F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[Grand Danois]

By including this section, it appears that he is acknowledging problematic aspects of his modeling. However if he excluded the contribution of the doubly curved surfaces from his model, wouldn't he be taking a more optimistic view of the F-35's RCS? So it could actually be worse?

He certainly does not have a completely accurate model of shape or materials, but if, in his methodology, he always errs on the optimistic side, wouldn't this analysis produce what amounts to a "best case" RCS?

He's erring on the pessimistic side wrt beam (cylinder model) RCS and takes his time to note that he does not include the negative impact this has on frontal/rear aspect. However he does NOT take his time to note that doubly curved surfaces will have less RCS and that a big shaping bonus to the beam RCS can be offset with a small penalty to frontal/rear aspect RCS.

Although he is obviously aware of it.

 

[B.Smitty]

He's erring on the pessimistic side wrt beam (cylinder model) RCS and takes his time to note that he does not include the negative impact this has on frontal/rear aspect. However he does NOT take his time to note that doubly curved surfaces will have less RCS and that a big shaping bonus to the beam RCS can be offset with a small penalty to frontal/rear aspect RCS.

Although he is obviously aware of it.

My read was that he felt he accurately modeled the single curve structure (lower centre fuselage) but was not modeling the doubly curved ones (weapon bay and ventral blister transitions). It's unclear to me whether he omits the contribution of the longitudinal fuselage taper, or simplifies it.

 

[Grand Danois]

My read was that he felt he accurately modeled the single curve structure (lower centre fuselage) but was not modeling the doubly curved ones (weapon bay and ventral blister transitions). It's unclear to me whether he omits the contribution of the longitudinal fuselage taper, or simplifies it.

I can't know what he felt. But he didn't account for the taper in any way, except he did remember to note that it had a positive contribution to RCS elsewhere and didn't comment that it was negative in the single curvature analysis.

 

[alexsa]

Mate look, i had my time, i fell for his s*%t, I've admitted that on over a dozen occasions, including on other forums. I've done the best i can to right my wrongs. That was 2 years ago, get over it. If you cant engage me in the discussion with regards to what I'm saying now and just refer to episodes in the ancient past then please crawl back down your hole, STFU and let the rest of us get on with it. If you want to engage in this discussion (rather than one in 2007) in a constructive manner then by all means.

In case you haven't noticed this is a discussion that was so god damn far from the RAAF or Carlo Kopp it may as well have been taking place on the far side of the moon. Then someone brings Kopp up and people like you wade in and throw sarcastic one liners around that have NOTHING to do, even indirectly, with what was being said. It pollutes the thread and turns something informative and enjoyable into this right here. Guess what bud, the world moved on, and now the only people who make discussions on a platform called the F-22A about Carlo Kopp are people like you. So if you really want Kopp's idea's to die then don't bring it up.

If you want to continue this PM me.

I did PM you but this deserves are response I think your comments are unwarranted and offensive. If you wish to take umbrage there are a lot more responses you should look at.

The thread relates to the F-35 and my comments in respect of Dr Kopps motivation in regards to the F111 (this seems to be waning as the aircraft nears inevitable retirement) and F22 are entirely relevant to the discussion of his ‘findings’ in respect of the LO characteristics of this aircraft. While agreeing Dr Kopp is completely focused on the RAAF his work continues to spill over and cause controversy (endlessly) in respect to the F-35 so considering his motivation is certainly relevant.

Dr Kopp has written numerous article in regards to updating the F111 (Pigs forever etc) as a super cruising strike aircraft, yet such a platform would suffer a greater problem in regards to is RCS than the F-35 not to mention the fact it is not designed to take the systems planned for the F-35 and (using the Seasprite as an example) such an upgrade would have colossal risk. Yet this issue does not stop him deriding the F-35 as deficient in these areas.

Similarly the F-22 is mooted as a better strike aircraft (and this has been done to death), however to make all this stick the F-35 cannot be as good as LM and others suggest…. and so we got more papers like this one.

I am certainly impressed by the volume of work Dr Kopp produces but am of the view that he has the myopic view of a zealot and, from an outsiders point of view, there would appear to be significant inconsistencies in his own arguments when you consider his assessment of the F-35 in regards to his other interests. Basically he appears to have an agenda which makes his entire analysis questionable.

If this offends you then please feel free to take it to the Mods. In so far as others responding to the threat please excuse me for interrupting what has been an interesting analysis of Dr Kopps ‘paper’.

Rant over

Mod edit: Unapproved post following Moderator discussion and pending PM discussion amongst the involved parties.
-Preceptor

 

[Feanor]

Thread locked pending moderator discussion.

 

[Preceptor]

Thread re-opened.
-Preceptor

 

[gf0012-aust]

A small detail which reflects Kopps poor manipulation of material to make his case.

He's conducted so called emissions and reflection tests without once declaring that any meaningful test for emissions and observability requires an all aspect pole test.

Without even considering and conducting a pole test (and there's no way that they'll let that clown into the pole sites) his pontifications are just academic self serving dross.

Apols if I've missed responding, but I'm travelling again so just "end biting"

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

As far as I can tell, the article I posted is not based on the earlier APA work.

Ozzy Blizzard has some interesting counterpoints, however he too misrepresents some points.

I don't believe I misrepresented anything. Allow me to retort.

The AIM-120D won't reach Navy IOC until at least 2010, and perhaps later if news of another slippage is true. JRDRAM's IOC is who know's when, if ever.

When dealing with Kopps work you have to examine it within its contextual environment. Kopps analysis is squarely aimed at the RAAF, hence the comparison between the F/A-18F and F-35A and not say the F-15E BII.

The F/A-18F will be operational with the RAAF in the 2011~2013 time frame. Additionally Kopp continually refers to the F-35A, which will not even reach IOC until that date. Thus it seemed obvious to me that Kopp was examining likely BVR exchanges in a 2015+ timframe, when AIM-120D will (99.999999% sure) be equipping the platforms concerned. Do you disagree with that assumption?

As for JDRAAM, I simply stated that at the moment it is the designated AIM-120D replacement and should be available in the 5 to 10 year time frame. That is the case is it not? Whether it happens or not is superfluous, there will be a AMRAAM replacement in that time frame using similar technology and a similar design paradigm.

The F-35 can carry up to 10 AMRAAMs only if it forgoes its clean, stealthy configuration and uses external stores. It's debatable whether operationally this would be done.

There may someday be an internal dual-AMRAAM rack for the F-35 but there isn't one today, and there may never be one.

This is what I actually said on th issue:

At IOC the F-35A will be able to launch with 10 AMRAAM’s on 10 internal and external hard points if need be, and currently a dual rail, internal AMRAAM launcher is being developed under LM’s spiral development program which will allow 12

I would have thought the words "internal and external" clearly illustrated that the F-35A would have to go dirty. The point was in rebuttal to Kopps assertion that the F-35A could not match the Su-27 series in terms of missile load. Whether the user decides to use that configuration is totally subjective, the fact is the capability is there.

On the second point I again stated that a dual rail internal launcher is being developed under LM's spiral development program, and LM have gone public with that information. I never said it was here now (neither is the F-35 by the way), but at the moment it is a stated development objective.

Exactly where did I omit or misrepresent a known fact, mislead the reader or draw unreasonable conclusions? Accusing me of misrepresentation is not something I take lightly, perhaps you shouldn't either.

On the whole though, I look forward to Ozzy's rebuttal to Kopp's latest work, if he chooses to make one.

I chose this article because it was a typical piece of Kopp's work. The objective was not to disprove the technical or tactical points but to illustrate the devices and tactics he uses to maliciously mislead the reader. If you critically examine Kopps work on this issue, no matter the date, said tactics or devices should become clear if you know what you're looking for. Thus there isn't much point; why not do it to a dozen other pieces of work?

 

[gf0012-aust]

The point was in rebuttal to Kopps assertion that the F-35A could not match the Su-27 series in terms of missile load. Whether the user decides to use that configuration is totally subjective, the fact is the capability is there.

On any give sunday, for any given load-out - the SU27/3nn will be dirty. The JSF can elect to go on on the first day of war clean and automatically have a degree of greater LO and still have lethality.

Seriously, the man has no credibility and his attempt to grand stand unfortunately has twits like Jensen and Palmer salivating.

I'm not sure why anyone with a scintilla of battlespace awareness would regard their arguments as having substance.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

On any give sunday, for any given load-out - the SU27/3nn will be dirty. The JSF can elect to go on on the first day of war clean and automatically have a degree of greater LO and still have lethality.

Even when dirty carrying 6 AAM's externaly the F-35A's frontal RCS would be a fraction of the Flankers, i would guess it would remain well under the 1m2 mark (the frontal RCS of an AIM-120D must be tiny). Thus in a BVR engagement i don't see a dirty F-35A with an A2A war load being significantly compromised considering the ranges involved.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Even when dirty carrying 6 AAM's externaly the F-35A's frontal RCS would be a fraction of the Flankers, i would guess it would remain well under the 1m2 mark (the frontal RCS of an AIM-120D must be tiny). Thus in a BVR engagement i don't see a dirty F-35A with an A2A war load being significantly compromised considering the ranges involved.

It's also why the bleatings from Jensen in support of Kopp are an absolute nonsense.

when both aircraft are dirty, guess which aircraft is going to radiate less? the older slab sided bar brawler, or the aircraft which has been inherently designed to take advantage of the lessons learnt from the F-22 and other predecessors?

these clowns can wax lyrical as much as they like about their own analysis etc... but without having the system specs, without doing a pole analysis in an an all aspect test field - their ongoing techno-prattle is meaningless.

legends in their own minds....

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

It's also why the bleatings from Jensen in support of Kopp are an absolute nonsense.

when both aircraft are dirty, guess which aircraft is going to radiate less? the older slab sided bar brawler, or the aircraft which has been inherently designed to take advantage of the lessons learnt from the F-22 and other predecessors?

these clowns can wax lyrical as much as they like about their own analysis etc... but without having the system specs, without doing a pole analysis in an an all aspect test field - their ongoing techno-prattle is meaningless.

legends in their own minds....

Not just radiate less, but radiate an order of magnitude less. The RCS reduction on the F/A-18F is tactically significant, we're talking about a VLO (or LO i dunno how they classify it any more) platform with a few AIM-120's hanging off the bottom of the aircraft. A dirty F-35A would achieve first shot every time in a BVR exchange, I'd bet my house on it. Thus, so what, it still holds all the cards.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I used to care about this issue and up to a few days ago, felt compelled to vigorously defend the merits of this aircraft.

I believe it is the best individual choice for Australia's future fighter needs.

I also believe it will be chosen no matter who says what. I am quite comfortable with that decision and thus I'm not going to bother responding to the twits who want to "have this out" in public any longer.

I seriously hope AVM Harvey ignores the playground attempt by Jensen, who would be well advised to stick to his job of representing Tangney as a member of Parliament, rather than wasting his time attempting to undermine the RAAF.

AVM Harvey as a public servant should simply get on with his job as directed by his superiors and the Government of the day. Responding to these fools only provides them with the idea that they have some sort of legitimacy.

 

[B.Smitty]

When dealing with Kopps work you have to examine it within its contextual environment. Kopps analysis is squarely aimed at the RAAF, hence the comparison between the F/A-18F and F-35A and not say the F-15E BII.

The F/A-18F will be operational with the RAAF in the 2011~2013 time frame. Additionally Kopp continually refers to the F-35A, which will not even reach IOC until that date. Thus it seemed obvious to me that Kopp was examining likely BVR exchanges in a 2015+ timframe, when AIM-120D will (99.999999% sure) be equipping the platforms concerned. Do you disagree with that assumption?

My mistake. I was looking at your rebuttal to his work in the context of today's environment. When the F/A-18F is operation with the RAAF, the AIM-120D should be available. (one would hope anyway)

As for JDRAAM, I simply stated that at the moment it is the designated AIM-120D replacement and should be available in the 5 to 10 year time frame. That is the case is it not? Whether it happens or not is superfluous, there will be a AMRAAM replacement in that time frame using similar technology and a similar design paradigm.

Given current budget realities, I don't know if we can honestly say there will be an AMRAAM replacement in that timeframe. There may just be an AIM-120E.

I would have thought the words "internal and external" clearly illustrated that the F-35A would have to go dirty. The point was in rebuttal to Kopps assertion that the F-35A could not match the Su-27 series in terms of missile load. Whether the user decides to use that configuration is totally subjective, the fact is the capability is there.

Understood. Do you believe an A2A configured F-35A will forgo its stealth advantage with external carriage in this situation? The option may be available, but if it's never used, it's an academic point.

On the second point I again stated that a dual rail internal launcher is being developed under LM's spiral development program, and LM have gone public with that information. I never said it was here now (neither is the F-35 by the way), but at the moment it is a stated development objective.

Exactly where did I omit or misrepresent a known fact, mislead the reader or draw unreasonable conclusions? Accusing me of misrepresentation is not something I take lightly, perhaps you shouldn't either.

Sorry Ozzy. I was in error. I retract my earlier statement. I will be more careful in the future.

 

[Firn]

While this might be still 10 years and some development off, is the Meteor not less risky choice than the JDRAAM missile for the australian F-35? We all know that it is difficult to compare the various BVR missiles as we don't know the exact figures and much is situational but the Meteor should outclass the AIM-120D in several regards.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

While this might be still 10 years and some development off, is the Meteor not less risky choice than the JDRAAM missile for the australian F-35? We all know that it is difficult to compare the various BVR missiles as we don't know the exact figures and much is situational but the Meteor should outclass the AIM-120D in several regards.

I don't think so. In real terms AIM-120D and Meteor are peers. Both will have extremely capable seeker packages and comparable range performance. The Meteor should have better end game energy state (although the AIM-120D will have a multi burn rocket motor), and slightly better range (but comparable). But critically if the dual rail launcher under development eventuates the AIM-120D will be enable 6 internal AAM's on the F-35A, but you cant squeeze the Meteor in AFAIK negating that advantage. In real terms I see the AIM-120D as the superior choice for the F-35A in the RAAF. One of the critical reasons for Meteor's massive range is to make up for the lack of VLO on the Typhoon in order to increase the platforms survivability. The F-35A negates that need because it will be able to reach AIM-120D launch range undetected with current and projected radar technology (AFAIK no one is developing a non X band FCR).

As for JDRAAM. Well that missile will be a full generation better than the Meteor. It will have a dual IIR and active radar (likely AESA), and provide the user with precision strike and anti radiation modes, thats right you get a Maverick and HARM capability with a A2A seeker package that is a full generation ahead of Meteor or AIM-120D, its a no brainier IMHO.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

My mistake. I was looking at your rebuttal to his work in the context of today's environment. When the F/A-18F is operation with the RAAF, the AIM-120D should be available. (one would hope anyway)

Well mate he is constantly referring to and analyzing the F-35A, which doesn't exist in squadron service yet and wont until 2015. Thus all of Kopp's arguments take place in a 2015 environment, and you cant rebut his arguments in a curent context.

Given current budget realities, I don't know if we can honestly say there will be an AMRAAM replacement in that timeframe. There may just be an AIM-120E.

That is a possibility, but AIM-120E will be along the lines of JDRAAM I'm sure, considering the design and development work already being done on that weapon.

Understood. Do you believe an A2A configured F-35A will forgo its stealth advantage with external carriage in this situation? The option may be available, but if it's never used, it's an academic point.

Well considering the frontal RCS of a few AIM-120D's and their hardpoints should still be extremely small I personally dont think external carriage would significantly compromise the platforms RCS in a BVR engagement considering the range involved.

Sorry Ozzy. I was in error. I retract my earlier statement. I will be more careful in the future.

No worries.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If we have to resort to standoff munitions, why do we need the F-35? F-16s and F-18s could sling JASSMs too, for a LOT less.

The issue is always closing the gap as much as possible before weapons launch.

If you consider the F-117 missions as an example.

They were mapped with their own corridors to ensure that they could enter the delivery space as cleanly as possible before launch. There are recorded instances of inbound F-117's that were entering the corridor, and where a friendly has driven by WVR, known that they were present, but still unable to see them either visually or with systems. Or, a more GBAD based example, is when they entered Saudi airspace (unannounced) the Saudis were on high alert as they believed that they would be surprise attacked by Iraq strikers, so hey had their ears on. The Saudis did not pick up the F-117's until they were on short finals - this was also with their own CAPs up..

The closer you are to the target before launch, the greater the chances of delivery on time and on target before getting molested.

In the instances where the F-117's were compromised over Serbia, it was due to human factors failures on the part of the pilot (complacency etc...) we're now talking about a platform that is dedicated 5th gen (not a hybrid of 6 other planes like the F-117 was) and a platform that can enter the battlespace gunned up and clean. By any sense of logic, if you want to maaximise the chances of visiting violence on the enemy at H+nn, then LO/VLO is a critical key. The only other 2 planes which can deliver precision munitions clean in a sanitised airframe are the F-22 and the B-2. Why would you want to look at another cheaper manned solution when your requirement is to kill quietly, kill closely, kill early? The US tried PGM's and it was less effective and far more expensive than the F-117 strikes (a million per tomohawk and over 500 launched). Lofted, GGM's, PGM's from a clean plane will increase the success odds.

Going to the Gen4, 4.5's was always looked at as post DEAD/SEAD missions or follow up. DEAD/SEAD is the province of Gen5 and persistent PGM's..

 

[B.Smitty]

The issue is always closing the gap as much as possible before weapons launch.

Certainly this is true. However if the F-35 has to resort to external-carriage JASSM, will its signature really be all that much better than an F-teen? Perhaps it will still be somewhat better, especially in the front sector. I don't know. Perhaps this will exacerbate any beam-aspect stealth issues already present.

Obviously the F-35 will still be superior with internal-carriage JSOW or JDAM.

The closer you are to the target before launch, the greater the chances of delivery on time and on target before getting molested.

Agreed. However if the F-35 really does fall down with beam and aft quarter stealth (speculation, I admit), then closure is really only possible if the threat is in the forward "true stealthy" area.

OTOH, if it has all-around stealth as good or better than an F-117, then no worries.

Going to the Gen4, 4.5's was always looked at as post DEAD/SEAD missions or follow up. DEAD/SEAD is the province of Gen5 and persistent PGM's..

I agree that, against modern threats, DEAD/SEAD is a Gen5 mission. However we've been doing it against older threats with 4th gen aircraft for almost two decades.

I think part of our disagreement is related to perspective. I'm looking at the F-35 as a U.S. taxpayer. I see a program that will undoubtedly cost more than $250 billion to complete. How much more is anyone's guess. There is tremendous technological risk, and they are cutting corners to fit it in the schedule and budget. There is also a risk that we just can't afford it, or afford far fewer than the current plan.

You are looking at it with an Australian perspective. From this viewpoint, the F-35 is an aircraft that, if available and living up to its promise, is significantly better than the alternatives. Even if it costs twice as much, it still may be worth the money.

 

[Sea Toby]

Well said. The Australians are having these technical arguments over and over because they require the 100 best aircraft in their inventory for the next 25 years or more, whereas the Americans require a great aircraft. The Americans can buy other better aircraft in the future for different roles, Australia won't be able to afford to do so.

However, I am getting a bit annoyed by sick ex-air force generals using this debate process over stupid scenarios and operations. The best most affordable aircraft being designed and built for the forseeable future is the F-35 JSF. Its not only being tested and developed by one nation, but by several nations. To date, none have optioned out, and at this late date. Several of the nations may cut their orders some, but I repeat, none have optioned out.

And I am really getting upset when the critics, noticed I did not write intelligent critics, say when will we see the aircraft fly forward after lifting off vertically. The test aircraft if you are watching in the videos closely enough is a few feet. Why don't we see in the videos the aircraft cut some Gs. They will with the new test production aircraft when it comes time to do the tests. All of these tests have been proven several years ago with the prototypes. Do these critics test drive their new vehicle running their new automobile pedal to the floor?