Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/128394/

Topic: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2010-11-17 15:56:14 and read 11807 times.

In a story about the F-22 crash in Alaska, the price of the Raptor was said to be $143 million each. With increasing delays with the F-35, the price keeps going up. At what point does the F-35 become too expensive...or is there such a point?

Has the F-35 cost too much to cancel?

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: HKA098
Posted 2010-11-17 16:54:29 and read 11790 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
Has the F-35 cost too much to cancel?

I think so. On the other hand, we need to maintain the technological edge we have in designs like the F-22 and F-35. Perhaps an honest, and fresh look at the books by private sector accountants can shed more light on the cost figures?

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: 413X3
Posted 2010-11-17 17:41:14 and read 11770 times.

The F-22 was just a proof of concept. It's too bad they ordered so much of them, what a waste considering they are already planning on replacing them.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2010-11-18 01:32:15 and read 11649 times.

The difference is that the f22 is in service and we haven't heard much complaining about its performance. The F-35 is still years from service, which means the current price, (I've read anywhere from 100-120 mill), is bound to go higher.

Is there any guarantee that the cost of the F-35 won't end up costing the same, (or close to the same), as the F-22, and if so, will it be worth it?

Will it be significantly better than current offerings like the Typhoon or even the F-15SE?

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: Ozair
Posted 2010-11-18 02:52:47 and read 11599 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 3):
Is there any guarantee that the cost of the F-35 won't end up costing the same, (or close to the same), as the F-22, and if so, will it be worth it?

Will it be significantly better than current offerings like the Typhoon or even the F-15SE?

Yes, Yes and Yes.

The F-35 will be better than the Raptor. Perhaps not as good air to air (but better than any other current or planned air to air fighter) but it will exceed the Raptor at air to ground.

Quoting 413X3 (Reply 2):
The F-22 was just a proof of concept. It's too bad they ordered so much of them, what a waste considering they are already planning on replacing them.

Where did you hear this? Last I read the Raptor will be in service for the next 20 years.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: KiwiRob
Posted 2010-11-18 04:34:31 and read 11556 times.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 4):
The F-35 will be better than the Raptor. Perhaps not as good air to air (but better than any other current or planned air to air fighter) but it will exceed the Raptor at air to ground.

Where is your proof that this is true?

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-11-18 04:38:45 and read 11557 times.

I wonder how it works in the US. If a European program is say 20% over the fixed costs negotiated nearly a decade ago (A400M) bitter fights are fought involving states, air airforces and many politicians, head roll, cancellations etc.

Looking at costs rises of programs like the C-17, F22, B2 and F35..

Cost overruns for US programs have become standard and run into the hundreds of billions. Apparently everyone has gone used to budgets as a vague starting point instead of a contracted deal on public money.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2008/03/31/AR2008033102789.html

I'm not wondering how the cost rises occurred (many research reports into that already) but how a democratic society is digesting this year after year. Are the people not interested, afraid, don't dare to put up their finger against the defense industry, are lobbies suppressing criticism? I think it is amazing..

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: Ozair
Posted 2010-11-18 05:43:21 and read 11524 times.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 5):
Where is your proof that this is true?

A2A - The JSF is designed to meet or exceed all F-16 parameters. So 9g+ airframe with a hard wing. Ultimately it comes down to weapon and sensor suite for air to air. At BVR the JSF will have the best radar in the air bar the Raptor and will likely have the new long range AAM being developed by the US. Combined with enough A2A 5th generation stealth it should ensure a first look first launch opportunity on just about everything else.

A2G - The Raptor can only store 1000lb weapons in its bomb bays while the JSF (A & C versions) will handle 2000lb class weapons. While its great to have SDBs when you consider the types and numbers of weapons dropped in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 10 years the 2000lb is still very much required. The JSF will also carry a significantly greater number of A2G weapons present within the US inventory. The sensor suite on the JSF is designed to excel at A2G. The all round display, the EW systems and AESA radar integration will be a step change to current aircraft. This is something the Raptor will likely never have and no other aircraft either in production or currently planned will incorporate these features. Again 5th generation stealth will ensure it is able to hit its targets within a hostile environment.

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
I wonder how it works in the US. If a European program is say 20% over the fixed costs negotiated nearly a decade ago (A400M) bitter fights are fought involving states, air airforces and many politicians, head roll, cancellations etc.

To be frank we haven't seen that. Using your stated A400 as an example the European governments have simply rolled over and bowed to the demands of EADS with respect to price and delivery number.

Quoting keesje (Reply 6):
Are the people not interested, afraid, don't dare to put up their finger against the defense industry, are lobbies suppressing criticism? I think it is amazing..

I can't think of an example of a western nation with people marching in the streets because the defence budget was too high or contract pricing was exceeded. Even the tea party in the US has shied away from directly criticizing the defence budget process other than the claim it needs trimming and reform.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: KiwiRob
Posted 2010-11-18 12:05:45 and read 11346 times.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 7):
Again 5th generation stealth will ensure it is able to hit its targets within a hostile environment.

And as soon as they put anything on it hardpoints to get a decent combat load bang goes the 5th generation stealth.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: Max Q
Posted 2010-11-18 20:29:48 and read 11213 times.

Why is it so slow then ?

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: dkswim
Posted 2010-11-18 20:56:04 and read 11201 times.

Dont worry its to big to fail now...

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: Shmertspionem
Posted 2010-11-18 21:13:46 and read 11197 times.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 4):
The F-35 will be better than the Raptor.

Only in A2G - nothing else - and marginally at that - and if the critical A2g systems (EOTS and Ground search mode of the radar) migrate to the F-22 - then not even that.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 7):
the new long range AAM being developed by the US.

Which will be available on the f-22 as well and presumably be retrofittable onto late model teen series.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 7):
The JSF will also carry a significantly greater number of A2G weapons present within the US inventory.

No - not "SIGNIFICANTLY" right now the only major advantage it has over the f-22 is that it can carry the 2000lbs JDAM. the initial promise that it could carry the JSOW-ER, JSOW and JASSM internally are now out or extremely doubtful since anything over 3.88 meters is out - given that the JASSM and JSOW are the only stealth- stealthish weapons of this lot the moment it releases a JDAM it gets painted.


Plus whatever the f-35 carries externally so can the F-22

Quoting Ozair (Reply 7):
Again 5th generation stealth will ensure it is able to hit its targets within a hostile environment.

It is not stealth - it is now classified as a LO - not a VLO - LO is a 4.75 generation technology - VLO is the stealth gold standard. The F-35 has too many bumps warts and curves and is only x band optimised - which is foolish given that virtually all AWACS and LR grounds radars are either S or L band.

Plus its huge engine is the IR equivalent of a hippopotamus trying to hide in a bed of daisies.

The fact is that an F-22 will guarantee that a bomb can be dropped on target - even if it is an SDB or 1000pounder. But while the F-35 can carry a 2000 pounder - it's delivery on target can NOT be guaranteed.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 9):
Why is it so slow then ?

too much crammed onto a single engine platform - so too much MTOW and not sufficient thrust.

That said speed stopped being viewed as a critical parameter air dominance quite some time back. The lack of speed is probably the least of the criticisms that can be levelled against the F-35. Basically if an s-300 is fired at you and locks on you won't be able to escape it - F-35 or even F-22, SR-71 et al .... (as the cyborgs would say - "resistance is futile"   ) point is the S-300 will lock onto an f-22 only within a 20km radius - which is useless because it would have been detected and be taken out by then. The F-35 on the other hand will be detected significantly further out due to its lack of S and L band stealth optimisation.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: Max Q
Posted 2010-11-19 00:24:29 and read 11149 times.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 11):
That said speed stopped being viewed as a critical parameter air dominance quite some time back. The lack of speed is probably the least of the criticisms that can be levelled against the F-35. Basically if an s-300 is fired at you and locks on you won't be able to escape it - F-35 or even F-22, SR-71 et al .... (as the cyborgs would say - "resistance is futile" ) point is the S-300 will lock onto an f-22 only within a 20km radius - which is useless because it would have been detected and be taken out by then. The F-35 on the other hand will be detected significantly further out due to its lack of S and L band stealth optimisation.

If speed is not important than why was supercruise so vital on the F22 ?



No, speed is still life and very important.



The F35 is good to replace the Harrier, in all other applications it is an overweight, incredibly complicated, goldplated lemon that can be defeated by the Aircraft it is supposed to replace !

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: Ozair
Posted 2010-11-19 02:21:37 and read 11083 times.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 4):
better than the Raptor. Perhaps not as good air to air
Quoting Ozair (Reply 7):
At BVR the JSF will have the best radar in the air bar the Raptor
Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 11):
Only in A2G - nothing else

I think you need to read the whole thread before you jump in shooting...I indicated that the Raptor will be better than the JSF at A2A.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 7):
Combined with enough A2A 5th generation stealth it should ensure a first look first launch opportunity on just about everything else.
Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 11):
Quoting Ozair (Reply 7):
the new long range AAM being developed by the US.

Which will be available on the f-22 as well and presumably be retrofittable onto late model teen series.

Again if you read what I said I clearly indicate that the JSF will have first look first launch opportunity against just about everything else, clearly the else being the Raptor
Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 11):
Plus whatever the f-35 carries externally so can the F-22

Actually no, the Raptor has not had the weapons integrated into the avionics and there are no current plans to. JASSM is not planned for the airframe, in US service the JSOW is a navy weapon and will never be fit to a Raptor.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 11):
The fact is that an F-22 will guarantee that a bomb can be dropped on target - even if it is an SDB or 1000pounder. But while the F-35 can carry a 2000 pounder - it's delivery on target can NOT be guaranteed.

I don't see how a Raptor is any better at dropping a GPS guided weapon compared to the F-35? Other than the initial launch velocity what does the weapon care who dropped it?

On the other hand what if GPS is down? Can the Raptor self-lase a target and drop a LGB? No it cannot so in that respect we add another class of weapons that the Raptor is unlikely to carry (sure Spec Ops guys can lase the target but this is certainly not always available, especially in a first day of war scenario).

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 11):
It is not stealth - it is now classified as a LO - not a VLO - LO is a 4.75 generation technology - VLO is the stealth gold standard. The F-35 has too many bumps warts and curves and is only x band optimised - which is foolish given that virtually all AWACS and LR grounds radars are either S or L band.

I agree, the airframe is selectively optimized for Stealth but I consider this optimisation better than anything in current operation or planned for future airframes.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 8):
And as soon as they put anything on it hardpoints to get a decent combat load bang goes the 5th generation stealth.

Every aircraft's RCS increases with weapon carriage. The difference is that it doesn't have to carry it externally. The A and C model will have a perfectly acceptable combat load with internal weapons only. What the JSF and Raptor provide is first day of the war Stealth with internal weapons carriage enabling them to hit the priority targets within a dense modern air defence environment.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 12):
If speed is not important than why was supercruise so vital on the F22 ?

Different mission. One is the greatest air dominance fighter ever designed by man, the other is an all round performer designed to replace the lightweight fighter/attack aircraft catagory in USAF and US Navy service.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 12):
No, speed is still life and very important.

Speed is important but if 90% of fighter combat aircraft fly and fight below Mach 1 the speed (or perceived lack of) of the JSF becomes less important.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 12):
The F35 is good to replace the Harrier, in all other applications it is an overweight, incredibly complicated, goldplated lemon that can be defeated by the Aircraft it is supposed to replace !

It will meet or exceed all F-16 (and F/A-18 classic) parameters and capabilities. How does that translate into being defeated by aircraft it is supposed to replace?

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: highlander0
Posted 2010-11-19 04:51:40 and read 11037 times.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 13):
The difference is that it doesn't have to carry it externally. The A and C model will have a perfectly acceptable combat load with internal weapons only

What about the gun on the C model for opportune strafing runs? Or is strafing seen as outdated?

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/04/airforce_f16_crash074113/

Not the best outcome, but it occurs nonetheless.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: Ozair
Posted 2010-11-19 06:11:55 and read 11017 times.

Quoting highlander0 (Reply 14):
What about the gun on the C model for opportune strafing runs? Or is strafing seen as outdated?


I think leaving the gun out was a mistake. A lesson that will have to be re learnt again!

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-11-19 07:16:36 and read 10987 times.

I took a seat in a JSF (demonstrator) compared the Grippen and F16 cockpit I sat in, it is at least a generation ahead.

Is their any viable alternative to the expensive, delayed, stealth, 22 k lbs, 5th gen JSF ? I'm afraid not..

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2010-11-19 09:11:59 and read 10940 times.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 15):

I think leaving the gun out was a mistake. A lesson that will have to be re learnt again!

Well, 'Nam was so long ago that this time, for sure, guns won't be needed...and we're really not kidding this time...I mean it.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: JayinKitsap
Posted 2010-11-19 12:28:30 and read 10888 times.

I just don't like putting everything into one basket. If there is a problem with the F35 a huge chunk of our capability could be stood down. I am sure it just never happens, but a thrown disk, an electrical fire, or frame cracks.

More prudent buys where programs are staggered about a 1/2 generation, so one type is near the end of its service life, one is at its peak, and the new plane can come in. As in most programs, there are teething problems, the program at this peak can cover during the transition.

Heck, with the prices these things are running now, I expect UAV fighters and bombers to be coming soon

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: ThePointblank
Posted 2010-11-19 18:58:53 and read 10803 times.

Quoting highlander0 (Reply 14):
What about the gun on the C model for opportune strafing runs? Or is strafing seen as outdated?

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/04/airforce_f16_crash074113/

Not the best outcome, but it occurs nonetheless.

The B and C models have an optional gun pod on a special mount.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: Shmertspionem
Posted 2010-11-19 22:23:44 and read 10777 times.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 12):
If speed is not important than why was supercruise so vital on the F22 ?

1) That was a cold war mission based on radar detection alone - basically it involved time sensitive interception/interdiction based on missions deep within the USSR without AWACS support. Now that we are beginning to understand the capabilities of the DAS (being able to detect a missile 1300kms away - purely passive) those parameters are no longer relevant.................. at least not against the enemy that confronts us today.

2) The older generation of SA and AA missiles was easier to outrun than the current generation.... now we rely entirely on countermeasures. The only modern missiles that can be outrun are MANPADS which only require short bursts of speed and manoeuvrability to outrun.

3) Don't confuse SUPER-CRUISE with SPEED - super-cruise is a sub-function of stealth and endurance more than it is a sub-function of speed. It is desirable for 3 main reasons

a) since the afterburner is off the IR signature is much reduced making an optical lock-on difficult (since all warpac fighters have IRST)

b) Under such circumstances of visual stealth - it provides a capability surprise - much the same way as Blucher's stealthy forced march surprised Napoleon at Waterloo. Contrary to what you read in ENGLISH history books the British were a cannon-fodder sideshow at Waterloo - the Germans were the ones who won it.

c) It consumes more fuel that subsonic cruise but significantly less than afterburners - ie provides slightly more endurance for a reasonable increase in speed.

4) Also note i didn't say speed wasn't useful - just not CRITICAL - but it's useful in a totally different way than envisaged by 70's strategic thinking - where speed was necessary to avoid interception once you were detected. Now with stealth (proper stealth - not the dead beat f-35 kind) you don't need to worry about detection - if they cant see you how're they going to intercept you???



Quoting highlander0 (Reply 14):
What about the gun on the C model for opportune strafing runs? Or is strafing seen as outdated?
Quoting Ozair (Reply 15):

I think leaving the gun out was a mistake. A lesson that will have to be re learnt again!

Exposing a 140 million + dollar plane to ack ack fire is very irresponsible. I can see no responsible commander employing this plane in that fashion. The lack of a gun is also an acknowledgement of the fact that if the f-35 enters a dogfight - its basically mincemeat - and basically it is envisaged as never having to enter a dogfight.

And please don't use the VIETNAM example - it was relevant to Vietnam and the F-4 yes - but since the 1991 gulf war - no western fighter has ever had to engage in a dogfight - and have notched up an obscenely lopsided victory ratio. BVR has finally come of age.

Remember the panic when NATO learnt the true capabilities of the MiG29 - AA11 combo after German re-unification ???? yet NATO has fought 3 major wars since 1991 gulf war, Bosnia, Kosovo and the 2003 Iraq invasion - and yet the MiG 29 - AA11 combo is yet to score a single victory against a western fighter.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 13):
I think you need to read

I did - but you' haven't understood what i'm saying or totally ignoring it.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 13):
clearly the else being the Raptor

ever heard of something called the PAK-FA ????? it's front and cheek radars are X band - which the f-35 will fool. Problem is that it also carries 3 L band arrays one in the rear and 1 each on the wing leading edge..... This is the precise frequency that the F-35 CANNOT fool.

those 3 arrays each cover 120 degrees giving a full 360 degree L band detection.


Also those rear and and leading edge L bands I talked about - they have already been demonstrably retrofitted to the Su-30/35 series. and Don't forget - practically EVERY country in our littoral flies the Su-30 - Indonesia, India, Malaysia, Vietnam, China.

the array

SA-L-Band-Brochure-5S.jpg" target="_blank">SA-L-Band-Brochure-5S.jpg" width="650" height="202" alt="http://www.ausairpower.net/NIIP-AESA-L-Band-Brochure-5S.jpg" border="0"/>

the array on a Su-30MK

SA-L-Band-Brochure-4S.jpg" target="_blank">SA-L-Band-Brochure-4S.jpg" width="650" height="149" alt="http://www.ausairpower.net/NIIP-AESA-L-Band-Brochure-4S.jpg" border="0"/>

the array fitted Su-35BM

http://www.ausairpower.net/Su-35S-KnAAPO-2P-1S.jpg

Quoting Ozair (Reply 13):
the Raptor has not

HAS not - but can - the weapons racks are standardised and all that's required is software. Do you really think that a country whose engineers gave us the space shuttle, the f-22, et al cont integrate and EOTS and Laser designator into the F-22????

tell me what do you consider the easier of two paths

a) designing a whole new plane? OR
b) taking 2 subsystems DAS and EOTS and integrating it into an existing air frame?

anyway the point was that the JASSM and JSOW were meant to fit the F-35 internally - now they will not.

The ONLY repeat ONLY weapon that the F-35 can carry INTERNALLY that the F-22 cant is the 2000lb bomb.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 13):
what does the weapon care who dropped it?
Quoting Ozair (Reply 13):
the JSOW is a navy weapon
Quoting Ozair (Reply 13):
how a Raptor is any better

First you ask what does the weapon care as to who drops it - then you tell me the JSOW is a naval weapon?? reallyy??? do you think the North Korean Defence ministry is going to care what it was hit by ? a navy bomb or an AF one????

What does navy or AF weapon have to do with carriage??? the racks are the same and if they aren't - you find intermediary attachments - and all that's required is software. The volumetric changes required are the hard part as far as internal carriage goes............... The F-22 bay has the length - but not the depth (see picture below) - a slight protruding hump door IF added - say 30mm protrusion outwards would provide 2000lbs capability with a very very slight reduction in stealth (as opposed to the hundreds of bulbous warts on the F-35)





As for how a raptor is better

1) ALL MODERN Naval and Ground AD systems and AWACS are L band or S band
2) The f-22 can evade them
3) The F-35 CANNOT evade them
4) ERGO the f-22 can guarantee that it reaches the drop zone UNDETECTED and therefore UNMOLESTED
5) the F-35 CANNOT - because AND Irtysh-Avia (Kazakhstan)">IT WILL BE DETECTED by the VAST MAJORITY of current MODERN air surveillance systems that happen to be L BAND and S BAND.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 13):
ut I consider this optimisation better than anything in current operation or planned for future airframes.

really??? so the B-2 and F-22 representing 20 year old and 15 year old technologies respectively then according to you are

a) NOT current AND/OR
b) less stealth optimised than the F-35?

As for future platforms - all in current pre-development are UCAV's - the SKAT, Neuron, TARANIS, phantom ray, X-45 - tell me do any of these platforms seem LESS all spectrum stealth optimised than the F-35 to you????

http://www.defensereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/BAE_Taranis_Jet_UCAV_Low-Observable_3.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Airshowfan-dot-com--by-Bernardo-Malfitano--Image2-of-X45C-mockup-at-Nellis-05.jpg





Quoting Ozair (Reply 13):
enabling them to hit the priority targets within a dense modern air defence environment.
Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 11):
that virtually all AWACS and LR grounds radars are either S or L band.

the MODERN air defence environment is L and S band dominated as I've been repeating ad nauseam - These are the two frequencies the f-35 CANNOT deceive

The f-22 can.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 13):
the other is an all round performer

All round underperformer is more like it.

all the russians need to do to neutralise the f-35 is

a) Develop a DAS system of their own to detect the f-35's HUGE IR plume

OR

b) Retrofit L-BAND leading edge and rear radars to the Pak-FA and Su-30/35 family


a) will cost money
b) is ready to go and proven


So the Russians spend 6-15 million a pop to modernise old fighters to counter the f-35

and what do the Americans have to do to counter this???? spend HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars developing an S and L band stealth optimised brand new fighter. or bring back the F-22 into production

Quoting Ozair (Reply 13):
It will meet or exceed all F-16 (and F/A-18 classic) parameters and capabilities.

No

No on several scores

1) It will be several times more expensive to procure than F-16 and F-18
2) It will be 1.5 times more expensive to maintain
3) ERGO the quality/quantity balance is reduced by a factor of anywhere between 3.5 to 6
4) ERGO overwhelming force as a doctrine will be ruinously expensive to maintain
5) its TW ratio is less than both F-16 and F-18 which means it will have both inferior acceleration and inferior kinematics.
6) Having a huge engine it will have a considerably greater exhaust signature than either F-16 or F-18




to be fair to you - the F-35 does have some great features - the problem is the price has spiralled so far out of control that these features are no longer worth their asking price. The problem here is that F-35 philes like you get carried away by your love of the lightning - While F-35 phobes like APA unfairly ignore some of its great features.

In such a polarised environment - its virtually impossible to have a good debate.

The problem here is that the f-35 has design compromises which as stand alone compromises aren't so serious - but produce a dangerously off balance cocktail when combined onto one platform

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: Shmertspionem
Posted 2010-11-19 22:26:53 and read 10769 times.

sorry - here lemme try again with the wing array and the wing array installed on the MK - the pics arnt attaching
so they can be viewed here


The Array

http://www.ausairpower.net/NIIP-AESA-L-Band-Brochure-2S.jpg


The Array fitted to a Su-30 MK

http://www.ausairpower.net/NIIP-AESA-L-Band-Brochure-4S.jpg

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-11-20 03:35:56 and read 10713 times.

How to dismiss the JSF without hurting the holy F22...

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: Ozair
Posted 2010-11-20 04:39:15 and read 10691 times.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 20):
Exposing a 140 million + dollar plane to ack ack fire is very irresponsible.

A primary requirement for CAS in any conflict is direct support for troops in contact. A gun is a key weapon in this scenario. I have lost count of the number of times it has been reported in the media how late teen model aircraft have been required to use their internal cannons to provide last line support to troops on the ground when bombs and rockets could not be used due to proximity. I think future conflicts, whether asymmetric or not, will be no different. I do agree in some places it can be done cheaper but the nature of the beast is an aircraft designed to survive in as high a threat area as possible.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 20):
Don't confuse SUPER-CRUISE with SPEED - super-cruise is a sub-function of stealth and endurance more than it is a sub-function of speed

Actually super cruise is about flying above Mach 1 without an afterburner, nothing more and nothing less. The Concorde did it very well. It is only linked to stealth in military aircraft as those that can do it generally only do so with no external carriage.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 20):
And please don't use the VIETNAM example - it was relevant to Vietnam and the F-4 yes - but since the 1991 gulf war - no western fighter has ever had to engage in a dogfight - and have notched up an obscenely lopsided victory ratio. BVR has finally come of age.

Irrespective of whether BVR has come of age (I don't believe it has), and even now RDR and IR missiles are not magic bullets, the gun is required for air to ground and when an engagement gets into a merge.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 20):
NATO has fought 3 major wars since 1991 gulf war, Bosnia, Kosovo and the 2003 Iraq invasion - and yet the MiG 29 - AA11 combo is yet to score a single victory against a western fighter.

Doubtful examples of air to air engagements. None of those adversaries were credible in either proficiency or capability.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 20):
ever heard of something called the PAK-FA ????? it's front and cheek radars are X band - which the f-35 will fool. Problem is that it also carries 3 L band arrays one in the rear and 1 each on the wing leading edge..... This is the precise frequency that the F-35 CANNOT fool.

those 3 arrays each cover 120 degrees giving a full 360 degree L band detection.

I don't consider the PAK-FA to be on the same level of stealth as the JSF. Have the Russians produced one stealth aircraft yet? I will wait to see if the PAK-FA matches the RCS of a Super Hornet before we worry about whether it can compare to the JSF.

I also don't consider advertisement brochures a demonstrated capability. Maybe it has been fit to a flying aircraft but irrespective of that flying the attachment (or something that has the external shape of the attachment) and actually integrating that into a Radar system are two very different concepts. Comparing the capability of a large radar head on an AWACS to some leading edge flaps with an antenna size perhaps 1/50 to 1/100 the size is also dangerous. Radar physics states that the maximum range of a radar system depends in large part on the average power of its transmitter and the physical size of its antenna (happy to give a reference if you want any radar theory info).

I would be interested to know about AESA radars being used as jammers and what affect this would have on an L band system as I haven't gone down that knowledge path?

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 20):
First you ask what does the weapon care as to who drops it - then you tell me the JSOW is a naval weapon?? reallyy??? do you think the North Korean Defence ministry is going to care what it was hit by ? a navy bomb or an AF one????

No, lets remember what you stated.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 11):
No - not "SIGNIFICANTLY" right now the only major advantage it has over the f-22 is that it can carry the 2000lbs JDAM. the initial promise that it could carry the JSOW-ER, JSOW and JASSM internally are now out or extremely doubtful since anything over 3.88 meters is out - given that the JASSM and JSOW are the only stealth- stealthish weapons of this lot the moment it releases a JDAM it gets painted.


Plus whatever the f-35 carries externally so can the F-22

I never claimed the JSF could carry an internal load such as crusie missiles etc other than the 2000lb weapon. You subsequently claimed that the Raptor would be able to carry every weapon the JSF carries externally. Now facts are present that clearly indicate that the Raptor cannot launch a JASSM (carriage as you correctly state is irrelevant), facts are present that clearly indicate that the Raptor cannot launch a JSOW. Neither weapon is integrated onto the aircraft and there is no plan to do so.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 11):
The fact is that an F-22 will guarantee that a bomb can be dropped on target - even if it is an SDB or 1000pounder.

By direct inference you claimed the Raptor would be able to guarantee a weapon on target while the JSF could not. You are still yet to prove this point. Instead you resorted to making silly statements such as this....

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 20):
do you think the North Korean Defence ministry is going to care what it was hit by ? a navy bomb or an AF one????

The next point.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 20):
HAS not - but can - the weapons racks are standardised and all that's required is software. Do you really think that a country whose engineers gave us the space shuttle, the f-22, et al cont integrate and EOTS and Laser designator into the F-22????

I never stated their couldn't, my exact words were

Quoting Ozair (Reply 13):
Actually no, the Raptor has not had the weapons integrated into the avionics and there are no current plans to. JASSM is not planned for the airframe, in US service the JSOW is a navy weapon and will never be fit to a Raptor.

I am sure they could if they wanted to but the reality is they won't be. It is not part of the growth and software development plan of the aircraft to have either of those weapons integrated onto the airframe. It is not part of the growth plan for the airframe to have a laser designator integrated to the airframe. I think I am being quite clear there aren't I?

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 20):
As for how a raptor is better

1) ALL MODERN Naval and Ground AD systems and AWACS are L band or S band
2) The f-22 can evade them
3) The F-35 CANNOT evade them
4) ERGO the f-22 can guarantee that it reaches the drop zone UNDETECTED and therefore UNMOLESTED
5) the F-35 CANNOT - because AND Irtysh-Avia (Kazakhstan)">IT WILL BE DETECTED by the VAST MAJORITY of current MODERN air surveillance systems that happen to be L BAND and S BAND.

I agree that the Raptor is a better airframe for penetrating a hostile environment but there are only 183 (close enough with the few crashes) and they cannot be everywhere. Lets look at your points in sequence
1: Search/EW radars are S and L band but these frequencies are generally not used by SAM batteries for their target tracking and engagement radars. Radar theory, horizon limitations and jamming also ensure that there will always be areas of lesser or no coverage
2: Agree
3: I agree, the airframe is optimized for X band but again I state that S and L band radars (there is always an exception such as the SA-3) are not used for target tracking and engagement. Radar theory demonstrates that S and L band frequencies would have severe limitations if they were used for tracking or engagement.
4: Sure, no arguments there.
5: You make the distinction here about surveillance systems which is good. I still think you need to get out of the belief of S and L band radars cover every avenue of approach and cannot either be eliminated, jammed or evaded to ensure the JSF can find ingress and egress routes.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 20):
Quoting Ozair (Reply 13):
ut I consider this optimisation better than anything in current operation or planned for future airframes.

really??? so the B-2 and F-22 representing 20 year old and 15 year old technologies respectively then according to you are

a) NOT current AND/OR
b) less stealth optimised than the F-35?

You are taking that quote out of context. I agree that the B-2 and the Raptor have superior stealth coverage and I think others would agree that I was not comparing the JSF to either of the previous mentioned airframes but to its current and planned competitors of which both of those are not.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 20):
As for future platforms - all in current pre-development are UCAV's - the SKAT, Neuron, TARANIS, phantom ray, X-45 - tell me do any of these platforms seem LESS all spectrum stealth optimised than the F-35 to you????


Sure, the UCAVs may have a reduced stealth signature compared to a JSF. I didn't consider them when I made my statement but I really don't class these two airframes as comparable yet. Once the UCAV can operate autonomously with air to air weapons I will consider it a viable option (I am sure this is just a matter of time but think the JSF will get a good 20 years of service before we see this capability in proper use).

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 20):
All round underperformer is more like it.

all the russians need to do to neutralise the f-35 is

a) Develop a DAS system of their own to detect the f-35's HUGE IR plume

OR

b) Retrofit L-BAND leading edge and rear radars to the Pak-FA and Su-30/35 family


a) will cost money
b) is ready to go and proven

I have already indicated my viewpoint on L-band radars in the PAK-FA and Su-30/35. I also don't think the IR signature is as great as you suggest. Even if it is I have belief that countermeasures can be developed to mitigate this compromise. Thinking of the top of my head I am sure someone could develop a long burn flare or aerial decoy etc to overcome this issue.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 20):
Quoting Ozair (Reply 13):
It will meet or exceed all F-16 (and F/A-18 classic) parameters and capabilities.

No

No on several scores

1) It will be several times more expensive to procure than F-16 and F-18
2) It will be 1.5 times more expensive to maintain
3) ERGO the quality/quantity balance is reduced by a factor of anywhere between 3.5 to 6
4) ERGO overwhelming force as a doctrine will be ruinously expensive to maintain
5) its TW ratio is less than both F-16 and F-18 which means it will have both inferior acceleration and inferior kinematics.
6) Having a huge engine it will have a considerably greater exhaust signature than either F-16 or F-18

Again let's take these in sequence.
1: I am sure the average price of the airframe will be more expensive but it is also bringing more advanced technology. There are few examples of an aircraft costing less than its predecessor, especially in military aviation. I also think it is unwise to compare the costs of aircraft developed during the cold war to those today. Such different circumstances governed the developments and purchases made back then. The F-16 in its first generation was a simple, light and cheap WVR air defence fighter. What we see today as the F-16 is not the same aircraft that first flew in 1974.
2: While I agree that it should cost less to maintain and probably won't it is worth waiting on this. Once there are several thousand airframes in service it may be a different story.
3: I agree, there will probably be less of them but that again is the reality of modern economic circumstances. If military circumstances change they can always build more than they planned so it is a bit early to tell.
4: Sure
5: I doubt it is worse than the F-18 but that is an unfair comparison anyway, the F-18 is a different type of fighter aircraft and has its own strengths and weaknesses. I do think this will change with time though, the engine will be tweaked, the airframe may see some more weight reduction and I believe it is better aerodynamically. I would also be interested to know what the thrust to weight ratio is of new built F-16s such as the E model. I am sure with all that extra gear hanging on the aircraft it is not the lightweight fighter it once was.
6: I have spoken about this already.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 20):
to be fair to you

So kind of you  
Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 20):
the F-35 does have some great features - the problem is the price has spiralled so far out of control that these features are no longer worth their asking price.

I think it is a better option than its predecessors and if building them or owning them makes an adversary unsure they can gain dominance over you then it is worth the cost. I am sure the same arguments were made about the F-15 or F-16 given the huge numbers of Mig-21s etc that were built in the 60s and 70s. The US could have continued to built older aircraft in larger numbers that cost less to manufacture (although the hidden cost in any air force is actually training and retaining pilots and operating the aircraft so more may not always be the best option) but they didn't.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 20):
The problem here is that F-35 philes like you get carried away by your love of the lightning

Actually I am more of a Mustang man. Now if we start comparing the P-51 to the Spitfire I might have to pull the gloves out.

I am not a zealot of the JSF. I simply answered a question by Joecanuck about whether the aircraft is worth the money and will be more value in the long run than the Raptor and then subsequently answered a question posed to me by Kiwirob.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 20):
While F-35 phobes like APA unfairly ignore some of its great features.

APA is a poor source in general. I find that Carlo believes everything the Russian manufactures publish to the determent of his analysis.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 20):
The problem here is that the f-35 has design compromises which as stand alone compromises aren't so serious - but produce a dangerously off balance cocktail when combined onto one platform

I personally think it will be a stellar aircraft and will serve everyone who buys it well. I am certainly not anti-Raptor either. I think the Raptor is a fantastic aircraft and should have been procured in greater numbers. The question I answered was whether the JSF would be worth it and my opinion is that with its all round capabilities it will be.

Given how the F-16 has changed over the last 30 years what the future holds for the JSF could be beyond anyone's guess.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: Shmertspionem
Posted 2010-11-22 01:37:06 and read 10386 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 22):
How to dismiss the JSF without hurting the holy F22...
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I am certainly not anti-Raptor

Tell me Keesje do you have anything useful to contribute to this discussion???

I am thoroughly anti raptor for the simple reason that it’s a logistical nightmare – 30 hours maintenance for every hour of flight – for our budget if we buy 100 raptors – we can only keep 2 to 4 up in the air at any given time.

That said – better a tried and tested platform that’s excellent at some things – than a brand new financial black hole that’s and all round Dunce. I don’t mind investing in the DAS and EOTS – just not the 31 tonnes of flying garbage that attaches to it.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
A primary requirement for CAS in any conflict is direct support for troops in contact.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
the gun is required for air to ground and when an engagement gets into a merge.

Really??? Geee i didn’t know that..................................... did you read what i said.........................since youre answering a question i never asked

1) CAS is best left to slower heavily armoured planes like the A-10 – the a-10 was meant to be retired quite some time back but Bosnia and Iraq proved that there was no substitute for them and the F-16 and other such fast fighters were a complete waste of capability – and we’rent too good at it anyway...... there was a specific F-16 CAS variant that never went into production because it was realised earlier on that high fast planes weren’t so stellar in the CAS role......................the same reason the MiG 27s were quickly supplanted by Su-25s in Afghanistan.

2) What i said was that the F-35 is way too expensive a plane to be exposed to the mercy of ack ack shells that cost less than 10 dollars a pop – but are extremely potent. The F-35 simply isn’t armoured enough to go where A-10’s or Ah-64s can ................ in fact from what we hear the B variant will have several redundancies taken out of it in order to fit in the 1000lbs JDAM it was meant to carry

3) ERGO the one JSF variant that was MEANT to be used for CAS will also be the one with the least number of redundancies.

4) See the point regarding radar coverage below RE the IAF in the YOM KIPPUR war and the perils of low flight.

5) When things get into a MERGE as u put a strafing run is a blunt unintelligent instrument that has far too much capability for indiscriminate blue on blue slaughter.......... as opposed to trainable hellfire missiles from slow planes flying low enough for a clear ID and armoured heavily enough to sustain ack ack fire OR the AC-130 which has oversize optics for a clearer picture from higher /safer up.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Actually super cruise is about flying above Mach 1 without an afterburner, nothing more and nothing less.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
It is only linked to stealth in military aircraft

You do realise this is the military aviation thread don’t you???? What do you think were discussing ? recipes for Tandoori chicken?

In your own sentence you’ve made the distinction between the MILITARY function of supercruise “WITHOUT AN AFTERBURNER” being the most important phrase and the civilian imperative which was speed “ABOVE MACH 1” as you put it.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
(I don't believe it has)
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Doubtful examples of air to air engagements.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I don't consider the PAK-FA to be on the same level of stealth as the JSF.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I also don't consider advertisement brochures a demonstrated capability.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I also don't think the IR signature is as great as you suggest.

I really don’t care what you believe – since you haven’t backed up one single argument of yours with an example or source and have been cutting and pasting from the LM sales brochure of the F-35. Tell me where’s the doubt in my “doubtful example” ???? do you have any relevant modern example to back up your claim???

I have given an example – a valid and relevant MODERN example – common courtesy demands you either factually diss it – or provide a counter example. You have done neither

If you don’t believe the PAK-FA is stealthy or don’t believe a brochure – where is your evidence to back up your disbelief??? Your beliefs or lack thereof is even less of a credible platform to build an argument on that a sales brochure................especially when your beliefs are completely unsubstantiated by sources.

And getting back to the English language – could you please show me where I claimed the PAK-FA was stealth???? You are putting words in my mouth to divert from the issue – the fact that you haven’t presented one single fact and premised the entire argument on :” i think”, “ i believe” “ i don’t consider” . The PAK’s stealth or lack thereof is entirely irrelevant to its L band array being able to pick up the F-35

This is not a religious forum where an argument can be won or a point demolished simply by stating it is not “my belief”.

If you have facts, precedent or logic i suggest you offer them up.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
and actually integrating that into a Radar system are two very different concepts.

Hence the picture provided of its integration into the Su-30MK leading edge.

I understand that all your “facts” have either been un-researched, or deliberately mis-stated. But when somebody does you the courtesy of providing you with a source – in this case an actual picture – you are required at the very least to look at it.............................

Instead you see it – but pretend it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t support your falsified line of logic.?

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I would be interested to know about AESA radars being used as jammers and what affect this would have on an L band system as I haven't gone down that knowledge path?

They have been in use in that role for quite some time snow – the ELTA and Thales escort jammers both use 3 small AESA modules on each sidelobe and one each for front and back. I dunno when the Thales jammer used AESA – but the ELTA one has been around since 2007.

Again we see you’re out of date with your facts – just like you are with the rest of your wave physics.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
You subsequently claimed that the Raptor would be able to carry every weapon the JSF carries externally.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Now facts are present that clearly indicate that the Raptor cannot launch a JASSM (carriage as you correctly state is irrelevant), facts are present that clearly indicate that the Raptor cannot launch a JSOW. Neither weapon is integrated onto the aircraft and there is no plan to do so.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I am sure they could if they wanted to but the reality is they won't be.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Even if it is I have belief that countermeasures can be developed to mitigate this compromise. Thinking of the top of my head I am sure someone could develop a long burn flare or aerial decoy etc to overcome this issue.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I do think this will change with time though,
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
the engine will be tweaked, the airframe may see some more weight reduction and I believe it is better aerodynamically.

NO – you have presented facts that show the F-22 DOES NOT carry the JASSM or JSOW
YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED ANY FACTS WHATSOEVER to show that the f-22 CANNOT carry the JASSM and JSOW if so required at a later date.
Do you understand the difference between CANNOT and DOES NOT???????
CANNOT is future determinative
DOES NOT is present tentative.

To prove that – you have to show That JSOW and JASSM software is incompatible with the F-22’s OS and systems architecture. And that the F-22’s wing pylons can’t support the weight. Finally to make such an assertion you have to prove that that there will be NO future circumstances where in such a requirement will not arise
As for plans – they can change in an instant-
The A-10 was PLANNED to be withdrawn.
The F22 was PLANNED around “not a pound for air to ground”
Iraq and Afghanistan were PLANNED to be cakewalks.
The F-4 and MiG-21 were planned without cannon – but got them nevertheless when operational reality dictated the need.

But what is so curious here is that you refuse to acknowledge that should an AF general decide he wants JASSM JSOW ability of the F-22 all it involves is a software upgrade and a few release trials to gauge the aerodynamics of it to work out launch protocol.

However when it comes to the F-35 you’re on a serious Technicolor dream – all unsubstantiated –
“im sure they could if they wanted to”
“ countermeasures AND OLD: Guangzhou - Baiyun (CAN / ZGGG) (closed), China">CAN BE developed”
“ I am sure someone could develop a long burn flare”
“ i think this will change with time”
“the engine will be tweaked”
“the weight will be reduced”
“be better aerodynamically”

And try constructing a sentence without “i believe” “ i don’t consider” “someone could” “ i think”
The f-35 is yet to overcome teething problems and you’re already attributing Block 40 features to it planned 20 years down the line – But when it comes to the F-22 you deny even the possibility of a simple software package addition and testing that would take 6 months max and not involving a block upgrade.

If you can’t provide sources or facts – at least try to be consistent.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
By direct inference you claimed the Raptor would be able to guarantee a weapon on target while the JSF could not.

Again i don’t know what it is – but being an Indian immigrant to Australia it never ceases to surprise me how my English is better than every Australian i have ever met. I’m sorry but was the nuance lost on you? Here please read this again from my replies 11 and 20

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 11):
The fact is that an F-22 will guarantee that a bomb can be dropped on target - even if it is an SDB or 1000pounder. But while the F-35 can carry a 2000 pounder - it's delivery on target can NOT be guaranteed.
Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 20):
4) ERGO the f-22 can guarantee that it reaches the drop zone UNDETECTED and therefore UNMOLESTED
6) the F-35 CANNOT - because AND Irtysh-Avia (Kazakhstan)">IT WILL BE DETECTED by the VAST MAJORITY of current MODERN air surveillance systems that happen to be L BAND and S BAND.


Now tell me by what stretch of the English language did you INFER – directly or indirectly that “reaching the drop zone” equates to “guaranteeing the bomb hits the target” ????? here’s a free online grammar – could you please show me one grammatical rule that allows you to make such an “inference”???
http://www.ego4u.com/en/cram-up/grammar

Tell me in which thesaurus or dictionary did you find “Hit” as a similie of “drop” and “delivery” ????
Neither F-35 or F-22 can guarantee the bomb will hit its target – given that 20% of all precision ammunition misses its mark............... all a plane can do – is designate the target and release its bomb. The F-22 guarantees arrival at the drop zone – the F-35 will have a lot of trouble doing the same.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
You are still yet to prove this point. Instead you resorted to making silly statements such as this....
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I think I am being quite clear there aren't I?

I’ve seen Nebulae through telescopes that are clearer than your cyclic logic. X is Y because i believe so – I believe so because X is Y. You ask me to prove a point i never made – but rather one that you inferred using some bizarre grammatical liberties that i’ve yet to fathom............. and then when I modify your phrase in reply 13 “what does the weapon care who dropped it?” it suddenly becomes silly?

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
1: Search/EW radars are S and L band but these frequencies are generally not used by SAM batteries for their target tracking and engagement radars.

What utter balderdash
. The Israeli MF-STAR (used by India both on ships and soon to be deployed on land as well) , The Thales Herakles (used by Singapore), the SAMPSON/S-1850 combo on the type 45, are all examples of S and/or L band through the entire survey, detect, track, engage sequence.
Again please fact check. You have been dishing out “facts” that are either patently false or half truths at best – and all verbal contortions without exception.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Radar theory, horizon limitations and jamming also ensure that there will always be areas of lesser or no coverage

Again – you’re out of touch with current trends....................... why don’t you actually do some research for a change?
One avenue is Low altitude approach – the most dangerous approach possible in warfare given that 70% of all air combat losses in the jet age have been to ack ack fire of aircraft flying low to avoid radars and missiles. In 1991 a total of 39 fixed wing and 5 helcos were shot down 1 was pilot error – 1 is SUSPECTED to be an AA loss but the remaining 37+5 (i.e 95.45%) were lost to AA GUNS
In 73 of the 104 planes the Israelis lost the large chunk 70 or so were to ack ack fire from the zsu-23 and 57. (link this logic to the CAS reply above)
Horizon limitations are overcome by AWACS, Aerostat radars and a powerful new technology HF surface and air wave – of which Thales has already operationalised 1 unit for France. It provides over the horizon detection out to 400 kms of even small fishing boast and rubber dinghies – essentially X band resolution at S band range. Raytheon has also developed a similar system now being used by Canada.
http://www.thalesgroup.com/Portfolio...duct_-_Coast_Watcher_200/?pid=1568

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/hfswr/

and you of all people should know this ever since our OTH array at jindalee has been able to detect planes taking of and landing in air fields in North Korea 8000kms away.
Jamming depends on knowing the radar frequencies of the attacking missiles – when you have triple seeker warheads like the stunner which use IR, Image and Radar – lunched in wolfpacks - the resources required to jam them consistently are significantly greater than any fighter can manage. If you add a missile with a Home on Jam warhead and launch it as a pair with a triple seeker missile – The f-35 will fall into the trap of full on jamming while the passive missile attacks the jamming source.
As for areas of lesser or no coverage – the technology to ensure that doesn’t happen has been around for the last 6-7 years.... such as the HF system mentioned above long with high end long range capabilities becoming completely affordable.
India for example just signed a a contract for 20 Thales groundmaster radars (advertised as a radar than can overcome OTH limitation and perform both LR and SR surveillance out to 400 kms) for 100 million.

100 mil used to be a big sum once upon a time – not anymore especially not when spread over 20 radars.
So again you’re out of sync with reality.

Source - http://www.defensenews.com/osd_story.php?sh=VSDI&i=3944862

(note how i’ve used specific examples and provided sources???? It’s a good habit - get into it.)

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Radar theory, horizon limitations and jamming also ensure that there will always be areas of lesser or no coverage
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
None of those adversaries were credible in either proficiency or capability.

As i’ve already proven – you know nothing of modern radar theory – just obsolete radar speculations from an era when bell bottoms and other monstrosities were in vogue.

And here is your first big logical contradiction. On one hand according to you Serbia and Iraq were incompetent enemies. But then you expect any competent enemy to challenge America without ensure full spectrum – muti tiered air surveillance/defence??????

And your contradiction is mirrored in the F-35. Its gross overkill for 90% of our enemies and dangerous underkill for the remaining 10%.

The F-35 is designed precisely with these little tinpot dictatorships in mind – AKAPOST COLD WAR THINKING.............................. it isn’t designed to deal with peer competitors.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Radar theory demonstrates that S and L band frequencies would have severe limitations if they were used for tracking or engagement.

Again deliberate falsification.

It demonstrates nothing of the sort - The MF-STAR, Herakles and SAMPSON using the S band for their track and engagement modes are proof of that. Furthermore no matter what the stealth X L or S within about 10-15kms no amount of stealth can escape detection – simple physics. All the radar has to do is send the missile into the terminal engagement basket and even a small x band radar fitted on a warhead will be able to track a stealth plane 10 kms away. And since the Barak8, and PAAMS both have mid course guidance – that’s exactly what’ll happen.

Again please stop falsifying facts.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I still think you need to get out of the belief of S and L band radars cover every avenue of approach and cannot either be eliminated,

Everything you’ve said so far is false – radar theory and just about everything else - you’re the one that needs to re-examine his beliefs.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
You are taking that quote out of context.

Really? – please read the context here again below – direct quote

Quoting Ozair (Reply 13):
Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 11):
It is not stealth - it is now classified as a LO - not a VLO - LO is a 4.75 generation technology - VLO is the stealth gold standard. The F-35 has too many bumps warts and curves and is only x band optimised - which is foolish given that virtually all AWACS and LR grounds radars are either S or L band.

I agree, the airframe is selectively optimized for Stealth but I consider this optimisation better than anything in current operation or planned for future airframes.

Have you re-read it? Where exactly is it out of context? How is citing the f-22 and B-2 as as examples of current aircraft out of context? How is citing Skat and Taranis outside the confines of your filter “FUTURE AIRFRAMES”????????

What would you like me to compare it to? Flying purple hippopotami with neon pink wings?

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I didn't consider them when I made my statement but I really don't class these two airframes as comparable yet.

as i have said before your “ CLASSIFICATION” and “CONSIDERATION” is irrelevant given that everything you’ve said so far is either unsourced or just plain factually wrong. If you can fantasize about weight reduction –IR reduction – fantastic new un-sourced countermeasures for the F-35 when that platform has yet to overcome basic problems - Logically you must extend the same courtesy to UCAVs

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I also don't think the IR signature is as great as you suggest.

Really ? can you construct a sentence without “i think” and “i believe” ? And since you've already proved that your radar theory obsolete – your thought and beliefs associated with such obsolescence is irrelevant.

This is plain simple physics – engine size given the same technology increases in response to greater thrust requirements. Thus the bigger the thrust – the greater the exhaust force of the plume and the greater the heat. This is governed by newtons 1st and 3rd laws of physics and the laws of thermodynamics. There are 3 ways to ameliorate this
1) heat ablating exhaust a –la YF-23 (the f-35 does not have this)
2) shielded contoured exhaust a la F-22 (the F-35 does not have this)
3) spread the thrust over two smaller engines a la the Eurofighter Typhoon (the F-35 does not do this)
So tell me which laws of physics are you basing your disbelief on???? Sources? Plain logic? ???????
Show me one law of physics that says a 43k lbs thrust NON SUPERCRUISE engine will not have a greater IR signature or plume than a 32K lbs super-cruise engine (which is what the PAK-FA uses)



Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
if building them or owning them makes an adversary unsure they can gain dominance over you then it is worth the cost. I

The F-15 and F-16 and F-18 already do that real well – but you want to spend another 360 billion to send the same message all over again?????.................. If anything the F-35 will give a lot of countries the belief that they can in fact gain air dominance since it combines inferior kinematics, with dubious stealth and guts the defence budget and force ratio of any small to medium size country stupid enough to buy it.
Its not a deterrent – far from it – its a war magnet.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I am sure the same arguments were made about the F-15 or F-16 given the huge numbers of Mig-21s etc that were built in the 60s and 70s.

No they were not – Again please fact check before you speak

the F-16 was intensely unpopular with the Air Force -because it bucked the Big and Expensive trend that was being set by the F-15 and F-14. In fact the arguments for the F-16 were the exact reverse of what you have claimed (unsubstantiated as usual)

The F-16 was justified on the basis that large numbers of a small cheap fighter were required with a REASONABLE technological and kinematic edge to dent warpac ’s overwhelming numerical superiority and producing F-15s and 14s in those numbers would be ruinous.

This was the same logic the F-35 was SOLD on – and from being a small cheap affordable fighter – its morphed into a big, unwieldy, underperforming, unaffordable monster.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
APA is a poor source in general

Poor source of opinion – not poor source of fact.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Given how the F-16 has changed over the last 30 years what the future holds for the JSF could be beyond anyone's guess.

Yes who could have thought that something resembling a chimpanzee 500,000 years back would land someone on the moon. Maybe given 30 years Hitler would have become a humanitarian zionist. Maybe in 15 Saudi Arabia will become the poster child of Womens Rights. Who knows in 10 years what nasty surprise the Chinese and Russians will throw at us?

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
None of those adversaries were credible in either proficiency or capability.

And those were precisely the enemies the F-35 was designed to counter – 3rd rate countries with 3rd rate forces. Against a peer or near peer competitor of adequate geographic size – this plane is a monumental waste of time and effort

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
as those that can do it generally only do so with no external carriage.

Again factually incorrect – the Typhoon has demonstrated this with 4 AMRAAMS in the 4 contoured underbelly hardpoints and the Gripen has demonstrated this capability with a full AA complement. Notice that unlike you i’m providing sources
http://www.gripenindia.com/2010/10/flying-gripen-ng.html

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I also don't consider advertisement brochures a demonstrated capability.

Except when it comes from the F-35 sales brochure – at any rate since all your facts to date have been wrong – all associated beliefs and thoughts cannot be taken seriously.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I never claimed the JSF could carry an internal load such as cruise missiles etc other than the 2000lb weapon.

Neither have I - you’ve tied yourself up in so many logical knots that you’ve lost the plot of who said what and are attributing comments and inferences left right and centre to cover up....... just like a plane launches chaff to confuse incoming missiles.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I am sure they could if they wanted to

Finally the admission – hidden in the midst of all that deliberately confusing chaff. Yes they AND OLD: Guangzhou - Baiyun (CAN / ZGGG) (closed), China">CAN – IF – they want to – WHENEVER they want to – no more than a 6 month time frame at the longest.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Once the UCAV can operate autonomously with air to air weapons

Curiously enough the DAS and its associated paraphernalia have cleared the way for that. The main technical challenge to that was ID-ing friendlies in hostiles in a close melee and tracking them in that melee 360 degrees and finally forming an intelligent autonomous AI picture of the scenario. Since the DAS resolves those problems the only thing left is to manoeuvre the plane into a kill solution, and deploy countermeasures..................... nothing a few thousand lines of algorithms and a few more data busses can’t solve.

This technology is more mature than your “weight reductions” better aerodynamics” “tweaked engine” and fantastical unheard of new countermeasures that you have attributed to the F-35.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Once there are several thousand airframes in service it may be a different story.

Again speculation – and unsourced as usual - can you actually provide facts without speculating?????

That analysis is a PROGRAMME analysis – ie of the entire production run – not of the initial 6-8 LRIP models.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
If military circumstances change they can always build more than they planned so it is a bit early to tell.

Yes and yet when it comes to the f-22 you insist on ruling out “changed military circumstances” to facilitate JSOW and JASSM integration.

You can’t even maintain a logistical consistency within a 500 word reply??????

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
that again is the reality of modern economic circumstances.

NO AND Irtysh-Avia (Kazakhstan)">IT IS NOT!!!!!
It is the economic consequence of foolish strategic planning.
You must learn to distinguish between cause and effect................... so in addition to verbal contortions, obsolete facts, and outdated research we’re going to add cause-effect confusion to the list now.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I do think this will change with time though, the engine will be tweaked, the airframe may see some more weight reduction and I believe it is better aerodynamically.

I don’t think there’s an aviation fantasy forum is there??? Where are your sources??????

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I would also be interested to know what the thrust to weight ratio is of new built F-16s such as the E model.

Tell me – why don’t you actually bother looking these things up yourself???????? Maybe you’ve got all your facts wrong because somebody is feeding you F-35 sales brochure lies.................................. if you actually bothered doing some primary source research you wouldn’t go so far off the rails.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I am not a zealot of the JSF.

What do you call someone who blindly believes a sales brochure and tailors the facts to sustain a discredited dogma?

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Comparing the capability of a large radar head on an AWACS to some leading edge flaps with an antenna size perhaps 1/50 to 1/100 the size is also dangerous.

The only thing that's dangerous here is your belief in a discredited dogma – wrong ideas are worse than ignorance.

Firstly the F-35 is stealth optimised in its forward arc – the other 6 arcs are less stealthy than the front.

Second not only is your wave theory obsolete but also your comprehension of the tacto-strategic utility of wave platforms.

In the 70’s an AEW was seen simply as a defensive airborne radar picket – --- your reply adheres to this outdated premise.

In the early 80’s the terminology changed to AWACS which implied an offensive dynamic forward deployed platform that used its mobility not just to detect but also vector the squadrons under its command into an advantageous position.
The way this works is an AWACS can
1) fill gaps in ground radar cover as and when required
2) be diverted rapidly to a hotspot
3) detect the f-35 using its L or S band radar from 250-360kms away
4) direct its slaved squadrons to attack – feeding them the direct coordinates while the actual attack platforms maintain radar silence
5) When the attacking platforms come within their own L band detection range – they start painting (if necessary) and release their missiles – simply designating a probable terminal engagement basket of say 15-20kms radius.
6) The Xband or within the next 3-5 years tripe band seeker equipped missile enters this basket
7) In the terminal basket no amount of stealth can hide you ......end of story
8) As for jamming – a massed missile attack – so to say a wolfpack attack will exhaust countermeasures and onboard processing power very rapidly.
9) The PAK-FA bin measures in at 5 meters by 1.8 meters which means it can carry SIGNIFICANTLY THICKER AND LONGER MISSILES (translating to greater range and terminal velocity with significantly more powerful motors – since an arithmetic radius increase results in geometric capacity increase pie r square H)
10) So using the DAS the f-35 will get first look – but only within horizon limitations..... The opposing AWACS will get the same first look given the lack of L and S band LO.
11) The AWACS will direct the PAK-FA to attack – and given that constraints of physical geometry – the PAK-FA carrying significantly longer range and faster missiles in greater numbers will get the first shot.
12) Capi?????

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-11-22 02:02:11 and read 10518 times.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 24):
Quoting keesje (Reply 22):
How to dismiss the JSF without hurting the holy F22...
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I am certainly not anti-Raptor

Tell me Keesje do you have anything useful to contribute to this discussion???

I am thoroughly anti raptor for the simple reason that it’s a logistical nightmare – 30 hours maintenance for every hour of flight – for our budget if we buy 100 raptors – we can only keep 2 to 4 up in the air at any given time.

That said – better a tried and tested platform that’s excellent at some things – than a brand new financial black hole that’s and all round Dunce. I don’t mind investing in the DAS and EOTS – just not the 31 tonnes of flying garbage that attaches to it.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
A primary requirement for CAS in any conflict is direct support for troops in contact.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
the gun is required for air to ground and when an engagement gets into a merge.

Really??? Geee i didn’t know that..................................... did you read what i said.........................since youre answering a question i never asked

1) CAS is best left to slower heavily armoured planes like the A-10 – the a-10 was meant to be retired quite some time back but Bosnia and Iraq proved that there was no substitute for them and the F-16 and other such fast fighters were a complete waste of capability – and we’rent too good at it anyway...... there was a specific F-16 CAS variant that never went into production because it was realised earlier on that high fast planes weren’t so stellar in the CAS role......................the same reason the MiG 27s were quickly supplanted by Su-25s in Afghanistan.

2) What i said was that the F-35 is way too expensive a plane to be exposed to the mercy of ack ack shells that cost less than 10 dollars a pop – but are extremely potent. The F-35 simply isn’t armoured enough to go where A-10’s or Ah-64s can ................ in fact from what we hear the B variant will have several redundancies taken out of it in order to fit in the 1000lbs JDAM it was meant to carry

3) ERGO the one JSF variant that was MEANT to be used for CAS will also be the one with the least number of redundancies.

4) See the point regarding radar coverage below RE the IAF in the YOM KIPPUR war and the perils of low flight.

5) When things get into a MERGE as u put a strafing run is a blunt unintelligent instrument that has far too much capability for indiscriminate blue on blue slaughter.......... as opposed to trainable hellfire missiles from slow planes flying low enough for a clear ID and armoured heavily enough to sustain ack ack fire OR the AC-130 which has oversize optics for a clearer picture from higher /safer up.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Actually super cruise is about flying above Mach 1 without an afterburner, nothing more and nothing less.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
It is only linked to stealth in military aircraft

You do realise this is the military aviation thread don’t you???? What do you think were discussing ? recipes for Tandoori chicken?

In your own sentence you’ve made the distinction between the MILITARY function of supercruise “WITHOUT AN AFTERBURNER” being the most important phrase and the civilian imperative which was speed “ABOVE MACH 1” as you put it.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
(I don't believe it has)
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Doubtful examples of air to air engagements.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I don't consider the PAK-FA to be on the same level of stealth as the JSF.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I also don't consider advertisement brochures a demonstrated capability.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I also don't think the IR signature is as great as you suggest.

I really don’t care what you believe – since you haven’t backed up one single argument of yours with an example or source and have been cutting and pasting from the LM sales brochure of the F-35. Tell me where’s the doubt in my “doubtful example” ???? do you have any relevant modern example to back up your claim???

I have given an example – a valid and relevant MODERN example – common courtesy demands you either factually diss it – or provide a counter example. You have done neither

If you don’t believe the PAK-FA is stealthy or don’t believe a brochure – where is your evidence to back up your disbelief??? Your beliefs or lack thereof is even less of a credible platform to build an argument on that a sales brochure................especially when your beliefs are completely unsubstantiated by sources.

And getting back to the English language – could you please show me where I claimed the PAK-FA was stealth???? You are putting words in my mouth to divert from the issue – the fact that you haven’t presented one single fact and premised the entire argument on :” i think”, “ i believe” “ i don’t consider” . The PAK’s stealth or lack thereof is entirely irrelevant to its L band array being able to pick up the F-35

This is not a religious forum where an argument can be won or a point demolished simply by stating it is not “my belief”.

If you have facts, precedent or logic i suggest you offer them up.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
and actually integrating that into a Radar system are two very different concepts.

Hence the picture provided of its integration into the Su-30MK leading edge.

I understand that all your “facts” have either been un-researched, or deliberately mis-stated. But when somebody does you the courtesy of providing you with a source – in this case an actual picture – you are required at the very least to look at it.............................

Instead you see it – but pretend it doesn’t exist because it doesn’t support your falsified line of logic.?

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I would be interested to know about AESA radars being used as jammers and what affect this would have on an L band system as I haven't gone down that knowledge path?

They have been in use in that role for quite some time snow – the ELTA and Thales escort jammers both use 3 small AESA modules on each sidelobe and one each for front and back. I dunno when the Thales jammer used AESA – but the ELTA one has been around since 2007.

Again we see you’re out of date with your facts – just like you are with the rest of your wave physics.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
You subsequently claimed that the Raptor would be able to carry every weapon the JSF carries externally.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Now facts are present that clearly indicate that the Raptor cannot launch a JASSM (carriage as you correctly state is irrelevant), facts are present that clearly indicate that the Raptor cannot launch a JSOW. Neither weapon is integrated onto the aircraft and there is no plan to do so.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I am sure they could if they wanted to but the reality is they won't be.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Even if it is I have belief that countermeasures can be developed to mitigate this compromise. Thinking of the top of my head I am sure someone could develop a long burn flare or aerial decoy etc to overcome this issue.
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I do think this will change with time though,
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
the engine will be tweaked, the airframe may see some more weight reduction and I believe it is better aerodynamically.

NO – you have presented facts that show the F-22 DOES NOT carry the JASSM or JSOW
YOU HAVE NOT PRESENTED ANY FACTS WHATSOEVER to show that the f-22 CANNOT carry the JASSM and JSOW if so required at a later date.
Do you understand the difference between CANNOT and DOES NOT???????
CANNOT is future determinative
DOES NOT is present tentative.

To prove that – you have to show That JSOW and JASSM software is incompatible with the F-22’s OS and systems architecture. And that the F-22’s wing pylons can’t support the weight. Finally to make such an assertion you have to prove that that there will be NO future circumstances where in such a requirement will not arise
As for plans – they can change in an instant-
The A-10 was PLANNED to be withdrawn.
The F22 was PLANNED around “not a pound for air to ground”
Iraq and Afghanistan were PLANNED to be cakewalks.
The F-4 and MiG-21 were planned without cannon – but got them nevertheless when operational reality dictated the need.

But what is so curious here is that you refuse to acknowledge that should an AF general decide he wants JASSM JSOW ability of the F-22 all it involves is a software upgrade and a few release trials to gauge the aerodynamics of it to work out launch protocol.

However when it comes to the F-35 you’re on a serious Technicolor dream – all unsubstantiated –
“im sure they could if they wanted to”
“ countermeasures AND OLD: Guangzhou - Baiyun (CAN / ZGGG) (closed), China">AND OLD: Guangzhou - Baiyun (CAN / ZGGG) (closed), China">CAN BE developed”
“ I am sure someone could develop a long burn flare”
“ i think this will change with time”
“the engine will be tweaked”
“the weight will be reduced”
“be better aerodynamically”

And try constructing a sentence without “i believe” “ i don’t consider” “someone could” “ i think”
The f-35 is yet to overcome teething problems and you’re already attributing Block 40 features to it planned 20 years down the line – But when it comes to the F-22 you deny even the possibility of a simple software package addition and testing that would take 6 months max and not involving a block upgrade.

If you can’t provide sources or facts – at least try to be consistent.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
By direct inference you claimed the Raptor would be able to guarantee a weapon on target while the JSF could not.

Again i don’t know what it is – but being an Indian immigrant to Australia it never ceases to surprise me how my English is better than every Australian i have ever met. I’m sorry but was the nuance lost on you? Here please read this again from my replies 11 and 20

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 11):
The fact is that an F-22 will guarantee that a bomb can be dropped on target - even if it is an SDB or 1000pounder. But while the F-35 can carry a 2000 pounder - it's delivery on target can NOT be guaranteed.
Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 20):
4) ERGO the f-22 can guarantee that it reaches the drop zone UNDETECTED and therefore UNMOLESTED
6) the F-35 CANNOT - because AND Irtysh-Avia (Kazakhstan)">IT WILL BE DETECTED by the VAST MAJORITY of current MODERN air surveillance systems that happen to be L BAND and S BAND.


Now tell me by what stretch of the English language did you INFER – directly or indirectly that “reaching the drop zone” equates to “guaranteeing the bomb hits the target” ????? here’s a free online grammar – could you please show me one grammatical rule that allows you to make such an “inference”???
http://www.ego4u.com/en/cram-up/grammar

Tell me in which thesaurus or dictionary did you find “Hit” as a similie of “drop” and “delivery” ????
Neither F-35 or F-22 can guarantee the bomb will hit its target – given that 20% of all precision ammunition misses its mark............... all a plane can do – is designate the target and release its bomb. The F-22 guarantees arrival at the drop zone – the F-35 will have a lot of trouble doing the same.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
You are still yet to prove this point. Instead you resorted to making silly statements such as this....
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I think I am being quite clear there aren't I?

I’ve seen Nebulae through telescopes that are clearer than your cyclic logic. X is Y because i believe so – I believe so because X is Y. You ask me to prove a point i never made – but rather one that you inferred using some bizarre grammatical liberties that i’ve yet to fathom............. and then when I modify your phrase in reply 13 “what does the weapon care who dropped it?” it suddenly becomes silly?

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
1: Search/EW radars are S and L band but these frequencies are generally not used by SAM batteries for their target tracking and engagement radars.

What utter balderdash
. The Israeli MF-STAR (used by India both on ships and soon to be deployed on land as well) , The Thales Herakles (used by Singapore), the SAMPSON/S-1850 combo on the type 45, are all examples of S and/or L band through the entire survey, detect, track, engage sequence.
Again please fact check. You have been dishing out “facts” that are either patently false or half truths at best – and all verbal contortions without exception.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Radar theory, horizon limitations and jamming also ensure that there will always be areas of lesser or no coverage

Again – you’re out of touch with current trends....................... why don’t you actually do some research for a change?
One avenue is Low altitude approach – the most dangerous approach possible in warfare given that 70% of all air combat losses in the jet age have been to ack ack fire of aircraft flying low to avoid radars and missiles. In 1991 a total of 39 fixed wing and 5 helcos were shot down 1 was pilot error – 1 is SUSPECTED to be an AA loss but the remaining 37+5 (i.e 95.45%) were lost to AA GUNS
In 73 of the 104 planes the Israelis lost the large chunk 70 or so were to ack ack fire from the zsu-23 and 57. (link this logic to the CAS reply above)
Horizon limitations are overcome by AWACS, Aerostat radars and a powerful new technology HF surface and air wave – of which Thales has already operationalised 1 unit for France. It provides over the horizon detection out to 400 kms of even small fishing boast and rubber dinghies – essentially X band resolution at S band range. Raytheon has also developed a similar system now being used by Canada.
http://www.thalesgroup.com/Portfolio...duct_-_Coast_Watcher_200/?pid=1568

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/hfswr/

and you of all people should know this ever since our OTH array at jindalee has been able to detect planes taking of and landing in air fields in North Korea 8000kms away.
Jamming depends on knowing the radar frequencies of the attacking missiles – when you have triple seeker warheads like the stunner which use IR, Image and Radar – lunched in wolfpacks - the resources required to jam them consistently are significantly greater than any fighter can manage. If you add a missile with a Home on Jam warhead and launch it as a pair with a triple seeker missile – The f-35 will fall into the trap of full on jamming while the passive missile attacks the jamming source.
As for areas of lesser or no coverage – the technology to ensure that doesn’t happen has been around for the last 6-7 years.... such as the HF system mentioned above long with high end long range capabilities becoming completely affordable.
India for example just signed a a contract for 20 Thales groundmaster radars (advertised as a radar than can overcome OTH limitation and perform both LR and SR surveillance out to 400 kms) for 100 million.

100 mil used to be a big sum once upon a time – not anymore especially not when spread over 20 radars.
So again you’re out of sync with reality.

Source - http://www.defensenews.com/osd_story.php?sh=VSDI&i=3944862

(note how i’ve used specific examples and provided sources???? It’s a good habit - get into it.)

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Radar theory, horizon limitations and jamming also ensure that there will always be areas of lesser or no coverage
Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
None of those adversaries were credible in either proficiency or capability.

As i’ve already proven – you know nothing of modern radar theory – just obsolete radar speculations from an era when bell bottoms and other monstrosities were in vogue.

And here is your first big logical contradiction. On one hand according to you Serbia and Iraq were incompetent enemies. But then you expect any competent enemy to challenge America without ensure full spectrum – muti tiered air surveillance/defence??????

And your contradiction is mirrored in the F-35. Its gross overkill for 90% of our enemies and dangerous underkill for the remaining 10%.

The F-35 is designed precisely with these little tinpot dictatorships in mind – AKAPOST COLD WAR THINKING.............................. it isn’t designed to deal with peer competitors.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Radar theory demonstrates that S and L band frequencies would have severe limitations if they were used for tracking or engagement.

Again deliberate falsification.

It demonstrates nothing of the sort - The MF-STAR, Herakles and SAMPSON using the S band for their track and engagement modes are proof of that. Furthermore no matter what the stealth X L or S within about 10-15kms no amount of stealth can escape detection – simple physics. All the radar has to do is send the missile into the terminal engagement basket and even a small x band radar fitted on a warhead will be able to track a stealth plane 10 kms away. And since the Barak8, and PAAMS both have mid course guidance – that’s exactly what’ll happen.

Again please stop falsifying facts.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I still think you need to get out of the belief of S and L band radars cover every avenue of approach and cannot either be eliminated,

Everything you’ve said so far is false – radar theory and just about everything else - you’re the one that needs to re-examine his beliefs.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
You are taking that quote out of context.

Really? – please read the context here again below – direct quote

Quoting Ozair (Reply 13):
Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 11):
It is not stealth - it is now classified as a LO - not a VLO - LO is a 4.75 generation technology - VLO is the stealth gold standard. The F-35 has too many bumps warts and curves and is only x band optimised - which is foolish given that virtually all AWACS and LR grounds radars are either S or L band.

I agree, the airframe is selectively optimized for Stealth but I consider this optimisation better than anything in current operation or planned for future airframes.

Have you re-read it? Where exactly is it out of context? How is citing the f-22 and B-2 as as examples of current aircraft out of context? How is citing Skat and Taranis outside the confines of your filter “FUTURE AIRFRAMES”????????

What would you like me to compare it to? Flying purple hippopotami with neon pink wings?

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I didn't consider them when I made my statement but I really don't class these two airframes as comparable yet.

as i have said before your “ CLASSIFICATION” and “CONSIDERATION” is irrelevant given that everything you’ve said so far is either unsourced or just plain factually wrong. If you can fantasize about weight reduction –IR reduction – fantastic new un-sourced countermeasures for the F-35 when that platform has yet to overcome basic problems - Logically you must extend the same courtesy to UCAVs

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I also don't think the IR signature is as great as you suggest.

Really ? can you construct a sentence without “i think” and “i believe” ? And since you've already proved that your radar theory obsolete – your thought and beliefs associated with such obsolescence is irrelevant.

This is plain simple physics – engine size given the same technology increases in response to greater thrust requirements. Thus the bigger the thrust – the greater the exhaust force of the plume and the greater the heat. This is governed by newtons 1st and 3rd laws of physics and the laws of thermodynamics. There are 3 ways to ameliorate this
1) heat ablating exhaust a –la YF-23 (the f-35 does not have this)
2) shielded contoured exhaust a la F-22 (the F-35 does not have this)
3) spread the thrust over two smaller engines a la the Eurofighter Typhoon (the F-35 does not do this)
So tell me which laws of physics are you basing your disbelief on???? Sources? Plain logic? ???????
Show me one law of physics that says a 43k lbs thrust NON SUPERCRUISE engine will not have a greater IR signature or plume than a 32K lbs super-cruise engine (which is what the PAK-FA uses)



Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
if building them or owning them makes an adversary unsure they can gain dominance over you then it is worth the cost. I

The F-15 and F-16 and F-18 already do that real well – but you want to spend another 360 billion to send the same message all over again?????.................. If anything the F-35 will give a lot of countries the belief that they can in fact gain air dominance since it combines inferior kinematics, with dubious stealth and guts the defence budget and force ratio of any small to medium size country stupid enough to buy it.
Its not a deterrent – far from it – its a war magnet.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I am sure the same arguments were made about the F-15 or F-16 given the huge numbers of Mig-21s etc that were built in the 60s and 70s.

No they were not – Again please fact check before you speak

the F-16 was intensely unpopular with the Air Force -because it bucked the Big and Expensive trend that was being set by the F-15 and F-14. In fact the arguments for the F-16 were the exact reverse of what you have claimed (unsubstantiated as usual)

The F-16 was justified on the basis that large numbers of a small cheap fighter were required with a REASONABLE technological and kinematic edge to dent warpac ’s overwhelming numerical superiority and producing F-15s and 14s in those numbers would be ruinous.

This was the same logic the F-35 was SOLD on – and from being a small cheap affordable fighter – its morphed into a big, unwieldy, underperforming, unaffordable monster.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
APA is a poor source in general

Poor source of opinion – not poor source of fact.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Given how the F-16 has changed over the last 30 years what the future holds for the JSF could be beyond anyone's guess.

Yes who could have thought that something resembling a chimpanzee 500,000 years back would land someone on the moon. Maybe given 30 years Hitler would have become a humanitarian zionist. Maybe in 15 Saudi Arabia will become the poster child of Womens Rights. Who knows in 10 years what nasty surprise the Chinese and Russians will throw at us?

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
None of those adversaries were credible in either proficiency or capability.

And those were precisely the enemies the F-35 was designed to counter – 3rd rate countries with 3rd rate forces. Against a peer or near peer competitor of adequate geographic size – this plane is a monumental waste of time and effort

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
as those that can do it generally only do so with no external carriage.

Again factually incorrect – the Typhoon has demonstrated this with 4 AMRAAMS in the 4 contoured underbelly hardpoints and the Gripen has demonstrated this capability with a full AA complement. Notice that unlike you i’m providing sources
http://www.gripenindia.com/2010/10/flying-gripen-ng.html

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I also don't consider advertisement brochures a demonstrated capability.

Except when it comes from the F-35 sales brochure – at any rate since all your facts to date have been wrong – all associated beliefs and thoughts cannot be taken seriously.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I never claimed the JSF could carry an internal load such as cruise missiles etc other than the 2000lb weapon.

Neither have I - you’ve tied yourself up in so many logical knots that you’ve lost the plot of who said what and are attributing comments and inferences left right and centre to cover up....... just like a plane launches chaff to confuse incoming missiles.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I am sure they could if they wanted to

Finally the admission – hidden in the midst of all that deliberately confusing chaff. Yes they AND OLD: Guangzhou - Baiyun (CAN / ZGGG) (closed), China">AND OLD: Guangzhou - Baiyun (CAN / ZGGG) (closed), China">CAN – IF – they want to – WHENEVER they want to – no more than a 6 month time frame at the longest.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Once the UCAV can operate autonomously with air to air weapons

Curiously enough the DAS and its associated paraphernalia have cleared the way for that. The main technical challenge to that was ID-ing friendlies in hostiles in a close melee and tracking them in that melee 360 degrees and finally forming an intelligent autonomous AI picture of the scenario. Since the DAS resolves those problems the only thing left is to manoeuvre the plane into a kill solution, and deploy countermeasures..................... nothing a few thousand lines of algorithms and a few more data busses can’t solve.

This technology is more mature than your “weight reductions” better aerodynamics” “tweaked engine” and fantastical unheard of new countermeasures that you have attributed to the F-35.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Once there are several thousand airframes in service it may be a different story.

Again speculation – and unsourced as usual - can you actually provide facts without speculating?????

That analysis is a PROGRAMME analysis – ie of the entire production run – not of the initial 6-8 LRIP models.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
If military circumstances change they can always build more than they planned so it is a bit early to tell.

Yes and yet when it comes to the f-22 you insist on ruling out “changed military circumstances” to facilitate JSOW and JASSM integration.

You can’t even maintain a logistical consistency within a 500 word reply??????

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
that again is the reality of modern economic circumstances.

NO AND Irtysh-Avia (Kazakhstan)">IT IS NOT!!!!!
It is the economic consequence of foolish strategic planning.
You must learn to distinguish between cause and effect................... so in addition to verbal contortions, obsolete facts, and outdated research we’re going to add cause-effect confusion to the list now.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I do think this will change with time though, the engine will be tweaked, the airframe may see some more weight reduction and I believe it is better aerodynamically.

I don’t think there’s an aviation fantasy forum is there??? Where are your sources??????

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I would also be interested to know what the thrust to weight ratio is of new built F-16s such as the E model.

Tell me – why don’t you actually bother looking these things up yourself???????? Maybe you’ve got all your facts wrong because somebody is feeding you F-35 sales brochure lies.................................. if you actually bothered doing some primary source research you wouldn’t go so far off the rails.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
I am not a zealot of the JSF.

What do you call someone who blindly believes a sales brochure and tailors the facts to sustain a discredited dogma?

Quoting Ozair (Reply 23):
Comparing the capability of a large radar head on an AWACS to some leading edge flaps with an antenna size perhaps 1/50 to 1/100 the size is also dangerous.

The only thing that's dangerous here is your belief in a discredited dogma – wrong ideas are worse than ignorance.

Firstly the F-35 is stealth optimised in its forward arc – the other 6 arcs are less stealthy than the front.

Second not only is your wave theory obsolete but also your comprehension of the tacto-strategic utility of wave platforms.

In the 70’s an AEW was seen simply as a defensive airborne radar picket – --- your reply adheres to this outdated premise.

In the early 80’s the terminology changed to AWACS which implied an offensive dynamic forward deployed platform that used its mobility not just to detect but also vector the squadrons under its command into an advantageous position.
The way this works is an AWACS can
1) fill gaps in ground radar cover as and when required
2) be diverted rapidly to a hotspot
3) detect the f-35 using its L or S band radar from 250-360kms away
4) direct its slaved squadrons to attack – feeding them the direct coordinates while the actual attack platforms maintain radar silence
5) When the attacking platforms come within their own L band detection range – they start painting (if necessary) and release their missiles – simply designating a probable terminal engagement basket of say 15-20kms radius.
6) The Xband or within the next 3-5 years tripe band seeker equipped missile enters this basket
7) In the terminal basket no amount of stealth can hide you ......end of story
8) As for jamming – a massed missile attack – so to say a wolfpack attack will exhaust countermeasures and onboard processing power very rapidly.
9) The PAK-FA bin measures in at 5 meters by 1.8 meters which means it can carry SIGNIFICANTLY THICKER AND LONGER MISSILES (translating to greater range and terminal velocity with significantly more powerful motors – since an arithmetic radius increase results in geometric capacity increase pie r square H)
10) So using the DAS the f-35 will get first look – but only within horizon limitations..... The opposing AWACS will get the same first look given the lack of L and S band LO.
11) The AWACS will direct the PAK-FA to attack – and given that constraints of physical geometry – the PAK-FA carrying significantly longer range and faster missiles in greater numbers will get the first shot.
12) Capi?????

Hi you seem a smart guy that has a lot to contribute to the discussion (I do not agree on many of your opinions on the JSF). It would be nice if you could cut up it up in smaller portions, use some illustrations so people are more motivated to read all and reply. rgds

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: nomadd22
Posted 2010-11-22 05:49:06 and read 10430 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 25):

Hi you seem a smart guy that has a lot to contribute to the discussion (I do not agree on many of your opinions on the JSF). It would be nice if you could cut up it up in smaller portions, use some illustrations so people are more motivated to read all and reply. rgds

It would be nicer if people could learn not to clog up the page by including that entire novel length post in their quotes.
I greatly enjoyed reading that post, but not twice.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: Ozair
Posted 2010-11-22 10:01:14 and read 10462 times.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 24):

I was hoping to have a decent conversation with you and address each of your concerns, queries and statements about information or opinion I have posted. I don't want to. You would continue to selectively quote and use insulting language or statements regarding myself, my education or my opinions in a manner lacking of respect and common courtesy.

I will agree to disagree and go no further.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: Shmertspionem
Posted 2010-11-22 20:22:38 and read 10333 times.

Quoting keesje (Reply 25):
I do not agree on many of your opinions on the JSF

go for - i always love jsf and pak-fa debates. remember i said the JSF is overkill for 90% of our enemies .... in this particular thread i was simply discussing the remaining 10% who will not be deterred by it.

That said i do not believe Australia should buy these planes - rather go in for an all F-18E and G fleet (i prefer a f-15SE fleet since our geographic size is so great - but since one squadron of f-18 has been purchased - that's it....replace all old planes with 72 F-18E and 24 F-18G)

But our strategic considerations are different from yours - the worlds 6th largest country cannot be compared to Holland. What's good for us may not be good for you and vice versa.

Quoting keesje (Reply 25):
It would be nice if you could cut up it up in smaller portions,

Yah - sorry - I didn't realise how long it was till I posted it.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 27):
use insulting language or statements regarding myself, my education

I have neither insulted you - nor your education.................. As for your opinions - i have called a spade a spade

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: wolbo
Posted 2010-12-02 10:38:58 and read 9741 times.

Dutch defense minister Hillen has just informed our parliament that the planned cost for the JSF acquisition of 85 fighters will be 1,4 billion euro higher than previously estimated. That amounts to an increase of 20 percent of the current 6,2 billion euro budget. The budgeted operational cost of 10 billion have yet to be updated based on this cost increase. Because the total defense budget has to be decreased by 1 billion Hillen has announced that the JSF project will be reevaluated in the spring of 2011.

[Edited 2010-12-02 10:43:21]

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2010-12-02 11:50:52 and read 9697 times.

Quoting wolbo (Reply 29):
Dutch defense minister Hillen has just informed our parliament that the planned cost for the JSF acquisition of 85 fighters will be 1,4 billion euro higher than previously estimated. That amounts to an increase of 20 percent of the current 6,2 billion euro budget. The budgeted operational cost of 10 billion have yet to be updated based on this cost increase. Because the total defense budget has to be decreased by 1 billion Hillen has announced that the JSF project will be reevaluated in the spring of 2011.

I'm thinking Gripen NG is back in the running for the Netherlands, and possibly other NATO services. The Super Bug might get a good look too. I still think it's a better choice for Canada.

Even in the American realm, looks like the odds of the F-35B entering service are getting more problematical as time marches ever onward, and purchase sof the F-35A & C likely will get cut.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: Powerslide
Posted 2010-12-02 12:09:42 and read 9674 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 30):
The Super Bug might get a good look too. I still think it's a better choice for Canada

But it isn't.

http://www.globalnews.ca/world/story.html?id=3914963

Quote:
An international bidding competition to buy Canada's next-generation fighter jets would have been a costly exercise in futility, senior military officials said yesterday.

Only Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 met all the criteria required to fulfil the variety of missions Canada's armed forces demanded, said Andre Fillion, director general of major project delivery (air) for the Department of National Defence.

Ottawa's commitment to purchase 65 F-35s for $16 billion, including long-term maintenance, set off a political firestorm last summer. Opposition parties condemned the sole-sourcing of the contract, and vowed to scrap it if they came to power, arguing that only a formal bid process would ensure that Canada gets the best planes at the lowest price.

But in a briefing for journalists at St. Hubert's airbase, several high-ranking officers said an exhaustive list of 14 mandatory requirements for the aircraft's capabilities was drawn up during an analysis period that began as far back as 2005.

"Without them, an aircraft could not be considered," said Major William Radiff, a fighter pilot on staff at DND's directorate of air requirements.

A subset of 56 less absolute requirements was also included after extensive consultation across DND.

Lt.-Col. Gordon Zans, also of DND's next generation capability team, said his briefing was designed to "dispel the impression, after Ottawa's surprise announcement, that Canada did not do its due diligence."

All emphatically denied the scenario that the requirements were devised to ensure that Lockheed obtained the deal.

But Canadians can't be told precisely what the top criteria are that made only Lockheed's plane eligible, said Dave Burt, Canada's director for air requirements, because they are "highly classified," and "a question of national security."

Burt conceded the $70-million to $78-million price tag per plane is not guaranteed. It could rise or fall, he said, depending on the timing of the delivery. Lockheed Martin has only recently started the F-35's mass-production process. The earlier the slot in which an aircraft is produced, the more costly it is.

Burt added that commodities prices and other factors could also drive up prices. "But they could also drive prices down," he noted.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2010-12-02 18:23:14 and read 9533 times.

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 31):
Only Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 met all the criteria required to fulfil the variety of missions Canada's armed forces demanded, said Andre Fillion, director general of major project delivery (air) for the Department of National Defence.

What did you expect him to say ?

Frame the question so that you always get the answer you were looking for in the first place ? Not a transparent way to do business.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: wvsuperhornet
Posted 2010-12-03 06:04:30 and read 9400 times.

I only have one problem with everyone's theory on the F-22 and F-35 and its originally both aircraft were deisgned to work together in certain numbers and I believe both numbers for both planes were alot higher than current pocurements are allowing. My problem is if you cut one or both too much will it effect their effectivness for the costs of development? I would have thought that the great military minds would have learned their lessons with the vietnam war and the F-4 Phantom one aircraft design cant do it all. I think we need to keep ahead of the game as well but dont expect these aircraft to do things they were never designed for. The F-35 was never designed to work without the help of the F-22, that would be like never developing the F-15 and just depending on the F-16 to do the work.

In short I dont see the F-35 being a world beater without suffcient numbers of F-22's covering it against a well trained and modernized airforce. The F-22 was deigned to be an air dominance fighter while the F-35 was deigned to be a multirole strike aircraft with just enough stealth to get it out of trouble if needed.

[Edited 2010-12-03 06:09:13]

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: Shmertspionem
Posted 2010-12-03 21:05:18 and read 9253 times.

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 33):
The F-35 was never designed to work without the help of the F-22, that would be like never developing the F-15 and just depending on the F-16 to do the work.

In short I dont see the F-35 being a world beater without suffcient numbers of F-22's covering it against a well trained and modernized airforce. The F-22 was deigned to be an air dominance fighter while the F-35 was deigned to be a multirole strike aircraft with just enough stealth to get it out of trouble if needed.

excellent assessment - just never heard it put so succinctly.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-12-03 22:46:29 and read 9233 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
At what point does the F-35 become too expensive...or is there such a point?

Right now in my mind.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 4):
The F-35 will be better than the Raptor. Perhaps not as good air to air (but better than any other current or planned air to air fighter) but it will exceed the Raptor at air to ground.

But how many variants of the F-22 could we have built with the money that's been sunk into the JSF? The F-35 is a plane designed by and for bureaucrats.

Quoting Max Q (Reply 12):
If speed is not important than why was supercruise so vital on the F22 ?

Because speed means energy, and energy means life.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 13):
Again if you read what I said I clearly indicate that the JSF will have first look first launch opportunity against just about everything else, clearly the else being the Raptor

Oh okay. It will do the same as the Raptor at the same price. So, why do the JSF?

Quoting Ozair (Reply 13):
Speed is important but if 90% of fighter combat aircraft fly and fight below Mach 1 the speed (or perceived lack of) of the JSF becomes less important.

See my above energy comment. If you have more capacity for speed, then you have more capacity to turn and climb as well in general.

Quoting Ozair (Reply 15):
A lesson that will have to be re learnt again!

Just like the lesson we learned with the F-111 and trying to get one airframe to do too many different jobs.

Quoting keesje (Reply 22):
How to dismiss the JSF without hurting the holy F22...

Cost and capability. The idea behind the JSF was to get more for less. Now it's going to be more things but less quality for almost the same. I think that an attack/bomber version of the F-22 and a navalized version could have been had for about the same price as the F-35. The JSF was just not a good idea from the start.

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 33):
In short I dont see the F-35 being a world beater

The issue is that it should be for what it costs.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: keesje
Posted 2010-12-04 06:05:56 and read 9177 times.

In a not to unrealistic future scenario Nato airforces do strike missions far from home against an enemy who air defense is not top notch but not neglectible either.

At that moment I would prefer our pilots to be detectable later and have all possible information available to them in the best way.. I'm not sure what alternative there is to the F-35 at this moment.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: hka098
Posted 2010-12-04 09:40:01 and read 9113 times.

Interesting thread! Austerity has to play a larger role in further acquisitions. If the governments that procure these systems collapse, the market for such a high-priced fighter dries up completely. Reading the Economist this week, there was significant reporting on disbanding the Euro. Such an act would place Europe deeper into financial crisis. The F-35 needs to be cheaper and needs to have it's testing completed before the service entry date.

Reading AFM's article about the F-35 places AA-1's future as a live fire test vehicle. The purpose of this action is to demonstrate the survivability of the F-35 against a modern weapon system. Talk about a waste of money!

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: arniepie
Posted 2010-12-04 14:42:31 and read 9057 times.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...-bid-to-sell-gripen-to-norway.html

Quoting from the article:
Sweden 'Tricked' In Failed Norway Gripen Bid


(Source The Local Se; published Dec. 3, 2010)



Sweden was deceived by both the United States and Norway regarding the latter’s interest in signing a multi-billion kronor deal to buy Sweden's JAS Gripen fighter plane.

Citing US diplomatic cables recently released by WikiLeaks, the Aftonbladet newspaper reports that Norway’s supposed interest in the Gripen was just a show.

Norway ultimately decided to purchase the US-made Joint Strike Fighter/F-35 combat aircraft in a deal reportedly worth 55 billion kronor ($7.9 billion).

At the time, Norway's choice of the American plane over the Gripen angered a former Saab executive.

"We are really surprised about how this was handled, what happened yesterday, and about the justification," Jan Nygren, who served as Saab’s deputy CEO until two years prior to the decision, told the TT news agency at the time.

"And besides, we are just a tad surprised to say the least that they so unabashedly chose to criticize the Gripen, despite the fact that all of us involved know that the Gripen is a better fit for the functional demands laid out in the documentation included in the proposal request."

......

and
......
But documents released by WikiLeaks describe how the Americans worked to scuttle the Swedes’ radar request.

“We suggest that we delay the decision about the ASEA-permit for the Gripen until after Norway’s decision,” read one US diplomatic cable, according to Aftonbladet.

The newspaper writes that the US embassy in Oslo also placed a “call for help” to Washington for assistance in putting high-level political pressure on Norway following negative reports about the F-35 in the Norwegian press.

After the call, prospects for the F-35 brightened; Norwegian politicians gave signals that made the United States confident its plane would win the Norwegian tender. But the Americans were careful not to claim that the aircraft purchase was a done deal before Norway announced its decision.

“We must continue to act like an honourable and elegant competitor,” read a cable from the US embassy in Oslo.

This will not go down well with those that still have to give final approval for the JSF for many potential clients outside the US , I think.
Also makes one wonder if the JSF is really ,technically, all that much better than its competitors.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: SAS A340
Posted 2010-12-04 23:24:30 and read 8983 times.

Quoting arniepie (Reply 38):
This will not go down well with those that still have to give final approval for the JSF for many potential clients outside the US , I think.


I have to give my respect to the Euro fighter team that saw this at a early stage and therefor redraw ed from the contest
No one really know what's going on behind these closed doors,and it is a dirty business for sure,and when it comes to the Norwegian deal.....it,s always up to the customer to chose what to buy,almost anyway
Quoting wolbo (Reply 29):
Dutch defense minister Hillen has just informed our parliament that the planned cost for the JSF acquisition of 85 fighters will be 1,4 billion euro higher than previously estimated


That's also funny,since in Norwegian press,higher cost will probably not effect the Norwegian deal....

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: Shmertspionem
Posted 2010-12-04 23:47:34 and read 8967 times.

Quoting arniepie (Reply 38):
This will not go down well

This bodes very badly for the Gripen in India. One the main concerns for the IAF is they want western electronic superiority in a reliable (IE preferably non-American) vendor. Gripen's entire marketing campaign in India is based around "GRIPEN - The independent choice" ................. me thinks that cable just destroyed whatever slim hope the Gripen had in India.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Thread starter):
At what point does the F-35 become too expensive...or is there such a point?

Business wise its too big to fail but logically (and we all know international defence and common sense never seem to go hand in hand these days ) would dictate

1) The Cost difference should yield an asymmetrically large field advantage (against ground targets)
2) The cost difference should asymmetrically negate numerical disadvantage (against air targets)
3) The cost difference should not significantly erode the initial planned purchase and therefore total fleet effectiveness.
4) The maintenance cost difference should not erode the budget so as to effect other support platforms


In Australia when we signed up for this programme it was advertised as being between 45 -55 million a pop. The Def Min said we'd budgeted for a 100% increase in procurement costs. Given that the Israeli deal has put the F-35A price at 96 million a pop (150 million including "additional equipment" for a plane that was advertised as being all inclusive) and the maintenance figures have gone up 50% over initial estimates we're looking at anywhere between 135 to 190% increase in costs.

Given that this plane does very little more than what the F-18s do AFAIC it became too much when it crosses the 1005 procurement cost increase not including the 50% maintenance recurring cost increases.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: TGIF
Posted 2010-12-05 02:41:27 and read 8943 times.

The cable regarding the Norwegian F-35 deal only proves what most of us already knew regarding their 'competition'. No need to stir up old dust, moving on...

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 40):
This bodes very badly for the Gripen in India. One the main concerns for the IAF is they want western electronic superiority in a reliable (IE preferably non-American) vendor. Gripen's entire marketing campaign in India is based around "GRIPEN - The independent choice" ................. me thinks that cable just destroyed whatever slim hope the Gripen had in India.

The Norwegian campaign differs a lot from the Indian (and the Brazilian). In Norway it was considered an advantage to have US components and equipment while this definitely is not the case in Brazil and to some extent India. Since the Norwegian campaign the Gripen team have turned its boat and most systems for the Gripen NG are now European. Saab for instance ditched the Ratheon radar in favor for Selex.

Personally I don't think the cable changes much other than perhaps showing the general public what's going on behind the closed doors. For the people making the decisions, this cable is no surprise.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: CMB56
Posted 2010-12-05 10:12:00 and read 8850 times.

Aviation Week had an article this week that reviewed some of the claims and marketing strategy that other fighter manufacturers are using in response to the F-35 delays and costs. Basically they all now have the same strengths, growing reduction in the use of stealth, radar and weapons technology on a par with the F-35, proven and available and at a lower cost than the F-35. Boeing (F-15/F-18) Dassault, Eurofighter, Saab can all essentially say the same thing. Why wait and pay for the F-35 when we can offer almost all that same capability for less money and a short delivery time. Is the F-35 becoming over rated?

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: Shmertspionem
Posted 2010-12-06 23:33:21 and read 8624 times.

Quoting TGIF (Reply 41):
definitely is not the case in Brazil and to some extent India.

well actually a LOT in India. Remember the viggen saga - when India wanted to buy over 300 viggens for a full fleet replacement in the early 80's and based its entire strategy around this. Carter vetoed the engine sale to India but authorised the sale of engines to the USSR for what was to become the IL-86. You have no idea how deeply this affected the AF thinking , Indian AF modernisation plans etc etc etc... India is still paying a very big price today as a result of that decision. The Mig27, Jaguar purchases, The continuation of the MiG-21today and the genesis of the LCA Tejas all stem from that one incident.

Quoting TGIF (Reply 41):
other than perhaps showing the general public what's going on behind the closed doors.

any news on how the Norwegian public is reacting to this? any public anger/fallout?

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: SAS A340
Posted 2010-12-07 01:14:03 and read 8603 times.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 43):
any news on how the Norwegian public is reacting to this? any public anger/fallout?


From different Norwegian forums there has been comments like "Government is corrupt" or "communist state" or "old news". It was a first page news for a day or two here in Sweden and Norway,not much more since this IS old news (more or less) in this part of the region. The EF team also saw this at a early stage.
And to get back on topic,there has not been that many reports of cost overruns for the F-35 in Norwegian press i think.

[Edited 2010-12-07 01:25:08]

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: KiwiRob
Posted 2010-12-07 03:24:44 and read 8549 times.

Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 44):
And to get back on topic,there has not been that many reports of cost overruns for the F-35 in Norwegian press i think.

I find it strange that the press in Norway haven't jumped all over this, I've been waiting for it. The govt has also been very quiet.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: TGIF
Posted 2010-12-07 03:31:29 and read 8554 times.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 43):
well actually a LOT in India. Remember the viggen saga - when India wanted to buy over 300 viggens for a full fleet replacement in the early 80's and based its entire strategy around this. Carter vetoed the engine sale to India but authorised the sale of engines to the USSR for what was to become the IL-86.

I do remember, but it seems the Indians are less afraid of US equipment these days. After all they are going for a 767-based tanker, the P-8, C-130's and decided on the F414 for the Tejas (and I'm sure there are more example). Brazil on the other hand seem to be more afraid of US equipment.

But this is not related to the F-35 and its cost issues so we should perhaps continue this discussion elsewhere.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: SAS A340
Posted 2010-12-07 04:31:59 and read 8544 times.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 45):
I find it strange that the press in Norway haven't jumped all over this, I've been waiting for it. The govt has also been very quiet.


Exactly,it's not that you can't find bad publicity for the F-35,you just don't see it in Norwegian press,on the other hand,i don't see much god news either so it is as you say,very quiet compared to other nations involved with the project,reporting cost over runs etc.
Due to this cost over runs,Denmark who had to make a choice between F-35 and Gripen in final run now look towards the..F-18!!..?

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: Shmertspionem
Posted 2010-12-07 05:29:19 and read 8532 times.

Quoting SAS A340 (Reply 47):
Exactly,it's not that you can't find bad publicity for the F-35,you just

does anyone know the projection/outlay/requests that the Norwegians and Danes budgeted for the F-35? for example in Australia it was budgeted at a price of upto 55 million a pop with allowance for a 100% procurement increase ... what were the budgeting figures in Norway and Denmark?

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: par13del
Posted 2010-12-07 09:37:18 and read 8476 times.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 24):
I am thoroughly anti raptor for the simple reason that it’s a logistical nightmare – 30 hours maintenance for every hour of flight – for our budget if we buy 100 raptors – we can only keep 2 to 4 up in the air at any given time.

Such arguments are only usefull for the Navy when they desire one a/c - F-18 - over another - F-14 - when the newer a/c aquisition cost begins to spiral.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 24):
CAS is best left to slower heavily armoured planes like the A-10 – the a-10 was meant to be retired quite some time back but Bosnia and Iraq proved that there was no substitute for them and the F-16 and other such fast fighters were a complete waste of capability – and we’rent too good at it anyway

Except the US Airforce wants more F-35's and F-22's so remind us what their replacement is for the old A-10's which are not being built anymore, placing new wings on older bodies is a stop gap for how long? The CAS mission will have to change to accomodate whatever capabilities the F-35 ends up with. - Sarcasm on - If the F-35 cannot drop dumb bombs the CAS mission will evolve and documents will be found to show that dropping dumb bombs is not efficient, effective or in the best interest of the troops on the ground. Sarcasm off -

Your earier point was more accurate, regardless of the capabilities built into the a/c, no one is going to put such an expensive a/c in the line of fire of 1,000 dollar anti-aircraft guns, like the Billion Burkes, no way you park them in range of some obsolete Silkworm missiles.

Forgot one, as it relates to the massive engine, remember the "evidence" from Gulf War I and II on the effectiveness of the Marine Harriers and it suceptability to IR missiles mid-body due to the massive engine, prompting calls for a replacement, good thing the F-35 engine runs much cooler  .

The conspiracy theorist in me see's the following:
1. All eggs have to be in one basket to be able to afford the profit margins the OEM's require for their programs, the number of ship yards in the US had to be reduced to afford the Burkes, so the air is no different. One a/c has to be used by all services not to save money but to be able to pay for the a/c.

2. Increasing the cost of the F-35 to match the F-22 is desirable as it will initiate the push to re-start the F-22 line since it's cost will be similar. How does Mr. Gates not see the economics of paying the same price for a more effective F-22 versus a F-35? It will also initiate another program which will cost only a few more billions to add A2A back into the F-22, remember there was a time when it was called the F/A-22?

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: Shmertspionem
Posted 2010-12-07 20:51:48 and read 8423 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 49):
Such arguments are only usefull for the Navy

And also for limited budget territorially big countries like mine. 
Quoting par13del (Reply 49):
If the F-35 cannot drop dumb bombs the CAS mission will evolve and documents will be found to show that dropping dumb bombs is not efficient, effective or in the best interest of the troops on the ground.

That's actually been proven several times over now - both by real war experience as well as Israel's targeted elimination scheme. In fact Israel's answer to the NLOS - the Jumper was conceived precisely because of the PR damage dumb-cheap ammo dropped by F-16s was doing (and not very well at that). No sarcasm here.

Problem is that while the F-35 increases stand-off range - the weapon it carries (hellfire or brimstone in this role) cant be dropped from a stand-off altitude.

I remember reading a long piece in haartez long back wherein a full blown war had broken out between factions within the IDF AF and IDF Army who thought AH's were now an anachronism given how much precision weapons had developed. If you see the latest Targeted elimination video's they use F-16's and no longer engage with a gun - preferring to drop a PG munition instead.

POint is killing ye friendly neighbourhood suicide-bomber is one thing and taking on an army equipped with plain dumb AA guns is totally different.

Also both in Lebanon 2006 and Gaza 2009 very little dumb ammo was used. True Lebanon was hit-miss. but Gaza proved the concept.

Quoting par13del (Reply 49):
Except the US Airforce wants more F-35's and F-22's so remind us what their replacement is for the old A-10's which are not being built anymore, placing new wings on older bodies is a stop gap for how long?

I think even with smart weapons if a plane is going to be tasked with CAS it should be heavily armoured. That's why i think the F-35 is becoming a fools errand. and worse still the one system that should have been able to cover the A-10's battlefield role - the NLOS missile has been cancelled, while both Israel and Serbia are pushing full steam ahead with their equivalent systems.

Quoting par13del (Reply 49):
good thing the F-35 engine runs much cooler

Confucius say "we learn from history that we never learn from history"  

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: par13del
Posted 2010-12-08 04:56:02 and read 8338 times.

Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 50):
the Jumper was conceived precisely because of the PR damage dumb-cheap ammo dropped by F-16s was doing (and not very well at that).

Hopefully, the politicians the world over will ensure that all future conflicts are limited in scope and fought in cities only where PR is the only consideration. Chances of this are high as precision munitions are more expensive and greatly enhance the military industrial complex  
Quoting Shmertspionem (Reply 50):
I think even with smart weapons if a plane is going to be tasked with CAS it should be heavily armoured.

So far no one has found a way to build an A-10 replacement that will be heavily armoured, look sexy and cost millions, no one wants to fly ugly slow a/c, they would however, suffer the indignity if it cost more than say an F-35 or F-22, I may be slow and ugly but I cost more  

Helicopters will probably have to take on more of the CAS role, would be much cheaper, all they need to do is to increase the weapons load, loiter time on station and the range of their PGM's to keep them out of harms way, don't see such upgrades costing more than a few billion give or take one or two, and if it goes out to bid, may be even cheaper.

Cheers

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: JoeCanuck
Posted 2010-12-08 21:10:52 and read 8247 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 51):

Helicopters will probably have to take on more of the CAS role, would be much cheaper, all they need to do is to increase the weapons load, loiter time on station and the range of their PGM's to keep them out of harms way, don't see such upgrades costing more than a few billion give or take one or two, and if it goes out to bid, may be even cheaper.

I bet the Comanche would make a decent CAS machine.........................................................oops...

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: par13del
Posted 2010-12-09 05:23:39 and read 8136 times.

Quoting wvsuperhornet (Reply 33):
I only have one problem with everyone's theory on the F-22 and F-35 and its originally both aircraft were deisgned to work together in certain numbers and I believe both numbers for both planes were alot higher than current pocurements are allowing. My problem is if you cut one or both too much will it effect their effectivness for the costs of development?

Those comments along with all the documents of factual evidence which was placed before the public for approval of the project was PR to ensure that the a/c was funded.
Rest assured that new documents of factual evidence will now be presented to show that the experts then were wrong, newer calculation methods now show that smaller numebr of F-22's in relation to smaller number of more "expensive" I mean powerfull F-35's is a combination that will be unbeatable until a new a/c RFP is proposed.
In other news, the hi-lo mix of F-15's F-16's continue to soldier on long past their usefull life thus invalidating the concept of hi-lo mix, the Navy did prove that the F-14 and F-18 was a no win proposition, so..........

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: Shmertspionem
Posted 2010-12-10 08:05:38 and read 8002 times.

well here's something new

this chap claims that F-35 is within limits and this talk of obscene price rises is concocted humbug. BTW this is the same clown who wrote that ridiculously biased piece on the tanker contest.... FYI he taught at Harvard and Georgetown.

http://defpro.com/news/details/20441

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: BMI727
Posted 2010-12-10 08:43:10 and read 7992 times.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 52):
I bet the Comanche would make a decent CAS machine.........................................................oops...

How about the A-12?. That one gets me. I never want to hear anyone, especially from the Navy, bitch about what a Super Hornet can't do. The Navy made their bed, and now they're lying in it.

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: kanban
Posted 2010-12-14 16:20:52 and read 7727 times.

another summery of delays for all three versions (I think this means the export versions slide as well)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-1...or-lockheed-s-f-35.html?cmpid=yhoo

Topic: RE: How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
Username: DEVILFISH
Posted 2010-12-21 04:56:18 and read 7360 times.

Maybe they're waiting for this?.....

http://media.defenseindustrydaily.com/images/AIR_PAK-FA_First_Flight_lg.jpg
http://media.defenseindustrydaily.co...ges/AIR_PAK-FA_First_Flight_lg.jpg


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/