JSF is stealthy but only carries 2 x 2000lb bombs and 2 x AMRAAM air to air missiles in its specially designed internal weapon bays in the version that Norway is considering, the CVOL (Conventional Take Off and Landing). If you hang additional weapons or fuel tanks under the wing then the aircraft it is not stealthy which is most of it's attraction. JSF probably would not be able to carry out all the roles that are currently filled by RNoAF F-16's without carrying external weapons/pods/tanks.
That is a baseline configuration used by L-M to show the aircraft's performance and range capabilities. It is a "representative" multi-role loadout and basically similar to the loadouts carried by legacy combat aircraft in multi-role configurations.
It is NOT representative of an F-35 configured for ATA combat. L-M has already confirmed in the documents they have submitted to Norway for their replacement fighter project that the F-35 WILL carry 4x AMRAAM or a mix of AMRAAM and BVR weapons (such as Block II AIM-9X, ASRAAM or other weapons with "lock on after launch" and ejector carry capability) in ATA configuration, from Block 3 jets onwards.
Block 4/5 jets WILL have the capability to carry up to 6x AMRAAM missiles internally. Greater internal carriage with new missiles (JDRAAM etc) is also being explored. It is entirely possible that up to 8x wingless JDRAAM type missiles will be carried internally in later block aircraft.
The F-22 can carry 3x AMRAAM missiles in each of it's "big" internal bays. The F-35A's internal bays are deeper, longer and wider than the F-22's AND has a 2500lbs rated hardpoint AND an ejector rail per bay. Why anyone thinks these bays can NOT hold as many, if not more missiles, than the F-22 is beyond me.
It is simply an engineering challenge to create the necessary ejector technology. Such a challenge was overcome to allow the F-22 to carry 8x internal missiles. That it can't apparently be done on an F-35 too (with the aforementioned bigger internal bays), seems like a VERY weak argument to me.
Don't believe what you read in newspapers. Read what L-M has actually promised Norway.
http://norway.usembassy.gov/root/pdfs/volume-1---executive-summary---part-1_dista.pdf
As to the idea that the F-35 is not "stealthy" when carrying external weapons, what a load of shite. What external weapons, rails/ejectors and hard points will do, is increase the F-35's radar cross section somewhat. The Infra-Red signature and the emissions control features of the aircraft will not be altered one whit, by external weapons carriage. (UV reflection perhaps?)
What does this mean? A threat aircraft "may" get an extra 10k's or so detection range as compared against a full VLO F-35. How often in reality, will this truly matter? The F-35's detection range advantage would hold even if it WASN'T a VLO aircraft. The APG-79 radar as fitted to the Block II+ Super Hornet is rated by many as THE most capable fighter sized fire control radar in the world and the APG-81 as fitted to the F-35 will be a generation BEYOND this radar system. The idea that the US lead in AESA radar systems will be overtaken by the time the F-35 is in-service is most unrealistic in my opinion. The F-35 will also have the benefit of EOTS/DAS system which NO other fighter in the world will possess.
EOTS/DAS will provide a 360 degree IRST system. The F-35 won't even need to bother with maneuvering at the "merge" with "over the shoulder" missile shot capability (with ASRAAM).
However VLO and non-VLO aircraft options, open up intriguing possibilities tactics wise. How keen to prosecute an engagement is an enemy going to be when "F-35's" start "popping up" on their radar system? Might Norway be smart enough to include "sleeper" VLO aircraft in their mission packages to start killing enemy aircraft whilst the "visible" F-35's are lighting up the enemy?
That F-35 only "intra-flight" data-link has to be useful for something, doesn't it?
JSF will be full of new technology but I have seen it reported that export JSF aircraft will not be of the same equipment standard as US aircraft, hardly attractive if true.
And those reports are 100% true. Lucky Norway is not contemplating buying "export" F-35's though, because it is a partner nation. "Export" F-35's will be delivered to those who buy the aircraft (as Finland is now interested) but who didn't join as an SDD partner.
In any case, no-one EVER gets an aircraft of the same exact standard as the US. What foreign Countries get is an aircraft that meets their requirements. Not necessarily the USA's requirements. Radar and EW modes, for instance are usually somewhat degraded. LO features are likely to be degraded somewhat in the F-35 too.
Of what concern is this though, provided the aircraft still meets Norway's requirements? As an example, Norway's F-16's right now are NOT as capable as USAF ones. Does that mean the whole Norwegian F-16 fleet should be scrapped?
JSF seems to me to be a first strike ground attack weapon with a self defense capability, but Norway never strikes first, only defends the Homeland, unless we include Squadron 338 of the NATO Reaction Force at Ørland Main Air Station which operates under NATO command when deployed.
Absolute rubbish. It is a multi-role strike fighter. Thanks to LO, and it's radar, EOTS/DAS system and USABLE (ie: not hindered by drag incurring external weapons, sensors and fuel) aerodynamic performance, it is likely to prove superior in the ATA role, to ANY aircraft in the world, besides the F-22.
Another interesting thing the "anti" JSF brigade have come up with recently, is the apparent susceptibility of the AMRAAM missile (which variant of course is not actually mentioned) to off-board jamming (particularly DRFM based systems).
I find it amazing how this is an issue for the F-35, but not for the F/A-18 A/B/C/D Hornets, Super Hornets, F-15, F-16, F-22, SAAB Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon, Kawasaki/L-M F-2, RAF F-3 Tornados and upgraded F-5 variants, that ALL use the AMRAAM as their primary BVR ATA missile system.
Truly amazing... What is even more amazing is that despite the fact that this weapon is SO susceptible to Israeli made jammers, the Israeli's themselves use AMRAAM as their primary ATA weapon.
Seems a bit incongruous doesn't it?
Stealth will not last forever, even as I write this scientists in other countries will be searching for ways to counter it and a way will be found eventually.
Which is why, thank god, the F-35 can be upgraded. Just like ANY other aircraft.
However answer me this.
Are you more likely to survive in a reduced radar cross section aircraft, against new "anti-stealth technology" or in a legacy aircraft WITHOUT a reduced radar cross section?
On top of this, this argument is a non-sequitor. VLO aircraft can be tracked at present. There are several technologies that have done so already. Australia's JORN "over the horizon" radar system is reportedly one of them.
However there is ALL the difference in the world between detecting a VLO aircraft and actually guiding a weapon near enough to the aircraft to kill it.
Unless the sky gets smaller, IRST systems are ALWAYS going to have to be cued into the right area of the sky to "see" a VLO aircraft. On top of which, IRST systems are ALWAYS going to have limitations because of weather conditions (unless Norwegian pilots can see through cloud) and the need to employ a laser range finder, because IRST has limitations with range finding.
ESM will only ever work if an F-35's radar, communications (voice and data) are detectable. Thus it presents an on-going battle between an F-35's Emcon (Emissions control - radar, radio, on-board jammers etc) and the defenders ESM (Electronic support measures - systems designed to "harvest" electronic signals). Even then, the ESM is only useful for cueing other systems.
Which leaves radar. Now the limitations of the other detection methods are well known, which is why VLO aircraft currently employ so much effort to reduce the aircraft's radar cross section.
Radar's MIGHT become more powerful, meaning the F-35 can potentially be detected further away, which means it again comes down to an on-going battle of whose radar is more powerful and whose weapons have a longer reach.
Two other problems then present themselves however. Even IF a more powerful radar CAN detect an F-35 further away, the weapons employed to destroy said F-35, are not going to have the same capability. The tiny radar in an actively guided missile can only detect a target from a few kilometers away. That is why any good active guided missile has a two way data-link to the launching aircraft, because without the data-link to the launch aircraft, when an active AAM is launched at extreme range the missile is effectively "fired blindly" towards the target, until it gets close enough that it's own tiny radar can detect and track the target. A VLO aircraft has obvious utility against such a low powered radar system.
Because on-board electricity generation/storage capacity and radar size are constrained within an ATA or SAM, (because of the small size of the missile's airframe) the likelihood of radar power overcoming VLO measures on an aircraft is VERY low, in the forseeable future.
The other problem with such high powered radar systems has already been mentioned. ESM. ESM is a two-way street. The more powerful a radar the more likely it is detectable by an ESM capability. The F-35 will have an EXCELLENT ESM capability. You can bet your house on that.
Given that the detection range of ESM is conservatively guesstimated (because such things are classified) at possessing an effective range of roughly double that of the most powerful fighter fire control radars, I'm certain an F-35 pilot would LOVE his opponents attempting to employ the world's biggest, most powerful radar against his F-35.
If Norway were ever attacked (Heaven forbid) what use would JSF be carrying just 2 air to air missiles in a stealthy configuration whereas the F-16 can carry at least 6 air to air missiles and therefore has much more combat persistence.
I think I've already addressed that above... It wouldn't be much use, which is why the F-35 can and will carry more than 2.
Do I seem to be anti JSF? No, not a bit, it will serve very well in those forces that mount expeditionary operations, against terrorist targets and in first strike situations, in my opinion I don't think it's ideal for Norway or Denmark for that matter, not unless both countries decide to increase their contributions to NATO and Coalition operations abroad.
It will serve very well for ANYONE who buys it. They will receive the most capable multi-role fighter aircraft ever built.
So, what are the alternatives?
Less capability.
1. New build, latest version F-16's, the basic infrastructure to support such aircraft is already in place although I expect changes would have to be made as the F-16 is continually going through a modernisation process. Another advantage is that they may be relatively cheap to buy.
And offer increasingly diminished returns against the investment as the years go by. By 2025, legacy fighter aircraft will offer marginal capability against the threats at that time. (IMHO).
2. SAAB JAS 39 Gripen Next Generation fighter. The Swedish fighter is such an attractive option although it has only just made it's first demonstrator flight. It will be full of modern technology with a brand new state of the art radar, but not yet, the full up version will not be ready until 2015. Reports suggest that the version now flying has acquitted itself very well in Air Defence exercises, carries a useful air to ground weapon load, has a good data link system and can easily cope with Northern Hemisphere operations. Furthermore should Norway venture into a Scandinavian Alliance with Sweden which I have seen spoken about in the press then it would be a definite advantage for all members to operate the same weapon system.
But think of what Norway would bring to the table in a Scaninavian Alliance with the F-35? A VLO strike fighter capability. Sweden already has an advanced Gripen capability. A few more planes isn't going to add much more to that.
3. Eurofighter Typhoon. Eurofighter had withdrawn from the fighter competition but some reports suggest that it has been called back in - I hope so. Typhoon would be my fighter of choice for Norway, it's in squadron service, has just achieved multi role capability with the Royal Air Force, carries a very impressive air to air and air to ground weapons load, it's built to last, it's performance envelope in all regimes of flight is very impressive, reputedly runs rings around F-16's and F-15's (as it should do) and is an immensely powerful aircraft well suited to look after the SU-27 and SU-30's of your Russian neighbours. The technology in Typhoon is very modern and more will follow. Typhoon provides a powerful, versatile, heavyweight punch to those who operate it and it is European. Typhoon will fulfil all the roles that your current F-16's carry out but it will do so with a much greater capacity and weapons persistence.
But against - it ain't a VLO strike fighter.
It's withdrawn from the competition and from what I've read from the Eurofighter Consortium is unlikely to re-bid.
It's likely to be much more expensive.
It's vaunted performance is hinded by the need to carry heavy external stores. A clean aircraft can do all sorts of wonderful things. It just can't take part in combat.
With the types of loads you've probably seen (5-6x 2000lbs bombs, 3x external tanks, a Litening AT pod and 3x AMRAAM missiles) which give it that "weapons persistence" it won't be "running rings" around anything performance wise and it's RCS will be enormous.
But, each to their own...
