Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Question About F-35 Export Version...  
User currently offlineAlberchico From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 2908 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 9039 times:

Traditionally when miltary jets are sold abroad they are usually downgraded models with less capabilities. Does anybody know if the F-35 will have reduced a stealth signature for foreign customers or whether some radar capabilities will be downgraded ?

Or will all countries get more or less the same stealth capable model as the US ?

http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/9223/jsfrcsqualitativeaxlvhfac0.png


short summary of every jewish holiday: they tried to kill us ,we won , lets eat !
29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJackonicko From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 472 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8970 times:

Most of said 'export customers' are asking the same thing.

They're also asking how much they'll pay.

And exactly what capabilities they'll have, what support and engineering they'll be able to do autonomously, and what weapons will be integrated.

They're not getting any answers.....


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 8774 times:

I would expect that the external stealth capability would remain intact... half of it is built into its shape, the rest is the RAM coating. I would think the downgrades would be in its sensor package, computer power, and networking capacity. IMO stealth is only 1/3 of what makes a 5th gen fighter so superior (the others being information processing, and super manuverability).

Really, I dont know why they dont apply F-35 avionics and some form of thrust vectoring to the F-16... even with the F-35 only a few years away from going to customers, people are still ordering Falcons! The countries that cant afford the F-35 would probably jump on a 'Super Falcon'.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 8525 times:



Quoting Oroka (Reply 2):
Really, I dont know why they dont apply F-35 avionics and some form of thrust vectoring to the F-16... even with the F-35 only a few years away from going to customers, people are still ordering Falcons! The countries that cant afford the F-35 would probably jump on a 'Super Falcon'.

Not a bad idea at all. The F-16 can still hold its own against opposing forces in some parts of the world, though I'm not sure even a thrust vectoring F-16 can overcome the Typhoon or event the Rafale.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 8498 times:

If I remember right, the F-16 VISTA was too heavy and too expensive to implement on a large scale.

As for F-35, it looks like only the UK version will virtually identical the US version, for now anyway.



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineSpeedyGonzales From Norway, joined Sep 2007, 710 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8344 times:

Does red indicate detectable or not detectable?


Las Malvinas son Argentinas
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8331 times:



Quoting SpeedyGonzales (Reply 5):
Does red indicate detectable or not detectable?

The red represents a existing vulnerability to that radar band.

Stealth aircraft are optimized against the X-Band radars, but have difficulty hiding from the much lower frequencies, like the VHF-band. In fact, it's claimed that the method used to shoot down the F-117 was in conjunction with VHF-band radars.

[Edited 2009-03-05 01:22:13]

User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1819 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8260 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 6):

Stealth aircraft are optimized against the X-Band radars, but have difficulty hiding from the much lower frequencies, like the VHF-band. In fact, it's claimed that the method used to shoot down the F-117 was in conjunction with VHF-band radars.

You can detect a stealth with low band radar but it doesn't have the resolution for final targeting. Serbia had an SA3 battery in the vicinity, but the shootdown was probably with a modified SA6 with an infrared seeker.
Those pictures are misleading. The radar vulnerable areas are several extremely narrow beams that only occur at the perfect aspect. Meaning you might get one flash of return signal that goes away as soon as the plane changes aspect a fraction of a degree. That's where radar absorbant material is more important than shape.
Being theoretically detectable is a lot different than being vulnerable on the battlefield. When sparrows have a signature 10db higher than your plane, it's pretty hard to defend against you.

[Edited 2009-03-05 04:42:42]


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8233 times:



Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 7):
You can detect a stealth with low band radar but it doesn't have the resolution for final targeting. Serbia had an SA3 battery in the vicinity, but the shootdown was probably with a modified SA6 with an infrared seeker.
Those pictures are misleading. The radar vulnerable areas are several extremely narrow beams that only occur at the perfect aspect. Meaning you might get one flash of return signal that goes away as soon as the plane changes aspect a fraction of a degree. That's where radar absorbant material is more important than shape.
Being theoretically detectable is a lot different than being vulnerable on the battlefield. When sparrows have a signature 10db higher than your plane, it's pretty hard to defend against you.

No matter how the exact shoot down occurred, it is undisputed that the Serbs benefited from low band radars... and that this success did not go unnoticed. In fact it helped lead to increased funding&development of Russian VHF through L band radar systems, with the latest systems incorporating active phase array systems; systems specifically designed to track stealth aircraft.

The countermeasure to this threat, is to include a greater amount of radar absorbent material, onto your design, since the careful shaping is less important. The material is expensive, maintenance heavy, and there is currently no material light enough to be used in sufficient amounts to provide adequate radar absorption of low band radar waves. Hence the "all red" image, above.

Low band radar systems have draw backs - like their obvious massive size, and ease of detectability - but in conjunction with a networked air defense system, they are not something to simply be dismissed! The S-300/400 series weapon, for instance, ought to be viewed as a considerable threat to western air forces. Its use of VHF band radar specifically threatens the dominance of the F-22 and JSF, both with their smaller size, and susceptibility to VHF band detection.

Quite honestly, it's amazing how many people are eager to just wish away these growing threats to the dominance of stealth.

-UH60


User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1819 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8214 times:

There's quite a bit of development on spoofing. Stealth might not be perfect, especially in the future, but the low frequency radars that can detect it are inherently such poor resolution and the returns so small it makes it easy to fake a reflection. Get em to light up for your anti-radiation and fill the sky with enough AA crap to hide the Hindenburg.


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8119 times:



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 8):
The countermeasure to this threat, is to include a greater amount of radar absorbent material, onto your design, since the careful shaping is less important.

you my friend, need to read this book, since what you are saying is what Brits would call "bollocks".


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 8106 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 10):
you my friend, need to read this book, since what you are saying is what Brits would call "bollocks".

Don't just pull a single sentence from what I wrote, and frame it in a manner that misrepresents my entire argument. Because if you go back an actually bother to read what I wrote - in its entirety - you'll see that you're running your mouth.


Now please, read this carefully, so we can be on the same page. I was specifically referring to low band radar signatures of fighter sized aircraft. For instance, when examining the VHF band signature of a modern stealth fighter aircraft - the careful and deliberate shaping of the airframe does not serve to protect against those large wave length (low band) radar waves. Small wave length (high band) radar waves - such has X band - are very susceptible to being scattered in a controlled manner, by specific "shaping" of airframe parts. Just look at the redesigned air inlets of the F-18E/F, a specific change that aids in scattering high band radar waves. But, in regards to the low band waves - like the VHF through L band - the wave lengths are larger than the X band, and are not scattered by the specific shaping, on a fighter sized stealth aircraft.

Now what I said above is absolutely no different than what I said earlier, albeit with a little more explanation for you!

But let me reiterate, just in case: you can not incorporate shape designs on fighter size aircraft, that will adequately hide it from low band radars! I don't need your silly book to confirm that for me! The best method to reduce those low band radar returns is through material absorption of the radar wave. The growing issue will be that there is no material that can provide sufficient absorption, while also being light enough for small aircraft, such as the F-35.

...Exactly what I said earlier, and exactly what you falsely argued to be wrong.

[Edited 2009-03-06 01:21:10]

User currently offlineTEEJ From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 8080 times:

Nomadd22 wrote

Quote:
Serbia had an SA3 battery in the vicinity, but the shootdown was probably with a modified SA6 with an infrared seeker

The 250th Rocket Brigade with its SA-3s hold the honours for both NATO manned aircraft shot down. The Yugoslav Aeronautical Museum have the exhibit of the rocket booster and nose cone from the SA-3s fired that night during the F-117 shoot down. Remember that the SA-3 also has TV guidance capability. The moon cycle during that night was full. All the Serb documentaries and interviews, including by the the battery commander, Col Dani, reveal the SA-3 as the type to down both the F-117 and F-16.

http://www.stripes.com/01/jun01/ed060301h.html

SA-3 battalion commanders quote.

'During the conflict, Yugoslav anti-aircraft crews often gave their missiles female names before launching them, said Lt. Col. Bosko Dotlic, a battalion commander. The one that downed the stealth was nicknamed Natalie.'

TJ


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 8068 times:



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 11):
I don't need your silly book to confirm that for me!

I thought you were a chopper-pilot...

Really, get the book, you'll learn things you never knew


User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1819 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 8063 times:



Quoting TEEJ (Reply 12):
SA-3 battalion commanders quote.

Teej was good enough to post a reference, which is more than I did, but I'll ramble a little more anyhow.
The SA-6's the Serbians had were suspected to have Russian "technical" support, and were never admited. The "documentaries and interviews" found people willing to take credit for the shootdown. What they "reveal" is argueable. As mentioned before, the tecnique the article talks about is good for vague detection, but has little use for targeting.
A camera could have given the SA-3 the ability to find the 117, but there still would have taken considerable luck involved and nitwit commanders thinking that flying the same track tonight is good because it's always worked before. You'd think that the US would know not to follow predictable tracks every time after Powers.
I'm not insisting I'm right, just making a guess with what I've gathered. And, bragging Serbian field commanders quoting textbook stealth detection wasn't really much of a factor.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineTEEJ From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 7934 times:

The claims of the SA-6 during 1999 started with the Russian Minister of Defence, Igor Sergeyev. Sergeyev announced that the aircraft was brought down by two SA-6 surface-to-air missiles. From that announcement the SA-6 story sprialled out into the world's media.

Here are the videos detailing Colonel Zoltan Dani's role in the conflict. Colonel Dani, an ethnic Hungarian, was the 250th Rocket Brigades commander.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38I70fVurqQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzfEzjejX8U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j74HutKOOO4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOCHjOxR2SQ

From the 2000 documentary "For Free Sky" Colonel Zoltan Dani explained:

"When whole crew were on their positions and when the new wave was on, the target was detected on azimuth 195 suddenly appearing and that was an very important reference upon which we concluded that it may be a new target. Crew done the rest routinely, since we are well trained. The speed was that counts. Practically the F-117 was downed in less than 18 seconds"

Dragan Matich (standing in front of Neva missiles):

"In the war I have been tracking officer on 4 missile launches, among them the biggest success was the downing of the F-117 and F-16"


User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1819 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7873 times:

Thanks for the links Teej. Considering how fast and relatively cheaply Ben Rich got the 117 on line, I guess we got our money's worth.
I guess the amazing record in Iraq took more than a little luck. It'd be interesting to find out how many SAMs the Iraqis and Serbian expended before they bought one of those things down.

Rucker, I'd suggest not responding to that halfwit. There's no arguing with pretend knowledge. You obviously have a good feel for the relationship between wavelength and it's relationship to how fast a shape varies. I'm betting that you've worked with making photons do what you want them to do before.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 7858 times:



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 3):
Not a bad idea at all. The F-16 can still hold its own against opposing forces in some parts of the world, though I'm not sure even a thrust vectoring F-16 can overcome the Typhoon or event the Rafale.



Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 4):
If I remember right, the F-16 VISTA was too heavy and too expensive to implement on a large scale.

IMO a F-16I with a more powerful engine, simple thrust vectoring, and 5th gen gear would be close to matching the Typhoon in a dogfight. It would probably even classify the F-16 as a gen 4.5.

IMO all US fighters should be upgraded with F-22/F-35 avionics, kinda like the Army is giving all its aircraft common upgrades for communications and situational awareness.


User currently offlineDEVILFISH From Philippines, joined Jan 2006, 4769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 7810 times:



Quoting Oroka (Reply 17):

IMO a F-16I with a more powerful engine, simple thrust vectoring, and 5th gen gear would be close to matching the Typhoon in a dogfight. It would probably even classify the F-16 as a gen 4.5.

Something akin to this.....

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f16/f16in/index.html

Quoting Oroka (Reply 17):
IMO all US fighters should be upgraded with F-22/F-35 avionics, kinda like the Army is giving all its aircraft common upgrades for communications and situational awareness.

Imagine what it could turn the Super Eagle into.....

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Yunjin Lee - Korea Aero Photos




"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1819 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 7796 times:



Quoting Oroka (Reply 17):
IMO all US fighters should be upgraded with F-22/F-35 avionics, kinda like the Army is giving all its aircraft common upgrades for communications and situational awareness.

Stealth aircraft require a completely different philosophy in detection and some aspects of communications. The sensing, processing, spoofing and relaying capabilities would definitely be nice to have, but the avionics suite in general would be a lot different and require a pretty huge development program.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineTEEJ From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2006, 8 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7761 times:

Nomadd22,
No probs. Even back in 1991 over Iraq the F-117 commanders and pilots expected losses. Over targets such as Baghdad the Iraqi's employed the tactic of putting a flak blanket over the city. There was always the risk of a golden BB. The U.S. definately got their monies worth out of the airframe.

http://www.f-117a.com/Javaframe.html


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (5 years 4 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 7760 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 13):
I thought you were a chopper-pilot...

And helicopters are not under threat from radar guided missiles? Give me a break.

The fact of the matter is that you ran off at the mouth, without really reading my entire post. You made a fool of yourself, and I was only too happy to highlight it.  Smile


User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1819 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 4 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 7691 times:



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 21):
And helicopters are not under threat from radar guided missiles? Give me a break.

Speaking of stealth export and Israeli helicopter pilots, I remember talk about stealthy chopper blades, but when I try to wrap what's left of my brain around the problem it seems like you'd need to add an entire fourth dimension to Umimstev's equations to figure reflection/diffraction, since the aspects produced by rapidly rotating blades relative to the body would be almost infinite.
Good luck with that.



Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 4 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 7615 times:



Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 22):
Speaking of stealth export and Israeli helicopter pilots, I remember talk about stealthy chopper blades, but when I try to wrap what's left of my brain around the problem it seems like you'd need to add an entire fourth dimension to Umimstev's equations to figure reflection/diffraction, since the aspects produced by rapidly rotating blades relative to the body would be almost infinite.
Good luck with that.

I thought the RAH-66 had a stealthy rotor.(?)



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineNomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1819 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 4 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 7564 times:



Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 23):
I thought the RAH-66 had a stealthy rotor.(?)

A whole lot lower cross section than a conventional blade, but the airframe cross section as a whole is about a hundred times that of an F-35. Sort of Like a B-1B compared to a B-52. it's a huge improvement, but it's no Raptor.



Andy Goetsch
25 F27Friendship : you gotta love your style of communicating. I'm somewhat familiar with the subject from a professional standpoint and simply wanted to hint you a goo
26 UH60FtRucker : Oh come'on, you cannot claim the moral high ground, when you start off by virtually calling my argument a load of crap. And as a "professional" - you
27 F27Friendship : If I offended you I apologize. Next time I'll try to be more subtle. I can only say you simplified it a bit. I rather not go into details on a public
28 UH60FtRucker : What a cop out. You're right in one respect: you shouldn't have bothered commenting, if you were not willing to debate me on the facts. All you did w
29 Baroque : How about the Readers Digest version for a.net for those who are interested and puzzled by some aspects of stealth and are not likely to read the boo
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Question About F-35 Export Version...
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Question About Equipment on Bow of Some Aircraft Carriers posted Wed Jan 21 2009 08:08:16 by Poadrim
Question About Naval Fighters posted Sat Nov 22 2008 21:08:05 by Max Q
A Question About The ISS Crew Members posted Mon Apr 7 2008 17:04:50 by TheSonntag
Question About This Pic posted Tue Nov 6 2007 12:02:06 by Sprout5199
Question About MAC Or Charter Flights posted Thu Aug 30 2007 07:23:24 by Mike89406
Question About Scramjets posted Sun Jun 3 2007 16:56:17 by CJAContinental
Question About F-18 Shot Down In Iraq posted Mon Jan 22 2007 02:28:39 by ZBBYLW
Quick Question About The Bell/Boeing MV-22B Osprey posted Sun Jul 16 2006 23:16:58 by UA777222
Question About AF1 Operations posted Tue Jun 20 2006 02:17:18 by RJpieces
Question About "The Chase" posted Fri Jun 16 2006 04:00:56 by Aloges

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format