraft, but regarding the F-35 being inferior in capability to the F-111 its replacing, show me an aircraft in service today that has the performance and capability of the F-111. There isn't. It was unmatched and superbly suited to the Australian environment. It's highly unlikely that an aircraft that could match or outperform the F-111 will be developed within the expected lifespan of the F-35 in RAAF service.


----------



## davparlr (Nov 30, 2011)

wuzak said:


> On budgets, if aircraft such as the F-22 become prevalent in the Air Force, with its much higher than normal maintenance requirements, won't it be difficult to maintain the current level of training operations?


Modern military aircraft are designed to high high levels of reliability and maintainability requirements that have been validated in recent conflicts. There is no doubt the F-22 will meet those requirements, although with some expensive parts.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2011)

wuzak said:


> *My understanding is that the F-35 cannot supercruise.* The F-22 is currently the only aircraft in service with that ability, with the Su-35 getting a limited supercruise ability in the near future. The PAK-FA, and its Indian equivalent, and the Chinese J-20 will have supercruise. The PAK-FA is expected to begin entering service around 2015.


There are those who won't confirm or deny this capability


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 1, 2011)

wuzak said:


> If counter-insurgency is the basis for weapons buys in teh current climate, wouldn't the A-10 be the high priority replacement, isntead of the F-16/F-18?


 The F-35 is supposed to replace all 3, no?


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 1, 2011)

nuuumannn said:


> Losing to the Sukhoi in a non-realistic training scenario is surely no indication of how the F-15 would perform in combat against them. Also, although the F-15 lost to the Indian Sukhois (remember, the F-15 also lost to the Sea Harrier FRS.1 in exercises in the 1980s), the opportunity for F-15 drivers to see how their potential adversary was likely to perform in combat first hand would have been extremely valuable to them.
> 
> Regarding the F-35 and its relevancy, it is most certainly relevant. I've never thought much of that old chestnut that states the F-35, the Eurofighter and the F-22 were no longer relevant because the Cold War has ended for the following reason. A country's armed forces is like an insurance policy; you sure as hell hope you don't have to use it, but its there just in case you need it. Like insurance policies, when situations change and what went before becomes obsolete, the old stuff needs to be replaced and the new stuff designed to meet the requirements of the new situation. The B-1 is a classic example, it was designed as a high altitude supersonic bomber, but because philosophies changed, so did it. Its combat record has proven its worth.
> 
> ...



Su-24/Su-34?
Xian JH-7?
Tornado?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 1, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> The F-35 is supposed to replace all 3, no?


At least the F-16 and F-18. the A-10 may hold out according to what I have heard through sources at work.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 1, 2011)

I hope the military does not try to replace the A10 with as expensive of a plane as the F-35. I'd hate too the F-35 exposed to the type of hazzard's the A-10's are famous for taking and still flying. Hate to see a mutli-million dollar plane get down and dirty and tore up when the A-10 is still capable, and much cheaper to maintain I would think. The A10 is one of my favorite modern planes. Well suited to it's down on the deck, missions.


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 1, 2011)

RE: A-10
I had heard some grumblings about how the AH-64 (and the AH-1) incurred more battle damage than expected during Desert Storm and subsequent operations, resulting in a renewal of interest in the A-10, which some were ready to write off.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 1, 2011)

The A-10 is perfectly suited for it's environment. Why replace a weapon system like the A-10 that is still very effective, not too high tech (perfect characteristic for a plane that will at some point take some damage), reliable, tough, and deadly. Why even gamble loosing a F-35 when the A-10's are still available, and up to the task, and tougher. Thinking like that does not make sense to me. Reminds me of the old story about the US spending a ton of cash trying to develop a ink pen that can write in space, and the Soviet Union just uses a pencil. Sometimes the low tech approach is the best. K.IS.S.!


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 1, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> Su-24/Su-34?
> Xian JH-7?
> Tornado?



You're kidding, right?


----------



## wuzak (Dec 1, 2011)

My understanding is that the F-35 will replace the A-10, but several years after it replaces the F-16/F-18.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 1, 2011)

I would venture to guess that the A-10's ultimate replacement will be unmanned. That kind of duty needs to be performed by something well armored and highly agile. It's not duty for a multi-role fighter. At one point, the F-16 was to replace the A-10. It is currently slated to serve with the USAF until at least 2028. By then UAVs will most likely take over that role.


----------



## gjs238 (Dec 2, 2011)

nuuumannn said:


> You're kidding, right?


Well, which is the best of the three, the Su-34?
How does that compare to the F-111?


----------



## wuzak (Dec 2, 2011)

gjs238 said:


> Well, which is the best of the three, the Su-34?
> How does that compare to the F-111?


 
Less range, less speed, less load.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 2, 2011)

Hi gjs38, 



wuzak said:


> Less range, less speed, less load.



Yep, sure does. The F-111 was in a league of its own; it could carry a heavier load across a greater distance at a higher speed than all of those you listed. It was optimised for low level strike at sustained supersonic speeds. According to one source of info, the F-111C had an unrefuelled range on internal fuel of over 2,500 nm. It's max take-off weight was around 110,000 lbs. it was years ahead of its time when it first appeared and to date, nothing in service has the same capability.

I have to admit I'm not very knowledgeable on current designs, but from what reading I've doen recently, the Su-34 is indeed a formidable warplane. I found this on the net:

"In comparing the basic Su-32/34 airframe against Western types, the design with 12.1 tonnes (26.7 klb) of internal fuel sits in between the Boeing F-15E and F-111 in combat radius and weapon payload capabilities. It will provide at lower gross weights lower agility than the F-15E, but higher agility than the F-111. Its top end supersonic performance is inferior to both US types. Like both US types, the aircraft is intended to perform low altitude penetration using terrain following radar (TFR) functions. Unlike the F-15E with a podded LANTIRN TFR and the F-111 with a dedicated redundant APQ-171 TFR, the Su-32/34 uses a phased array which interleaves TFR and other modes, a concept used previously only the in B-1B's APQ-164 phased array."


----------



## vanir (Dec 2, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> In 6 years? I doubt it. The counter to stealth has been known for a very long time - it's called bi-static radar where the transmitter and receiver are located far enough apart that signals reflected by a stealthy aircraft are still able to be collected (basically using the stealth design against itself). The challenge is making such a system work viably in an operational setting, and then to use such a system to get a weapon onto the target. Oh, and it has to be survivable too so fixed facilities are a no-no. The cost and technical complexity of such systems pretty much puts them out of reach for most of the world, and the rest are too busy making money or staying alive to care about such esoteric pieces of military hardware. In short, I think Oz will do very well with the F-35 - it may not be a "Pig" but I think it will do the job it's designed to do.



According to Mikoyan this was the specific reason for the datalinked fire control system built into the Foxhound back when the HaveBlue Project was still news. The US move into stealth was entirely predictable, for this reason Kelly Johnson warns against it and suggests it was an error of judgement by the DoD. He says an updated F-15 replacement, essentially a Flanker-like aircraft would've been longer term thinking and more appropriate to common requirements. Instead of trying to one up the Eagle, just enjoy the fact it is now cheaper to match its performance, and even exceed it without service trialling whimsical new technologies during peacetime, upon massive scale. Actually he even thought the transonic emphasis by the Air Force was a mistake and thought the continued high performance emphasis of Russian aircraft design would draw ahead in the future in service models, he was all for translating SR71 technology developments (in a demonstrator capacity) into new front line fighters.

Mikoyan states that a single Foxhound or Su-30 (PVO version as opposed to VVS Su-30M multirole) controller aircraft can, with a flight of any MiG 9-13 or Su-27 intercept radar signals along a concave front some 270km in diameter, reliably exposing deflection type stealth measures.
The primary stealth feature of current US warplanes then is the special coating on the surfaces to absorb radar/sensors. It is extremely expensive and wears very poorly, iirc you get three sorties before a recoat. I wouldn't know a realistic figure myself and that could be just media hype.

The reason stated why the Raptor would not be involved in the Middle East is cost/sortie rate. Same problem with B2, same problem with F35. And anyway as F16 and A10 designer states in interview, cost recovery is about two things: mundane utilitarian use and export value. The entire cost recovery philosophy for the whole bunch is export value, and they're well blown out economically compared to other types that are perfectly capable of the getting the job done at a third the price.

And for Australia, hate to go along with that extremist blogger doing the rounds everyone's heard of, Air Power Australia or some rot, but the truth is being an island nation with a great big coral sea to police, we'd never get to use F35 stealth anyway because it has to be packed with stores just to be useful, and even then only at coastal ranges. It's designed for god knows what, useless plane if you ask me, but we can't use it either way in any capacity any better than a Viper. We just plain have higher airframe requirements than avionics requirements, it's circumstantial but goes with the territory, the US is concerned with a more electronics warfare environment. Who will we fight, Indonesia, India, China, North Korea, avionics isn't exactly going to have prestigé of old fashioned basics like combat range and performance under heavy load bearing and rough field operation.
SuperHornets are pretty good, expensive but fantastic supersonic cruise range because like all Hornets they can do it at 75% and supercruise just not as fast as a Raptor in that, 1.02M vs 1.4M or somesuch, but it doesn't burn much fuel doing it. Has a great subsonic range. Great stores. Existing pilot familiarity. Increased capability over the Pigs.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 3, 2011)

Vanir,

Mikoyan's claim, according to your post, is that they can intercept reflected radar signals from a stealth aircraft using multiple aircraft flying over a wide area. That's entirely believable. Are they also claiming to be able to get a firing solution based on those signals? Also, Mikoyan is hardly a disinterested bystander - they're going toe-to-toe against the F-35 for the export market but they don't have anything comparable to offer, so it's hardly surprising that they're going to infer weaknesses in their competitors' capability. Bottom line, though, is that a non-stealth aircraft doesn't prompt the unusual widespread, multi-aircraft tactics that Mikoyan is hinting at, ergo the stealth capability has already forced the opposition to put more aircraft in the air over a much broader area to attempt an intercept...and with no promise that it will actually be successful.

You state, "Who will we fight, Indonesia, India, China, North Korea, avionics isn't exactly going to have prestigé of old fashioned basics like combat range and performance under heavy load bearing and rough field operation." Well, you aren't going to fight China or North Korea without the USA. I don't see you going to war with Indonesia or India either, unless you count the non-conventional GWOT issues with the former. Indeed, where has Australia gone to war recently - Iraq and Afghanistan, not the Pacific rim. So bottom line is you're really worried about patrolling a large patch of sea in a non-warfare role so why the gripe about carrying external stores?

Finally, do not dismiss the issue of avionics. It's bluddy hard finding spares for ancient microchips used in older generations of aircraft, and retro-fitting isn't easy - look at what it took to get the Tornado GR1 upgraded to GR4 (ok, perhaps not the greatest example). Buying current technology that's already been in-service for a long time isn't the best way to keep your fighting forces combat ready. Indeed, that's one reason why the Pig was retired. It was just impossibly expensive to keep it flying when nobody else was operating the type and the obtaining of spares became increasingly difficult. As Wg Cdr Gray puts it in this article, the Pig was "easy to fly but difficult to operate".

F-111 flies into history | Australian Aviation Magazine

The same issues would be encountered with the Superbugs once they are replaced by F-35s in USN and USMC service. Having a brand new, front-line jet that's also a key asset in the USAF, USN and USMC arsenals is a strong argument because operating costs and technical risk are both reduced.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 3, 2011)

When one looks at Australia's defence needs from half a globe away, seems people down under would need more a 21th century Mosquito, than a 21th century Spitfire?


----------



## evangilder (Dec 3, 2011)

There are a number of factual inaccuracies in your post, vanir. The B-2 has in fact been used in the Middle East. It was used in the the Kosovo War, Afghanistan, Iraq and even in the early days of the Libya conflict. While there are a few shortcomings in the radar absorbent paint, repainting after three sorties is a fantasy. Paint is not the only thing keeping these aircraft in the low observability range. 

And while I am a fan of the F-111, it's combat record was far from impressive. It had impressive stats and range and payload were good on paper. But long range strikes, even when things are working right, are difficult to accomplish. After a long flight, then flying through air defenses, fatigue and adrenaline can effect concentration. Lets look at the Libya raid in 1986 done by 18 F-111Fs out of Lakenheath.

Target 1: Bab al-Azizia barracks. 9 F-111Fs, each armed with 4 GBU-10 2,000 lb Laser guided bombs. 
Score: 3 bombed, 1 miss, 4 aborts, 1 lost 
13 hits out of 36 weapons
Effectiveness 36%
Target 2: Murat Sidi Bilal camp. 3 F-111Fs, each armed with 4 GBU-10 2,000 lb Laser guided bombs. 
Score: 3 hits
12 hits out of 12 weapons
Effectiveness: 100%
Target 3: Tripoli airfield. 6 F-111Fs, each armed with 12 Mk 82 500 lb bombs.
Score: 5 bombed 1 abort. 
70 hits out of 84 weapons
Effectiveness: 83%

While it was an overall success, the effectiveness of the F-111 against a difficult target after a long flight is not a resounding success.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2011)

Going full circle here (a bit) the F-117A during the Gulf War had an 80% accuracy rate according to the USAF. The -117A was designed to not only give a better accuracy rate when compared to other fighter bombers at the time, but to be able to penetrate hardened bunkers


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 3, 2011)

The F111 was probably a very tired work intensive bird and thats why shes gone , I'm curious as to how many man hours maintainence for every flight hour on the F111 at the end of her career


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> *The F111 was probably a very tired work intensive bird and thats why shes gone *, I'm curious as to how many man hours maintainence for every flight hour on the F111 at the end of her career


Actually it's not. I had friends who worked on the mod line at Palmdale in the late 90s and better surface prep processes and materials enabled surface maintenance to be no more difficult than any other composite aircraft. The 117A was "semi-retired" because of budgetary considerations and making room for the F-35. A fleet of -117s are in storage at Tonopah NV and can be placed back in service at any time.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 3, 2011)

I think pbfoot's refering to the F-111, Joe. I used to know a former RAAF F-111 engineer who got real sick from the sealant used in the fuel tanks; he said that from a maintenance standpoint the F-111 lived up to its Aussie nickname; "Never wrestle with a Pig, you end up dirty and the Pig likes it..."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2011)

You're right, my bad! Saw 3 numbers and my brain went into "stealth mode!" Sorry Pb!


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 3, 2011)

Have to say, Joe, I was a little surprised when they announced the 'retirement' of the F-117A. I thought an asset like that would have been highly prized, especially since the F-35 isn't in service yet.


----------



## fubar57 (Dec 3, 2011)

Canada is replacing it's CF-18 fleet with the F-35. A single engine jet has no place in the high arctic where the CF-18 patrols. As for it's stealth capabilities...against what? Caribou!!! I'm not against upgrading the air force but surely the cheaper newest Hornet would be better suited for Canada's purpose.

Geo


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2011)

nuuumannn said:


> Have to say, Joe, I was a little surprised when they announced the 'retirement' of the F-117A. I thought an asset like that would have been highly prized, especially since the F-35 isn't in service yet.


Probably why they are in storage


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2011)

fubar57 said:


> Canada is replacing it's CF-18 fleet with the F-35. A single engine jet has no place in the high arctic where the CF-18 patrols. As for it's stealth capabilities...against what? Caribou!!! I'm not against upgrading the air force but surely the cheaper newest Hornet would be better suited for Canada's purpose.
> 
> Geo


I somewhat have to agree but on the other end Canada will probably have a large offset stake in their purchase


----------



## Glider (Dec 4, 2011)

I can see why they are going with the F35. The Hornet must now be at or be lcose to its peak in development potential. The F35 is clearly only beginning. In 20 years time I doubt that the F18 will be able to hold its own against the best whereas the F35 has every chance of doing so and its that long term situation that would been an important consideration.

The decision of Canada to go for the F35 must have had an impact on the chances of other nations who are looking at purchasing new combat aircraft. Canada is well respected and people will be asking why they went for the F35 instead of the F18 which of course they already operate.

Back to original question of there being too much faith in Stealth, who knows. I attended a debate at the RUSI last year and one idea that was mentioned was the increase in computer power is the biggest threat to Stealth. In brief the arguement was that stealth doesn't stop the aircraft giving a reflection, it make is much smaller say to the size of a bird, so it becomes invisible. However, once the computers can identify a bird flying at 600mph from those going 20mph then the game is up. Its an interesting theory


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 4, 2011)

" .... A single engine jet has no place in the high arctic where the CF-18 patrols. As for it's stealth capabilities...against what? ..."

" ... I somewhat have to agree but on the other end Canada will probably have a large offset stake in their purchase".

That's the idea .... keep the aerospace industry moving with the times. 

I think the F-35 will be used in all sorts of situations that we haven't imagined ourselves _in _yet.  

When Canada bought the F-18's they were the first multi-role AC Canada had bought _new_ that hadn't been a license-build from CANADAIR (now Bombardier). This was all hugely political .... but without going _there_  .... the same government that fed Bombardier, joined the F-35 project at the ininitial "offering". That government is no longer _the_ government  and doesn't seem to like its own legacy.

In today's (technology) environment, I think the single-engine over the arctic issue is just much about very little. If Lockheed U-2's were/are able to fly deep penetrations into hostile airspace with a single engine - I think the fine girls and boys of our RCAF can manage with the single-engined F-35.

For Canada - cruise and 'stealth' make for surprise. When you don't have Divisions to deploy, surprise is cost-effective at any price, in any situation. (Like the little black dress, Ladies )

MM


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 4, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> "but on the other end Canada will probably have a large offset stake in their purchase".
> 
> That's the idea .... keep the aerospace industry moving with the times.



The CP-140 program was 100% offset by several Canadian aircraft contractors - Canadair (Bombardier) Bristol, Enheat, IMP, and Fleet Industries. There were a few smaller ones. From 1978 until 1990 about 40% of the CP-140 and P-3 were manufactured in Canada.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 4, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Going full circle here (a bit) the F-117A during the Gulf War had an 80% accuracy rate according to the USAF. The -117A was designed to not only give a better accuracy rate when compared to other fighter bombers at the time, but to be able to penetrate hardened bunkers



Isn't the penetration capabilities a function of the ordinance rather than the airframe?

Though, I suppose, it also requires bombs to be dropped from higher altitudes to get that penetration capability. And at higher altitudes the F-117 was more survivable due to its stealth design.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 4, 2011)

wuzak said:


> Isn't the penetration capabilities a function of the ordinance rather than the airframe?


 You've got to get it there and acquire a target. Having the ability to do it requires some help from a platform.


wuzak said:


> Though, I suppose, it also requires bombs to be dropped from higher altitudes to get that penetration capability. And at higher altitudes the F-117 was more survivable due to its stealth design.


Maybe - I think it depended on what was being targeted.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 5, 2011)

Messy1 said:


> The A-10 is perfectly suited for it's environment. Why replace a weapon system like the A-10 that is still very effective, not too high tech (perfect characteristic for a plane that will at some point take some damage), reliable, tough, and deadly. Why even gamble loosing a F-35 when the A-10's are still available, and up to the task, and tougher. Thinking like that does not make sense to me. Reminds me of the old story about the US spending a ton of cash trying to develop a ink pen that can write in space, and the Soviet Union just uses a pencil. Sometimes the low tech approach is the best. K.IS.S.!



One could be cynical and say "because they are old, and there are defence dollars in the offing for a replacement"....


----------



## vanir (Dec 5, 2011)

evangilder said:


> There are a number of factual inaccuracies in your post, vanir.



given an intentionally speculative post for an inherently speculative thread topic, that's a bit like shooting fish in a barrel isn't it? We're talking opinions here really aren't we, my counter argument could easily be to simply conjure up the performance requirements well outside the F-35 or whichevertype's particular sphere of design performance envelope, bingo it isn't so good. What are you going to try to do, argue that it is the ultimate superplane?

Surely you realise as much as me it's more about a tool for the job than a great marketing campaign at the pointy end of the stick. Whilst I don't like the extremism of bloggers like that Air Power Australia group, nevertheless there is an argument that Australian tools should probably be different from American tools, given local geopolitics remains largely outside American influence.

It is my opinion to which I am entitled that the assessment of individuals like Kelly Johnson and that guy who designed the A10 and worked on the F16 who comments on armaments in interviews, their point matter and presentation just sits very well with me as rational and objective, with no personal, patriotic or marketing agendas...or derivative rose glasses. I recognise it is an opinion.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 5, 2011)

My apologies for the brash start to my post. I was never arguing that the F-35 would be the be-all, do-all aircraft. Unfortunately, when you are trying to do many things at one time, you rarely do any of them very well. That is the problem with multi-role aircraft. It will do all of the missions, but not as well as an aircraft specifically designed for one thing. 

I agree that the defense strategies of Australia are quite different than those of the US. Unfortunately, the indigenous aircraft companies of Australia like CAC are pretty much gone now. I don't know the ins and outs of geopolitical maneuvering with regards to defense aircraft procurement, but I would venture to guess that creating a whole new design that would meet all of the needs/wants for the Australian military would be very expensive.

My point was that the B-2 has been used in the Middle East in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the opening round of the NATO engagement in Libya. It's not kept out of combat. While the F-22 has not been used in combat yet, the coatings do last longer than 2-3 sorties. Have they had some issues with the paint? Yes, but they are not as dire as you stated.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 6, 2011)

evangilder said:


> My apologies for the brash start to my post. I was never arguing that the F-35 would be the be-all, do-all aircraft. Unfortunately, when you are trying to do many things at one time, you rarely do any of them very well. That is the problem with multi-role aircraft. It will do all of the missions, but not as well as an aircraft specifically designed for one thing.
> 
> I agree that the defense strategies of Australia are quite different than those of the US. Unfortunately, the indigenous aircraft companies of Australia like CAC are pretty much gone now. I don't know the ins and outs of geopolitical maneuvering with regards to defense aircraft procurement, but I would venture to guess that creating a whole new design that would meet all of the needs/wants for the Australian military would be very expensive.



Unfortunately the F-35 in Australian service will have to be the be-all and do-all aircraft. There will not be any air superiority fighters like the F-22 or dedicated close air support aircraft. The F-35 will be the only fighter/fighter-bomber/bomber/strike aircraft we wil have. 

There was to be an evaluation of future aircraft to fulfill our needs. But in 2002 the government signed onto the F-35 program without doing that evaluation. 

Also in 2002 Australia was offered two Sukhoi Su-27s (-30s/-35? one of the variants) for evaluation purposes. But that was declined.

With delays in the F-35 and the decision to retire the F-111s it was decided to buy F-18E/F Super Hornets as interim replacements.

There have been some odd procurement decisions. Like the decision to buy used Kaman Sea Sprites with updated electronics for our navy to use. This program turned out to be ridiculously expensive, and ended up being cancelled.

Politically it would seem that anything not US built hardly gets a chance. Which is a shame.

I understand that the RAAF have done modifications/upgrades to their F/A-18As to make them fit our needs more closely. This may be difficult to do with the F-35.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 6, 2011)

Should've bought Typhoons instead, then.


----------



## Glider (Dec 6, 2011)

It has shades of the purchase of the F111. They operated some F4s before the F111 was delivered and a lot of people believed that the F4 would have been both cheaper and more effective


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 6, 2011)

parsifal said:


> One could be cynical and say "because they are old, and there are defence dollars in the offing for a replacement"....


That very thing has occurred to me Parsifal. Typical waste in government.


----------



## vanir (Dec 6, 2011)

sorry evan, I try to keep an eye on being on forums too much without socialising irl to compensate, I accept one of my references for those comments was American media, not exactly a primary source or a necessarily objective one. But I did hear a rendition from some authoritive, celebrated US designers responsible for aircraft in current service and with great service records I might add. Can't remember his name, but seriously I lack enough knowledge to be convincing myself, but I sure well learned how to recognise it the hard way by my age and every point this guy made was unquestionably observation in nature, it was entirely informative, he answered questions with detailed user friendly physics and was just really comfortable talking about this stuff, he knew his stuff, no way he's off on it. (there's a youtube of the interview, finnish documentary I think, when I find it again I'll post it).

But it is true, if history is anything to go by US made warplanes cut no corners in quality, workmanship, effective performance and design achievements. There is no question as to the record of US armaments industry.

So I don't know where I stand, I can only parrot what I take in and try to make sense of things as best I can. I concede and defer to any qualified experts.



> I understand that the RAAF have done modifications/upgrades to their F/A-18As to make them fit our needs more closely. This may be difficult to do with the F-35.



The price on the F/A-18C/D update (ie. equivalency conversions) got blown out so we made our own locally, the only part it lacked initially was Amraam capability (we were mostly interested in antishipping armaments) but I think we got amraam capability on some or all of them eventually, probably that part is patented US or something.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 6, 2011)

AMRAAM is medium range air to air missile.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 6, 2011)

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQB4W8C0rZI_

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kssZua8MVc_


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 6, 2011)

nuuumannn said:


> Have to say, Joe, I was a little surprised when they announced the 'retirement' of the F-117A. I thought an asset like that would have been highly prized, especially since the F-35 isn't in service yet.



It is 70's technology. 40yrs old. Surface treatments, engine baffles, encoded digital comm, sensor fusion and IRST avionics offer a likely similar or better capability.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 6, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> Should've bought Typhoons instead, then.



But then you really don't get any significant air-gnd capability until Block III. The Typhoon was not developed to be an all-purpose attack-fighter. It is a fighter-intercepter, first and foremost. Doesn't mean it will adequately fill the roll (Block III brings most of those capabilities). Same with Rafael, but Rafael is a bit ahead in the integration timeline. And Rafael sacraficed performance for those attack capabilities.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 6, 2011)

Matt308 said:


> And Rafael sacraficed performance for those attack capabilities.



Is that not the case for the F-35 too?


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 6, 2011)

Presumably so did the F/A-18. And the F-111 never had an air-to-air capability. I guess I'm struggling to understand the point you're making. Are you suggesting the RAAF keeps the F-111 as a deep strike capability because it was specifically designed for that role and also keep the F/A-18 for air defence even though it was designed as a multi-role platform? Sounds like double standards to me.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 7, 2011)

wuzak said:


> Is that not the case for the F-35 too?



I'm having a hard time following the logic of your argument and am quickly coming to the realization that for you the argument is more important than the conclusion.


----------



## davparlr (Dec 7, 2011)

evangilder said:


> And while I am a fan of the F-111, it's combat record was far from impressive. It had impressive stats and range and payload were good on paper. But long range strikes, even when things are working right, are difficult to accomplish. After a long flight, then flying through air defenses, fatigue and adrenaline can effect concentration. Lets look at the Libya raid in 1986 done by 18 F-111Fs out of Lakenheath.
> 
> Target 1: Bab al-Azizia barracks. 9 F-111Fs, each armed with 4 GBU-10 2,000 lb Laser guided bombs.
> Score: 3 bombed, 1 miss, 4 aborts, 1 lost
> ...



I think that in 1986 this was revolutionary performance. A long range mission and excellent results for the time. Remember, they were using basically late 1960s technology (barely out of the iron bomb world). In the early 80s, when we were designing the B-2 cockpit we had a FB-111 pilot and WSO to advise us. We had a two man cockpit unlike the four man B-1. At that time the FB-111 was the only aircraft assigned to the downtown Moscow run.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 7, 2011)

Matt308 said:


> I'm having a hard time following the logic of your argument and am quickly coming to the realization that for you the argument is more important than the conclusion.



Sorry.

You said that the Rafael sacrificed performance to gain attack capabilities. Is that not the same for the F-35 that has to sacrifice performance in one area to satisfy the requirements in another?

In other words, The F-35's air to air capability is compromised by its attack requirements, and vice versa.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 7, 2011)

wuzak said:


> Sorry.
> 
> You said that the Rafael sacrificed performance to gain attack capabilities. Is that not the same for the F-35 that has to sacrifice performance in one area to satisfy the requirements in another?
> 
> In other words, The F-35's air to air capability is compromised by its attack requirements, and vice versa.



Absolutely. The F-35 is not an air superiority fighter. Yet I was under the impression you were arguing that Australia with a multi-role need would be best served via Typhoon. Rafael's high level requirements were steeped in multi-role. Typhoon Mk1 were not. Certainly performance was sacrificed for F-35 and Rafael, but they have true multi-role out of the box. Typhoon is playing catch-up and with a stated urgency.

However, don't get me wrong. The F-16A program was unfettered with long-term requirements to establish a short term airframe success. I view the Typhoon in a similar positive light. There are always tradeoffs. F-35 is suffering from an all to typical US procurement where the DoD provides initial specifications and as the program matures heaps new upon old. While this is rife with potential for failure and cost overruns, one must balance these complex system procurement timelines with others that must identify new requirements and budgetary line items over a 40 year procurement life cycle.

Damned if you do. Damned if you don't. I suspect that once F-35 gets out of LRIP, it will be the platform to have. It's not just about the airframe anymore.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 7, 2011)

I was arguing that the F-35 is not the solution to Australia's needs, and certainly is not suitable for all the roles required by Australia. And surely air superiority is one of the most important roles for our aircraft.

I think we need a mixture of aircraft to fulfill our needs. Not just a single aircraft to do the whole job.

The US won't sell us F-22s, so why wouldn't Australia look at what else is available for the different roles required.

I would suggest that the Su-35 is probably the best airframe available (to Australia) at the moment for air superiority and can be available for roughly the same cost as the F-18E/Fs we bought. And surely they would have some strike capability.

At worst the Su-35 would give us equivalent capabilities in air to air with the air forces in our region, though we could probably afford more of them than they could.

Then if we reall still wanted the F-35 we could concentrate it in the strike role.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 8, 2011)

Understood.

But no manufacturing offsets and spares are held hostage by a dubious regime. Tough choices.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 8, 2011)

There isn't really any ideal airframe for what you are proposing for Australia's needs, wuzak. Buying Russian equipment, no matter how attractive the airframe, is not a viable option because, as Matt pointed out, the Russians are notoriously bad at spares supply. That is without mentioning the incompatibility of avionic systems, weaponry etc. I guess you also have to examine what the RAAF is likely to go into combat against once it has its F-35s.


----------



## Glider (Dec 8, 2011)

The Typhoon has come a long way in the GA role over recent months. I tend to view the Typhoon as Fighter first and GA second and the F35 as a GA first and Fighter second. Both are going to be capable of doing a decent job of the secondary role.

A combination similar to the RAF is I agree the ideal solution, but the additional costs over a small fleet are probably out of reach.

The Su35 would not be the correct solution, spares, support, lack of political stability and reliability issues would be stacked against it.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 8, 2011)

nuuumannn said:


> There isn't really any ideal airframe for what you are proposing for Australia's needs, wuzak. Buying Russian equipment, no matter how attractive the airframe, is not a viable option because, as Matt pointed out, the Russians are notoriously bad at spares supply. That is without mentioning the incompatibility of avionic systems, weaponry etc. I guess you also have to examine what the RAAF is likely to go into combat against once it has its F-35s.



As I undestand it, India uses a mixture of western and Russian equipment. And I understand that they use western weaponry on their Russian aircraft.

Also, back in the Cold War weren't Soviet jets designed so that they would be compatible with US ground equipment?


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 8, 2011)

India has a real problem with their mish-mash of equipment, systems and airplanes.

And Cold War Soviet jets compatible with US ground equipment? That's news to me. What are you talking about?


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 8, 2011)

Matt308 said:


> India has a real problem with their mish-mash of equipment, systems and airplanes.
> 
> And Cold War Soviet jets compatible with US ground equipment? That's news to me. What are you talking about?


I nelieve the soviet aircraft were capable of using NATO Start Carts, Oxygen stuff fueling equipment and dumb bombs without mods


----------



## Glider (Dec 8, 2011)

In view of this topic the latest news is interesting

BBC News - Why Iran's capture of US drone will shake CIA


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 8, 2011)

wuzak said:


> As I undestand it, India uses a mixture of western and Russian equipment. And I understand that they use western weaponry on their Russian aircraft.
> 
> Also, back in the Cold War weren't Soviet jets designed so that they would be compatible with US ground equipment?



India and Pakistan both blended Russian and Western systems into their aircraft on several occasions. As far as the starting units. I believe you're looking at the 28V electrical power cord with a 3 prong socket, a common off the shelf item depending what specific aircraft we're talking about. I don't believe breathing O2 and N2 (used for the brakes) adapters were common with NATO equipment from the Soviet/ East Bloc equipment I've been around (L-29, 39, Iskra, MiG-15, MiG-17, MiG-21)


Glider said:


> In view of this topic the latest news is interesting
> 
> BBC News - Why Iran's capture of US drone will shake CIA



That's been all over the news here. For the most part I believe its much to do about nothing. If Iran really shot down this drone they would be filming it and showing it off on their media. Even if it was brought down by what ever means, I"ll bet dollars to donuts that the more sophicated items on board fried themselves the minute the drone pilot lost control of the aircraft (I believe there are some computerized systems that will "crash" in the event of the drone becoming uncontrollable). My take on it, like all the other advanced drones that came before it, it is a drone and it was made to be expendable and I'm sure the CIA knew the risks of one being brought down over hostile territory.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 8, 2011)

Well the Iranians just posted the first pics of the drone. Looks like its in tact. Personally I think they got a big RC jet with a bunch of fried computers


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 8, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> India and Pakistan both blended Russian and Western systems into their aircraft on several occasions. As far as the starting units. I believe you're looking at the 28V electrical power cord with a 3 prong socket, a common off the shelf item depending what specific aircraft we're talking about. I don't believe breathing O2 and N2 (used for the brakes) adapters were common with NATO equipment from the Soviet/ East Bloc equipment I've been around (L-29, 39, Iskra, MiG-15, MiG-17, MiG-21)
> .


I was just going from memory what I'd been told from the lower castes so your probably correct and should be filed under mysteries dispelled


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 8, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> I was just going from memory what I'd been told from the lower castes so your probably correct and should be filed under mysteries dispelled


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 8, 2011)

found this recent article and it answers a lot of questions and back up some statements
Valour


----------



## Glider (Dec 8, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> That's been all over the news here. For the most part I believe its much to do about nothing. If Iran really shot down this drone they would be filming it and showing it off on their media. Even if it was brought down by what ever means, I"ll bet dollars to donuts that the more sophicated items on board fried themselves the minute the drone pilot lost control of the aircraft (I believe there are some computerized systems that will "crash" in the event of the drone becoming uncontrollable). My take on it, like all the other advanced drones that came before it, it is a drone and it was made to be expendable and I'm sure the CIA knew the risks of one being brought down over hostile territory.



From what I have seen on the TV there is little doubt that the Iranians have it intact but drone or not, it was obviously spotted and its that impact on the stealth that I had in mind adding it to the thread.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 8, 2011)

Glider said:


> From what I have seen on the TV there is little doubt that the Iranians have it intact but drone or not, it was obviously spotted and its that impact on the stealth that I had in mind adding it to the thread.


I guess we'll have to see how they really acquired it. I have doubts they shot it down or even took control of it.


----------



## Glider (Dec 8, 2011)

I certainly don't believe that it was shot down.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 8, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> I nelieve the soviet aircraft were capable of using NATO Start Carts, Oxygen stuff fueling equipment and dumb bombs without mods



Yep, they did this so that when the Warpac nations invaded Western Europe it would be simple for their aircraft to plug in and go at Western airfields. I spoke to a Polish guy who has former South Vietnam Cessna A-37 Dragonfly and F-5 in his museum collection, he said the North Vietnamese sent Western equipment to sympathetic governments for assimilation of ideas and equipment.

Wuzac, you're right about India, but there are lots of issues surrounding incompatibility, as Matt308 stated. I suspect if they can't get the Seasprites' avionics to work, I'm sure as certain they'd find it hard to get Russian avionic equipment to interface with existing Western gear. Do you really think the Aussie govt would buy Russian equipment, though?


----------



## wuzak (Dec 8, 2011)

nuuumannn said:


> Wuzac, you're right about India, but there are lots of issues surrounding incompatibility, as Matt308 stated. I suspect if they can't get the Seasprites' avionics to work, I'm sure as certain they'd find it hard to get Russian avionic equipment to interface with existing Western gear. Do you really think the Aussie govt would buy Russian equipment, though?



The Seasprite's avionics weren't developed in Australia.

No, I don't think that we'll ever buy Russian equipment. In fact, I think that we may never buy anything other than American equipment. The decisions are totally political.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 8, 2011)

It's only single point of failure is its single engine. Other systems are likely double or triple redundant. I would bet a paycheck that the engine failed and it glided in. The RQ-170 has never been touted as leading edge. It has a cranked kite shape and hidden engine inlet. Its payload is probably more expensive than the airframe/avionics themselves. China has announced similar stealth UCAVs in the past with much more impressive stealth airframe qualities. But sensor fusion (in software) has always been the Achilles heel.

I suspect that the drone was fitted with expendable IR/visual light cameras and radioactive particle sensors/brooms. Likely nothing too leading edge, but reliant upon its inherent and publically known stealth qualities (small airframe, planform, hidden inlet, etc) to avoid detection. Hell just look at the engine exhaust outlet. Nothing fancy there. AvWeek has been reporting this UAS overflying Iran for 2+ years and I would bet dollars to donuts that any technology lost is 30+ years old in novelty.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 8, 2011)

wuzak said:


> Unfortunately the F-35 in Australian service will have to be the be-all and do-all aircraft. There will not be any air superiority fighters like the F-22 or dedicated close air support aircraft. The F-35 will be the only fighter/fighter-bomber/bomber/strike aircraft we wil have.



I suppose this is also true of the US services, since the F-22 program has ben cancelled and the F-3 will replace the A-10 and F-117 in the long term.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 8, 2011)

wuzak said:


> I suppose this is also true of the US services, since *the F-22 program has ben cancelled *and the F-3 will replace the A-10 and F-117 in the long term.


The program wasn't 
really "cancelled." The Pentagon decided not to buy the remaining aircraft that was proposed in the over all contract. I think we're talking an additional 50 aircraft.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 8, 2011)

Perhaps _capped_ is a better term.


----------



## nuuumannn (Dec 8, 2011)

wuzak said:


> The Seasprite's avionics weren't developed in Australia.



I'm aware of that. The Australian Seasprites were worked on by New Zealand contract workers who were brought in to manufacture the Kiwi examples at Kaman's Connecticut facility.



> No, I don't think that we'll ever buy Russian equipment. In fact, I think that we may never buy anything other than American equipment. The decisions are totally political.



Hmmm, yes, you are right about that, wuzak.

A link to Iranian news network:

Fars News Agency :: Iran Displays Downed US Drone


----------



## wuzak (Dec 8, 2011)

I assume _downed by cyberattack_ means that the communications to the drone were disrupted with jamming causing it to go down.

Also interested in this line


> Iran has already shot down more than a dozen of such aircraft during the last 4 to 5 years.



By what method were they shot down, I wonder.

Also


> The drone was programmed to destroy such data in the event of a malfunction, but it failed to do so.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 10, 2011)

How much impact on the stealth performance would deleting the special stealth coating have on the F-22?


----------



## evangilder (Dec 10, 2011)

Do you think that kind of information would be published? There are many parts of the stealth systems that are classified.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 11, 2011)

evangilder said:


> Do you think that kind of information would be published? There are many parts of the stealth systems that are classified.



I'm not asking for published information. More gut feel, informed estimation or just plain guesswork.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 12, 2011)

IAF to upgrade old F-16 fighter jets - JPost - Defense

MM


----------



## looney (Dec 15, 2011)

Looks like the F35 will be more expensive yet again...

JSF Nieuws.nl » JSF - Pentagon confirms: “Serious design problems” (dutch site but this page is in English)


----------



## Glider (Dec 15, 2011)

I was wondering if this latest problem might impact the sale of the F35 to Japan. To lose that order would be a major blow to the US


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2011)

looney said:


> Looks like the F35 will be more expensive yet again...
> 
> JSF Nieuws.nl » JSF - Pentagon confirms: “Serious design problems” (dutch site but this page is in English)



_"For example, the naval variant is now incapable of landing or carriers due to the inability of the arresting hook to capture an arresting cable on the carrier deck. And, there are more hard to conceive deficiencies, including airframe buffeting at different angles of attack." _

Kind of funny about these reports, the real problem child seemed to be the F-35B which is now being tested aboard ship...

F-35B Completes Successful Initial Shipboard Vertical Landing Aboard USS WASP

Although there's always talk about cancelling the program, the USAF version seems to have no problems with the 6th aircraft delivered...

Sixth F-35A Delivered to Eglin Air Force Base | Lockheed Martin

It seems the previous "serious problems" have gone away and some are just looking for more "serious problems" for an excuse to bag the whole program despite the USAF version having success.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2011)

What's funny with this report is the "team" seems to contradict itself on pages 19 and 20 but does say each variant should be reviewed separately, but the media seems to ignore that and reports about scrapping the whole program. Read the first and last paragraph on page 19!

I seen nothing here that should prevent all 3 versions from being built with the exception of available funding. The issues "found" can be fixed and these issues would be typical in any new combat aircraft. Just more government bashing of the contractor and the media going along for the ride.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 15, 2011)

Makes you wonder what would have happened with the F-117 if the testing had been done in the media eye. This is especially true when you consider that both "technology demonstrators" (prototypes) crashed.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2011)

evangilder said:


> Makes you wonder what would have happened with the F-117 if the testing had been done in the media eye. This is especially true when you consider that both "technology demonstrators" (prototypes) crashed.


YEP! And a production model crashed on take off because of a production defect.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 15, 2011)

Almost every aircraft thats come down the pike in recent memory has had the same crap happen to it, if your old enough remember the F14 prototype crash the Osprey , the F111 was big one , the F15 prpotype crashed , the C5 had problems that req'd major rectifying on their upgrade with the spars IIRC . Let the engineers back to work and shuffle the reporters back to where they belong covering the now 4 year primaries in the US


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2011)

Agree!


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 15, 2011)

This just is plain silly that the media thinks this is such a showstopper.

"For example, the naval variant is now incapable of landing or carriers due to the inability of the arresting hook to capture an arresting cable on the carrier deck. And, there are more hard to conceive deficiencies, including airframe buffeting at different angles of attack." 

If you look closer to the issue, it stems from the fact that the tail hook on the single engine F-35 is closer to the main gear than on two engine planes. Thus the bounce latency of the cable from main gear run-over to arrestor hook is too long and the hook often misses it. A major redesign to the airplane? Not even remotely likely. In fact, they might even be able to fix off airplane (e.g., higher tension in the cable). Or perhaps a greater spring constant/hydraulic pressure in the arrestor hook.

I'm convinced that people like Rand Paul, who want to cut the DoD budget 50%, are just looking for excuses to kill this program.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 15, 2011)

pbfoot said:


> Almost every aircraft thats come down the pike in recent memory has had the same crap happen to it, if your old enough remember the F14 prototype crash the Osprey , the F111 was big one , the F15 prpotype crashed , the C5 had problems that req'd major rectifying on their upgrade with the spars IIRC . Let the engineers back to work and shuffle the reporters back to where they belong covering the now 4 year primaries in the US



Don't forget Gripen crashed too.


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 15, 2011)

Matt308 said:


> Don't forget Gripen crashed too.


How I missed this 1 , I just had finished my shift when the 3rd F20 pranged in Goose


----------



## wuzak (Dec 15, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> What's funny with this report is the "team" seems to contradict itself on pages 19 and 20 but does say each variant should be reviewed separately, but the media seems to ignore that and reports about scrapping the whole program. Read the first and last paragraph on page 19!
> 
> I seen nothing here that should prevent all 3 versions from being built with the exception of available funding. The issues "found" can be fixed and these issues would be typical in any new combat aircraft. Just more government bashing of the contractor and the media going along for the ride.



The report is assessing the risks involved in continuing production alongside prototype testing and evaluation. While the production numbers are small it it shouldn't be too much of an issue, but when production numbers start getting large any fixes required will take more time and money. 

The report basically states that there are a number of moderate and high risks but none that require the termination of concurrent production. If they did find issues that do, their recommendations would have been to stop concurrent production until the issues had been overcome. It would not be to recommend teh cancellation of the program, just that testing with prototypes continue but production held off until the fixes have been made.

Does anybody know how many have been built? I think I saw 300, but I don't know where I saw it.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 15, 2011)

From that reort:



> *1.1 Operational Assessment OT-HE Report Topics*
> 
> The operational test team conducted an operational assessment from June 1, 2010, to June 1, 2011, to assess the F-35's progress toward operational effectiveness suitability, and mission capability/ The team also assessed the program's progress toward readiness for operational test and evaluation (OT&E).
> 
> ...




"classified survivability issues" - would that be stealth issues?


----------



## wuzak (Dec 15, 2011)

Matt308 said:


> This just is plain silly that the media thinks this is such a showstopper.
> 
> "For example, the naval variant is now incapable of landing or carriers due to the inability of the arresting hook to capture an arresting cable on the carrier deck. And, there are more hard to conceive deficiencies, including airframe buffeting at different angles of attack."
> 
> If you look closer to the issue, it stems from the fact that the tail hook on the single engine F-35 is closer to the main gear than on two engine planes. Thus the bounce latency of the cable from main gear run-over to arrestor hook is too long and the hook often misses it. A major redesign to the airplane? Not even remotely likely. In fact, they might even be able to fix off airplane (e.g., higher tension in the cable). Or perhaps a greater spring constant/hydraulic pressure in the arrestor hook.



The hook has been redesigned to have a lower lip, which is then theoretically below the arresting cable centreline. Also a redesign of the hook damper has been done.

If these don't solve the problem it is likely that the tail hook position will have to be moved. But not by a small amount - by more than 10 feet (to be the same as the F-18E/F). The real issue is if they have to relocate the mounting point of the hook - that would require considerable structural redesign. But they may just be able to have a longer hook.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 15, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> It seems the previous "serious problems" have gone away and some are just looking for more "serious problems" for an excuse to bag the whole program despite the USAF version having success.



Success? Because some have been delivered?

The Australian Navy received some Seasprites 7 or 8 years ago. They still don't work properly. The remainder of the contract was cancelled. But they were delivered, so is that success?

The F-35s delivered so far would, in years gone by, be considered YF-35s. They haven't got all the software, for one, of teh definitive version, because the code hasn't been written yet, and won't be completed for another few years.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2011)

wuzak said:


> Success? Because some have been delivered?



Yes success - because those delivered (The USAF Version) are performing as ordered. The problems with the Marine birds are being fixed. Yes success!


wuzak said:


> The Australian Navy received some Seasprites 7 or 8 years ago. They still don't work properly. The remainder of the contract was cancelled. But they were delivered, so is that success?


I don't know what your point is with regards to the F-35. Kaman and Lockheed-Martin are two different companies. Perhaps the RAN should have looked into a different airframe rather and relying on a design that has been stretched as far as it could!


wuzak said:


> The F-35s delivered so far would, in years gone by, be considered YF-35s. They haven't got all the software, for one, of teh definitive version, because the code hasn't been written yet, and won't be completed for another few years.


 Can you be specific? Is it the F-35A, B or C or are we talking about export or license built versions?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2011)

wuzak said:


> The report is assessing the risks involved in continuing production alongside prototype testing and evaluation. While the production numbers are small it it shouldn't be too much of an issue, but when production numbers start getting large any fixes required will take more time and money.
> 
> The report basically states that there are a number of moderate and high risks but none that require the termination of concurrent production. If they did find issues that do, their recommendations would have been to stop concurrent production until the issues had been overcome. *It would not be to recommend teh cancellation of the program, just that testing with prototypes continue but production held off until the fixes have been made.*Does anybody know how many have been built? I think I saw 300, but I don't know where I saw it.



The media here is looking at that as meaning "cancellation."


----------



## pbfoot (Dec 15, 2011)

The sky is falling , The Sky is falling , sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing


----------



## wuzak (Dec 15, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Yes success - because those delivered (The USAF Version) are performing as ordered. The problems with the Marine birds are being fixed. Yes success!



Are they? It seems from the report that the flight regime hasn't been anywhere near fully explore yet.




FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't know what your point is with regards to the F-35. Kaman and Lockheed-Martin are two different companies. Perhaps the RAN should have looked into a different airframe rather and relying on a design that has been stretched as far as it could!



The point is that just because the aircraft have been delivered to the USAF doesn't make the program or aircraft successful. I think the prgram can be judged successful when the testing phase is out of the way and the F-35 enters operation.




FLYBOYJ said:


> Can you be specific? Is it the F-35A, B or C or are we talking about export or license built versions?



I was talking about the F-35s delivered to the USAF.

The code is constantly being written and updated. Obviously software can be more easily updated than hardware. But my understanding is that the software suite is still a couple of years away from completion. Until that happens the F-35 will not be fully functional. I also understand that the software is common to all variants.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 15, 2011)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The media here is looking at that as meaning "cancellation."



Ok.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 15, 2011)

wuzak said:


> Are they? It seems from the report that the flight regime hasn't been anywhere near fully explore yet.


And the same report contradicts itself several times



wuzak said:


> The point is that just because the aircraft have been delivered to the USAF doesn't make the program or aircraft successful. I think the prgram can be judged successful when the testing phase is out of the way and the F-35 enters operation.


Agree. In the mean time look at the performance milestones the aircraft is meeting as the bugs are worked out of it.



wuzak said:


> I was talking about the F-35s delivered to the USAF.
> 
> The code is constantly being written and updated. Obviously software can be more easily updated than hardware. But my understanding is that the software suite is still a couple of years away from completion. Until that happens the F-35 will not be fully functional. I also understand that the software is common to all variants.



I am too and that problem is being solved in several phases. I know people who work on the aircraft and software has been a problem from the beginning and some of it is due to "customer requirements." Can't say much more than that.

As Matt said earlier, Rand is looking to cut this program regardless. I remember the same arguments and battles in the mid 70s when the F-15 and F-16 were coming into service. Many questioned why both aircraft were needed. Those people have been long silenced.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 15, 2011)

wuzak said:


> The code is constantly being written and updated. Obviously software can be more easily updated than hardware. But my understanding is that the software suite is still a couple of years away from completion. Until that happens the F-35 will not be fully functional. I also understand that the software is common to all variants.



Are you even remotely familary with large programs with software deliverable milestones leading to system programmatic success? I'm quickly concluding that you are reading quotes from journalism majors who have no idea what entails a successful systems engineering program.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 15, 2011)

Matt308 said:


> Are you even remotely familary with large programs with software deliverable milestones leading to system programmatic success? I'm quickly concluding that you are reading quotes from journalism majors who have no idea what entails a successful systems engineering program.


 
Maybe I didn't explain myself very well.

I meant that it is easier to upload the latest software version to an airframe than it is to replace or fix some airframe components.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 15, 2011)

Actually, I disagree. Minor fixes to airframe issues are far easier to develop and test than "a simple software patch". IMHO.


----------



## Glider (Dec 16, 2011)

I was an IT Programme Manager and can promise that there is a huge difference in downloading the latest software and identifying, scoping, designing, building, unit testing, integration testing and finally implementing a new version of any computer code.

If the problem in the current code is limiting in safety or impacts performance then the problem could be severe, it depends on what the actual problem is.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 16, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> Actually, I disagree. Minor fixes to airframe issues are far easier to develop and test than "a simple software patch". IMHO.



Not what I am saying.

As the F-35 is in production at the same time testing and development is done and fixes need to be applied over the whole fleet. If it was just a pre-production series of aircraft it may be 10 or 20 aircraft that have to be fixed, but with the production units now being made the number of aircraft that needs to have fixes applied may be several times that.

So, the software can be developed and tested on the test airframes, and once perfected can be uploaded to the fleet.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 16, 2011)

Sorry but I had to laugh when you said software "perfected". Having been in IT most of my life, I have yet to see a perfect software or version of code, so I found it humorous. I do get what you mean though. Software development on combat aircraft are complex projects and like a lot of other large projects, typically have a modular design so that parts of code can be dissected and replaced with different versions which is way less complex than rewriting the entire application. What takes the most time is the unit test, QA and negative testing to make sure that the fix didn't break something else.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 16, 2011)

For some reason, I just had visions of a pilot tooling along at Mach 0.9 when a window pops up in his HUD saying "Your automatic Microsoft updates have been installed. Please restart the system."


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 16, 2011)

You will need to restart your plane before the updates can be will be fully installed. Would you like to restart the plane now?


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 16, 2011)

Humorous wuzak, but that is the real difference between real software/systems engineering. Few people have a grasp of the complexity of such a program. Configuration management. Quality assurance. High to low level system/software requirements trace, regression testing, etc.

Armchair engineering only exposes one's 'Internets' ignorance. I won't defend the F-35 as the be all, end all of program exellence. But I must roll my eyes when some argue about the curled edged tea leaves of system engineering.


----------



## wuzak (Dec 16, 2011)

Matt308 said:


> Humorous wuzak, but that is the real difference between real software/systems engineering. Few people have a grasp of the complexity of such a program. Configuration management. Quality assurance. High to low level system/software requirements trace, regression testing, etc.
> 
> Armchair engineering only exposes one's 'Internets' ignorance. I won't defend the F-35 as the be all, end all of program exellence. But I must roll my eyes when some argue about the curled edged tea leaves of system engineering.



Huh?


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 17, 2011)

wuzak said:


> Maybe I didn't explain myself very well.
> 
> I meant that it is easier to upload the latest software version to an airframe than it is to replace or fix some airframe components.



Crystal.


----------



## parsifal (Dec 18, 2011)

I have no idea about the technical details, but I can tell a little story about the last two aircraft that the RAAF as its principal fighters. 

We purchased 75 F-18s in the 1980s and they have provided us with a potent air defence and strike capability. 

In the 1960s we purchased 100 Mirage IIIs which provided us with a potent fighter, and some strike capability.

Both aircraft were a technical success. But I am old enough to tell you the Mirages were remembered with less than any feeling of affection. 

Our usage of the F-18s were more or less free from foreign intervention regarding our Foreign policy decisions, ie, we could use them as we saw fit. Our usage of our Mirages was constantly interefered with by the French Government..... in the 1960s they threatened the Australian Government with a boycott on spare parts if we deployed any Mirages to Vietnam. Fast forward 10 years. During the French nuclear testing programs of the 1970s, which included French spies bombing and sinking the Rainbow warrior in New Zealand, killing two people, Australia was "restrained" by the frenach government, again with threats of witholding spares for our Mirage fleet. 

Australia has never purchased any fighters from the French ever again, nor are we ever going to use any French, or part French aircraft. I can tell you from my generation of fleet and air force commanders (some of which I knew personally), that nothing from Europe of any consequence would ever be purchased. They would make the procurement shortlists and be eliminated for one reason or another. The only exception to this was the purchase of the BAE Hawk Trainers.

We are far better off sticking with US equipment for reasons other than the aircrafts actual performance. not that there is anything wrong with the performance of US military hardware. Our experience with US equipment has always been quite okay.


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 19, 2011)

Parsifal, are you saying France's service after the sale needs a little work?


----------



## parsifal (Dec 19, 2011)

they certainly gave us a lot of attention....put it that way


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 19, 2011)

parsifal said:


> We are far better off sticking with US equipment for reasons other than the aircrafts actual performance. not that there is anything wrong with the performance of US military hardware. Our experience with US equipment has always been quite okay.



Well except for the Seasprite fiasco, perhaps. I like your post.

I have always wondered what software hooks are installed in modern programs to keep foreign customers "in line" if things go south in relationships. Like the F-14s we sold to Tehran and how their avionics were disabled before our maintenance support folks moved out.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 19, 2011)

"... Like the F-14s we sold to Tehran and how their avionics were disabled before our maintenance support folks moved out."

Well they couldn't have done much of a job .. or the Iranians are even smarter than I give them credit for ...  ... because they got great use out of the TomCats against Saddam ... as I understand it, they deployed the Cats as forward AWAC controllers - using those same very advanced radar and avionics to direct simpler aircraft like Northrop F-5's. 

MM


----------



## parsifal (Dec 19, 2011)

I dont agree that countries that supply weapons should enter into post purchase control. If they dont like the country to which they are selling the weapons, they should not sell them in the first place. 

Controlling a smaller nations FP by the wapons it buys is the ultimate breach of trust.

Of course there are exceptions....like when a country turns its weapons on its own people, or is clearly acting outside International laws. We werent doing that when the French started playing their games.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 19, 2011)

".... If they dont like the country to which they are selling the weapons, they should not sell them in the first place. "

France (and Russia) have never met a country _with money_ that they didn't like.

MM


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 19, 2011)

And never met a country that stood up to them that they _did_ like.


----------



## marshall (Dec 19, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... If they dont like the country to which they are selling the weapons, they should not sell them in the first place. "
> 
> France (and Russia) have never met a country _with money_ that they didn't like.
> 
> MM




What about selling S-300 missiles to Iran? Didn't Russians withdrawn from the deal?

And I think it's unfair to say that only France and Russia are selling weapons to some dubious countries. For example many countries were selling weapons to Libya (under Gaddafi rule). Few examples Poland, Italy, Great Britain, Germany.

More info here: EU arms exports to Libya: who armed Gaddafi? | News | guardian.co.uk

and here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AonYZs4MzlZbdGFBN1NWM0hrbFc0OWd1dDR2dUVfbnc&hl=en#gid=0

And I don't want to accuse anybody, but I think that arms trade is often ruled by politics and big money and such a combination can be very dirty.


----------



## Glider (Dec 19, 2011)

parsifal said:


> I dont agree that countries that supply weapons should enter into post purchase control. If they dont like the country to which they are selling the weapons, they should not sell them in the first place.
> 
> Controlling a smaller nations FP by the wapons it buys is the ultimate breach of trust.
> 
> Of course there are exceptions....like when a country turns its weapons on its own people, or is clearly acting outside International laws. We werent doing that when the French started playing their games.



There are few saints in this business but the French are a class act in this. Think of the 50 Mirage V they sold to Isreal, kept the money and didn't deliver the aircraft, the Mirage fighters, AML 90 Armoured cars, APC's and heavy weapons all sold to South Africa at the height of the embargo. The slow delivery of spares to countries they had disagreements with including the pressure appplied to New Zealand and others.


----------



## buffnut453 (Dec 19, 2011)

And the arm-twisting the UK had to apply to persuade them to provide details on Exocet missiles during the Falklands War. Nice to have allies...


----------



## parsifal (Dec 19, 2011)

Glider said:


> There are few saints in this business but the French are a class act in this. Think of the 50 Mirage V they sold to Isreal, kept the money and didn't deliver the aircraft, the Mirage fighters, AML 90 Armoured cars, APC's and heavy weapons all sold to South Africa at the height of the embargo. The slow delivery of spares to countries they had disagreements with including the pressure appplied to New Zealand and others.




It would be understandable if the french were reacting to a rogue state, or a state that had turned on its own people. Australia cannot be accused of being a rogue state and generally does not use its military equipment on its own people.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 20, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> "... Like the F-14s we sold to Tehran and how their avionics were disabled before our maintenance support folks moved out."
> 
> Well they couldn't have done much of a job .. or the Iranians are even smarter than I give them credit for ...  ... because they got great use out of the TomCats against Saddam ... as I understand it, they deployed the Cats as forward AWAC controllers - using those same very advanced radar and avionics to direct simpler aircraft like Northrop F-5's.
> 
> MM



Yeah, but my understanding is that the tactical modes were disabled.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 20, 2011)

".... the _tactical modes _were disabled. " 

Which means ... what?

MM


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 20, 2011)

I am guessing the ability to access the tactical programs in the computer were removed. I would guess targeting, radar, etc. I am guessing as I know nothing about this topic, but the items I posted would be my guess. Possibly weapons selection and arming? What's the answer?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 20, 2011)

Just in...

Factbox: Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - Yahoo! News


----------



## Messy1 (Dec 20, 2011)

Add another customer!


----------



## michaelmaltby (Dec 20, 2011)

@ $114 million a pop

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/20/us-lockheed-japan-f35-cost-idUSTRE7BJ0EP20111220


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 20, 2011)

michaelmaltby said:


> ".... the _tactical modes _were disabled. "
> 
> Which means ... what?
> 
> MM



Well that depends upon whom you believe. Some claim that they were sabotaged by contractors and others claim by sympathetic IRAF personnel. Most credible reports that I have read related to the sabotage effort indicate that the radar/targeting modes associated with the AIM-54 were disabled. Myth? Perhaps. I know that some claim the AIM-54 was used in the Iran/Iraq war, but other credible sources don't back that up with hard evidence. If anyone has credible information (e.g., DoD statements, after action reports from US warships monitoring the Gulf, etc.), I would really like to read it.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 21, 2011)

buffnut453 said:


> And the arm-twisting the UK had to apply to persuade them to provide details on Exocet missiles during the Falklands War. Nice to have allies...



I'm sure that current potential customers of French weapon systems greeted with joy the fact that their supplier would reveal the secrets they've paid for. 
Combine that with political pressures parsifal was posting about and one is not surprised to find out that Germany surpassed France in weapon sales with ratio of 2:1 in last 12 months.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 21, 2011)

About Iranian F-14 (also at google books):

Amazon.com: Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat (Combat Aircraft) (9781841767871): Tom Cooper, Chris Davey: Books

Seems that either 'tactical mods' were not removed, or that Iranians managed to install the stuff they needed.


----------



## Glider (Dec 21, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> I'm sure that current potential customers of French weapon systems greeted with joy the fact that their supplier would reveal the secrets they've paid for.
> Combine that with political pressures parsifal was posting about and one is not surprised to find out that Germany surpassed France in weapon sales with ratio of 2:1 in last 12 months.


Its worth remembering that the UK also had Exocets during the Falklands war. The problem was stopping Argentina getting hold of some more.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 21, 2011)

Indeed it had, rockets were on Broadsword frigates.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 21, 2011)

tomo pauk said:


> About Iranian F-14 (also at google books):
> 
> Amazon.com: Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat (Combat Aircraft) (9781841767871): Tom Cooper, Chris Davey: Books
> 
> Seems that either 'tactical mods' were not removed, or that Iranians managed to install the stuff they needed.



Yeah I've seen it. Again, depends upon your sources as too what to believe. If that is the same book, it also mentions that Iran got the AIM-54 thermal batteries via black market arms dealers. I aint buying that one.


----------



## tomo pauk (Dec 21, 2011)

That's the one. Seems at least more creditable than what Rudel or Closterman wrote.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 21, 2011)

From what I have read an heard about through official and unofficial sources is that the Iranians used the F-14s for early warning because of all the other aircraft they had were not near the capability radar wise. And because of this, they were kept out of harms way for most of the time.


----------



## Glider (Dec 29, 2011)

And lets be honest. If we were in their situation without any AWE aircraft, would we have done anything differently?

Also to keep the F14 operational with very limited spares was some achievement.


----------



## evangilder (Dec 29, 2011)

Absolutely. It was the smart thing to do to keep them off the front line. When you have a technology that is ahead of your enemy that cannot be replaced, you do need to keep it protected.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 1, 2012)

*Turn and Burn* .... F-15 trying to lose an F-22 
[Aviation Week Award Winning Photo 2011]

MM


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 1, 2012)

I love the agressor squadron camo schemes.


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 1, 2012)

I too - though less so on 'urban' camo clothing .... 

MM


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 1, 2012)

michaelmaltby said:


> I too - though less so on 'urban' camo clothing ....
> 
> MM



Amen


----------



## michaelmaltby (Jan 23, 2012)

Great F-35 video

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki86x1WKPmE_

MM


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 15, 2012)

Canada can't seem to get a handle on military acquisitions .... it's painful to watch .... and the F-35 Stealth fighter is just the latest in a long history ... of which the Avro Arrow is just the best known .... 

The following is an _ amusing _ take on the "politics" of purchasing ... in Canada and in Hollywood: 

Peter MacKay could have role in Hollywood


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 15, 2012)

Funny stuff Michael. Don't want to get political, but in the affairs of military matters, the current government is sorely lacking. Do you know of any articles, anywhere, that I can read on who really cares most about what jet is procured...the pilots. I really would have thought the would have had some sort of say on what they would like to be sitting in at 0200 over Tuktoyaktuk.

Geo


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 15, 2012)

fubar57 said:


> Funny stuff Michael. Don't want to get political, but in the affairs of military matters, the current government is sorely lacking. Do you know of any articles, anywhere, that I can read on who really cares most about what jet is procured...the pilots. I really would have thought the would have had some sort of say on what they would like to be sitting in at 0200 over Tuktoyaktuk.
> 
> Geo


many articles here , check previous issues as well
Canadian Military Journal Vol. 12, No. 2


----------



## fubar57 (Apr 15, 2012)

Many thanks pbfoot.(I play crib online and one of the players goes by the name pbhead )

Geo


----------



## michaelmaltby (Apr 15, 2012)

".... many articles here , check previous issues as well". 

Thanks pb. Previous research you have provided on the disconnect between RCAF 'requests' and actual Federal Government 'purchases' and 'license-builds' .... and, in Canada, with the heart of the aviation industry located in MONTREAL, QUEBEC the _build_ issue is always compounded and conflicted by BUILDS . [You cited as an example of this disconnect the 1939 RCAF request for P-39's and B-26's as an identified requirement (and license build) ... and the government's response with Lancs, Hurricanes and Mossies acquired and built] This was news to me and very thought provoking. As a Canadian I ask a Canadian: what if the Avro Arrow program had been located in Montreal, Quebec and not Anglo Toronto, Ontario ...? Had that been the political reality, could Diefenbaker have cancelled the program? 

Fubar57 as one (former) Cat-Scraper (635) operator to another . .... You say: "the current government is sorely lacking" .... I reply: "... they have NOT had to pay $500 million to get out of a helicopter contract, they didn't buy/trade for a bunch of ill-maintained de-commissioned RN diesel subs, and, they didn't originally commit Canada to the F-35 program in the first place. The (now) third party in Canada did all those things to the military during their many years in office, n'est-ce pas? 

In a democracy, EVERY advanced AC has 'political' problems ** - either costs or deaths or both - the Prime Minister of Canada is playing the cards he was dealt very skillfully IMHCO. 

F-35 Fan

MM

** Speaking of which, sad to hear that the Marines have lost another Osprey


----------



## pbfoot (Apr 15, 2012)

I believe the Subs were picked up in trade for use of facilities Goose Bay for lo level training and Suffield Alta for training of the pongoes


----------

