JSF's top secret 5% what we need!

[rjmaz1]

come on the difference isn't that large were not comparing harriers to F18 its range is about 200km less its internal payloads a bit less but for that you get an incredibly versatile plane with performance 10 fold compared to the harrier

Its range and fuel fraction is much lower than the conventional version.

Though being able to get closer to the action would make up for any loss in range. For instance with East Timor the F-35A's would have to fly direct without refueling would be able to loitor for an hour at most and then come home.. Or inflight refueling would be used and cost alot..

The F-35B model could launch from a LHD 50kms off shore and loitor overhead for 3-4 hours and then return to ship. A pair of F-35B's would be able to loitor over the battlefield just as long as the F-35A's WITH tankers..

Though we'll then be effectively operating three combat aircraft types..

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

How about long range maritime strike??? Thats kind of important for the RAAF.

 

[rjmaz1]

Ozzy Blizzard what do you mean?

The F-35A will be able to perform maritime strike MUCH better than the current F-111, Classic hornet and P-3. The F-35's sensors can see further and it can get closer to enemy ships without being detected.

The F-35 has the agility of the Hornet, the speed and endurance of the F-111 and the sensor suite of the P-3 all combined into one aircraft.

Im starting to really like the F-35B option.. The F-35B model would be extremely good based off a LHD. It could provide air defence against all current Russian fighters, it could attack other enemy ships and act as mini awac's.

I'd estimate they'd probably have 5 F-35B's per ship.. With two aircraft in the air and two on the deck rotating to provide 24 hour coverage. One extra would be kept as backup/maintenance. With two LHD's they could be rotated provide continuous coverage.

Based on that considering we have two LHD's thats 10 aircraft in total on the ships that can be deployed at once. 5 aircraft for attrition and training would mean we would really only need 15 aircraft. Not the 24 or 25 suggested.

Now that we've bought the Super Hornets and with the cost of the F-35 has increased its very unlikely that we will be getting 100 F-35's.. 80 at the very most IMO. If the squadron size was reduced to 22 aircraft.. Thats 66 F-35A's.. and 14 F-35B's for a total of 80..

I dont know what the plan is with the Super Hornet though.. if it will be replaced by the last batch of F-35's..

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I was thinking of a situation where all the RAAF squadrons (3 equiped with F35A's and 1 equiped with F35b) would need to perform marritime strike on a incoming naval task force. How well could an F35B conduct marritime strike compared to an F35A if they were launched from similar ranges. There has to be a penalty in range, performance and payload. This is a very important scenario for the RAAF. The question is would that penalty be worth the flexability and power projection of the F35b/ LHD combination?

By the way I guess you would have 6 aircraft per LHD, half a squadron each, so if the LHD's were deployed together we could have a whole squadron for air support/air defence. I'm pretty sure for every aircraft you have in the air you need one in maintinance, overhaul ect. Correct me if i'm wrong. Thats why we bought 24 superbugs to equip a squadron of 12. Thats why we want 100 F35's to equip 4 squadrons, with 4 for training and intergration. Not too shabby.

 

[Occum]

In this Brown Paper Bag I have . . .

For those wondering about some of the stuff that would make up the mythological five per cent, you might be interested in taking a look at the scale in the attached. This scale is of radar cross sections (RCS) for different aircraft types, refered to decibel square meters ( dBSM).

What are known as 'low observable' or LO technologies are generally regarded as those that achieve RCS reductions into the range of minus 10 dBSM to minus 20 dBSM. 'Very low observable' or VLO technologies achieve RCS reductions to around minus 30 dBSM and better.

According to this scale, for an aircraft to be in what it calls the 'stealth zone', commonly referred to as 'stealthy', you are looking at a RCS of around 0.1 square meters or less.

To get some idea of what this means, in simple terms, the RCS for an AIM-9 and its launch rail would be around a half to one square meter due, principally, to the shape of the weapon and the rail and what are called resonance effects. Naturally, this will vary with the illumination aspect and frequency of the interrogating radar/sensor. Similarly, the RCS for a 450 gallon fuel tank would be somewhat more but assume its about the same. Therefore, at best, an aircraft carrying 2 x AIM-9s and 2 x 450 gallon fuel tanks would have an RCS of around 2 to 4+ square meters plus the RCS of the aircraft itself. Having to carry these external stores puts the aircraft into the 'red' zone on this chart - not what one could really call 'stealthy' by any measure.

:shudder

 

[davedogman]

No large nation serious into protecting its nation buy only the JSF.

JSF is always the LO-element in other airforces that intend to buy it.

Or it's a small country with equally small needs.

 

[Rich]

This is a very important scenario for the RAAF. The question is would that penalty be worth the flexability and power projection of the F35b/ LHD combination?

I dont think there is any question the payoff far outweighs the penalty of reduced range and load. In the age of precision weapons the load reductions of STOVL aircraft is less worrying. The fact that the LHD is in effect a moving airfield provides a force multiplier for a host of unknown future scenerios.

Because nobody knows the future or what possible confrontations the RAN might need power projection for in the next 10 to 20+ years. Those LHDs, F-35bs, supported by the advanced AWDDs, modernized frigates, and excellent submarines, would be a powerful extension of national will. Nothing in the region could afford to take it for granted.

I think buying the STOVL version is a no brainer. And its not like the F-35bs would go into sleep mode when the LHD is in port for repairs/refit. The aircraft could easily fill a continental air defense role in support of the standard F-35s and SHs.

 

[rjmaz1]

For those wondering about some of the stuff that would make up the mythological five per cent

I thought the 5 percent would be the fact the F-35 avionics can fly completely automated without a pilot in the seat. It has all the data connections of the Global Hawk in terms of guidance, no other manned aircraft has these connections.

I dont see how we'd need that function though the US requires it as it gets around the law they passed regarding a certain percentage of aircraft being unmanned. They'll still keep pilots in the seats though.

As a subsonic cruiser with a large fuel fraction the F-35 would be the ultimate UCAV.

Im surprised no one has mentioned this in the Australian media. As UCAV's dosen't need reserve fuel for pilot safety the JSF could hit targets up to 1500 miles away.

 

[ELP]

For those wondering about some of the stuff that would make up the mythological five per cent, you might be interested in taking a look at the scale in the attached. This scale is of radar cross sections (RCS) for different aircraft types, refered to decibel square meters ( dBSM).

What are known as 'low observable' or LO technologies are generally regarded as those that achieve RCS reductions into the range of minus 10 dBSM to minus 20 dBSM. 'Very low observable' or VLO technologies achieve RCS reductions to around minus 30 dBSM and better.

According to this scale, for an aircraft to be in what it calls the 'stealth zone', commonly referred to as 'stealthy', you are looking at a RCS of around 0.1 square meters or less.

To get some idea of what this means, in simple terms, the RCS for an AIM-9 and its launch rail would be around a half to one square meter due, principally, to the shape of the weapon and the rail and what are called resonance effects. Naturally, this will vary with the illumination aspect and frequency of the interrogating radar/sensor. Similarly, the RCS for a 450 gallon fuel tank would be somewhat more but assume its about the same. Therefore, at best, an aircraft carrying 2 x AIM-9s and 2 x 450 gallon fuel tanks would have an RCS of around 2 to 4+ square meters plus the RCS of the aircraft itself. Having to carry these external stores puts the aircraft into the 'red' zone on this chart - not what one could really call 'stealthy' by any measure.

:shudder

Great. You found the radar game post. Good reading. The part I especially like in there is the commentary on a stiff IADS... where not having all aspect stealth is a problem for ingress through a strong IADS, hitting the target and egress. JSF is not all aspect stealth and F-22 is near or very good all aspect stealth. Just a point of interest and worth considering for any future RAAF JSF ops.
And as you hint to, that document should be ground zero for any media so that when Defence keeps floating the fairy tale about F-18F "stealth" ability, it can be shot down easy. No matter how much gold dust in the canopy, appliances in the intakes to help L.O., RAM coating and RAM-like coating. F-18F isn't going to be hiding from radar very well. Certainly no significant difference to any other 4th gen that wasn't even considered before Defence ran off and spent money on SH like a kid in a candy store. Nice thing to have budget surplus events. Not so good if part of the government doesn't exercise good reasoned thinking with the checkbook. Back to the hyped "stealth" ability of Super Hornet ( it's all over several papers now.)... the stores pylons on the jet had to be canted outward at a ridiculous angle as a band aid fix to address stores clearance issues with the unprototyped design that is Super Hornet. Those same outward pointing pylons with or without stores don't do much to assist fuel economy or keep drag to a minimum either, and certainly are no help to L.O. qualities.

 

[Occum]

The Radar Game

Response to ELP Post # 28 -

Have been a fan of Dr Rebecca Grant's work for years - as have colleagues in DC and elsewhere. This would have to be one of if not the best public releasable Primer around on 'stealths' history and technologies.

The example that was used is a tad obvious but, hopefully, will get the message across to a few if not many more.

I see PMA 265 is copping a bit of flack for their smoke and spin about SH similarities with 5th Gens. I suppose they reckon if LM and the JSF SPO (along with others, including a number on this side of the pond) can do it and get away with it, then why shouldn't they. Sigh!

Some say shooting 6 lawyers every morning would be a damned good start to the day. Doing something similar to 6 marketeers and their spin doctors would have to run a close second to this, don't you think?.



ps:
There is some scuttlebut going around at the moment (therefore, only a rumour at present) that the LO/CLO EXCOM release approval for the export JSF will likely be the same as that granted for the SH, clean. Any chance of taking this from rumour to gouge status?

pps:
Re the canted pylons, looks like the classic ~400 KCAS problem.



ppps:
A nice, succint piece of handiwork -

Tough Love Time

"I was going to save this, but I have reached my consumption level from reading almost daily in the Aussie press, the sad story of a fighter plane road map for the Australian Air Force.
I have never seen such a collection of illogic since I got my lovely girlfriend a calendar for a present that had all the famous George Bush gaffes in it. The real problem here is that George Bush can't help it. You can. For producing a fighter road map for the RAAF that has teeth for the next 30 years, the Australian defence establishment in current power is in serious trouble. Not a little bit of trouble... not a medium bit of trouble... a lot of trouble. God love 'em, but the people making the final decision don't have a clue on their best day. . . . ."

 

[ELP]

I see PMA 265 is copping a bit of flack for their smoke and spin about SH similarities with 5th Gens. I suppose they reckon if LM and the JSF SPO (along with others, including a number on this side of the pond) can do it and get away with it, then why shouldn't they. Sigh!
:

Off topic:
Yeah your right. The power of the force (PowerPoint) has a strong influence on the weak minded. I still love the response from one of our USAF pukes when USN was claiming 5th gen ability on SH Block II. The paraphrased response was something to the effect of... going into a stiff IADS claiming 5th gen capability with no advanced sensor fusion and no stealth just means you will have perfect situational awareness of the guy that kills you... I would add to that with an airframe that has weak airframe performance there are other issus like amount of time exposed to threats and less ability to contempt of engage other 4th gen fighters that might be encountered if at a disadvantage.
I do believe one has to be real careful claiming electronic attack on fighter sized AESA. There is power, and the limited range of attack frequency band of the array...that means that this will be more of a narrow band option and not a wide band option. At the moment AESAs we have are getting close to the limits of the hardware ability just doing their original purpose as a fighter sensor. Still some work to do and in some cases we won't know unless we are cleared into the program with a need to know. I would think that a software lab QC process that missed the international dateline hack, might have some additional work to do just getting the original mission stuff up tight before they rant about Buck Rogers ability. Less overselling by the car salesman and more candid fact would be nice. Some of the hype needs to be given a rest.

 

[Occum]

Response to ELP Post #30

Off topic:
I do believe one has to be real careful claiming electronic attack on fighter sized AESA. There is power, and the limited range of attack frequency band of the array...that means that this will be more of a narrow band option and not a wide band option. At the moment AESAs we have are getting close to the limits of the hardware ability just doing their original purpose as a fighter sensor. Still some work to do and in some cases we won't know unless we are cleared into the program with a need to know. I would think that a software lab QC process that missed the international dateline hack, might have some additional work to do just getting the original mission stuff up tight before they rant about Buck Rogers ability. Less overselling by the car salesman and more candid fact would be nice. Some of the hype needs to be given a rest.

And, yep, there is no getting around the Laws of Physics eg. power law, propogation, etc., no matter how many PPT slides they weigh in with. The effective range is going to be down to that of guns even against standard HIRF hardened systems - so much for BVR.

Another example of "people who don't know what they don't know .... dealing with things they don't understand!" Trouble is, this disease seems to be global .... or at least where the Western Nations are concerned since I am hearing the same bleats from professional colleagues in the UK and Europe!

One is left to ask if this is one of the consequences of the rampant downsizing and outsourcing of the 1990s? Talking with an old NG colleague the other day who regularly spends time on both sides of the pond and he observes that this disease is in the ascendancy in both countries and that's how you get Minister's and other politico/humanities types talking up the mystical five per cent as if it can change the fundamentals. Sheesh!!!

"Even though I am not qualified to understand it myself, in this brown paper bag I have everything that shows that I am right and all the experts are wrong - but I can't show you because it's CLASSIFIED".

For some reason, the definition of childishness seems apt!