Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?  
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5463 posts, RR: 30
Posted (3 years 10 months 5 days ago) and read 11517 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?


What the...?
57 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineHKA098 From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 10 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 11500 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?


User currently offline413X3 From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 1983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 10 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 11480 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.

User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5463 posts, RR: 30
Reply 3, posted (3 years 10 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 11359 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?



What the...?
User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 11309 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.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7371 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (3 years 10 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 11266 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?


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (3 years 10 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 11267 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..


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (3 years 10 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 11234 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.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7371 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (3 years 10 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 11056 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.


User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4518 posts, RR: 18
Reply 9, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10923 times:

Why is it so slow then ?


The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlinedkswim From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 30 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10911 times:

Dont worry its to big to fail now...

User currently offlineShmertspionem From India, joined Aug 2006, 453 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 10907 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.



Vi veri universum vivus vici
User currently offlineMax Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 4518 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10859 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 !



The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 10793 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?


User currently offlinehighlander0 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 10747 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.


User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 10727 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!


User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 10697 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..


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5463 posts, RR: 30
Reply 17, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 10650 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.



What the...?
User currently offlineJayinKitsap From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 769 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (3 years 10 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 10598 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


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1719 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 10 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10513 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.


User currently offlineShmertspionem From India, joined Aug 2006, 453 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (3 years 10 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 10487 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



Vi veri universum vivus vici
User currently offlineShmertspionem From India, joined Aug 2006, 453 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (3 years 10 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 10479 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



Vi veri universum vivus vici
User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (3 years 10 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10423 times:

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

User currently offlineOzair From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 849 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (3 years 10 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 10401 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.


User currently offlineShmertspionem From India, joined Aug 2006, 453 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (3 years 10 months 14 hours ago) and read 10096 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?????



Vi veri universum vivus vici
25 keesje : 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
26 nomadd22 : 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
27 Ozair : 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 pos
28 Shmertspionem : 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
29 wolbo : 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 h
30 connies4ever : 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
31 Post contains links Powerslide : But it isn't. http://www.globalnews.ca/world/story.html?id=3914963
32 connies4ever : 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
33 wvsuperhornet : 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
34 Shmertspionem : excellent assessment - just never heard it put so succinctly.
35 BMI727 : Right now in my mind. 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 designe
36 keesje : 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 negl
37 hka098 : Interesting thread! Austerity has to play a larger role in further acquisitions. If the governments that procure these systems collapse, the market fo
38 Post contains links arniepie : http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...-bid-to-sell-gripen-to-norway.html This will not go down well with those that still have to give final approval
39 Post contains images SAS A340 : 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 g
40 Shmertspionem : 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 prefer
41 TGIF : 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, movin
42 CMB56 : Aviation Week had an article this week that reviewed some of the claims and marketing strategy that other fighter manufacturers are using in response
43 Shmertspionem : 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
44 SAS A340 : 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
45 KiwiRob : 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.
46 TGIF : 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
47 SAS A340 : 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
48 Shmertspionem : 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 pr
49 Post contains images par13del : 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 spi
50 Post contains images Shmertspionem : And also for limited budget territorially big countries like mine. That's actually been proven several times over now - both by real war experience a
51 Post contains images par13del : 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 c
52 JoeCanuck : I bet the Comanche would make a decent CAS machine.........................................................oops...
53 par13del : 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
54 Post contains links Shmertspionem : 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 c
55 BMI727 : 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
56 Post contains links kanban : 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-lock
57 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : Maybe they're waiting for this?..... http://media.defenseindustrydaily.co...ges/AIR_PAK-FA_First_Flight_lg.jpg
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic How Much Is Too Much For The F-35...?
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...
How Much Did Mitsubishi Pay For The F-15 License? posted Thu Dec 7 2006 04:48:59 by Garnetpalmetto
How Much Of A Pilot Is A UAV Pilot? posted Fri May 23 2008 11:10:44 by Tugger
How Much Longer Do The RAF VC10s Have? posted Thu May 8 2008 11:05:16 by ClassicLover
How Much More Lift Does Shuttle Make On The 747? posted Sat Jul 16 2005 15:50:49 by Boeing nut
When Is The Hearing For The Usaf Tanker Deal posted Wed May 28 2008 15:59:18 by Dougbr2006
Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf? posted Thu Oct 11 2007 06:31:59 by KC135TopBoom
How Capable Is The North Korean Military? posted Mon Oct 9 2006 11:01:50 by CHRISBA777ER
Super SeaSprites For The RAN, Is It The End? posted Mon May 15 2006 09:59:38 by Ozair
USS Enterprise: How Much Longer? posted Thu Feb 17 2005 16:12:21 by FlagshipAZ
What Is The F-35? Is It The JSF? posted Thu Apr 15 2004 18:14:33 by AndrewUber
When Is The Hearing For The Usaf Tanker Deal posted Wed May 28 2008 15:59:18 by Dougbr2006
Is The KC-30 To Slow For The Usaf? posted Thu Oct 11 2007 06:31:59 by KC135TopBoom
How Capable Is The North Korean Military? posted Mon Oct 9 2006 11:01:50 by CHRISBA777ER

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format