F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[SpudmanWP]

He's not the only one who's said that about the F-35.

I did not say he said it.... but others like him.

btw, the research paper where that quote DID COME FROM used Kopp as a source of information.

 

[B.Smitty]

My whole point to his idiocy is that without having any REAL information about the RCS, ECM, and EW of the JSF, he proposes that the JSF cannot penetrate modern SAM environments.

He has shown his bias against the F-35 by making claims like the JSF being shot down by Russian fighters in a head-on engagement despite this paper's admitting a forward VLO.

A small window of forward VLO to X-band radars.

The principles of stealth shaping are well known. Assuming he made no major gaffs, there is still a margin of error in his analysis (given the lack of real data). How much is open to question.

However if he did not make "orders of magnitude" errors, then this does put into question the ability of a production F-35 to penetrate a modern IADS.

If he is right, and at certain beam aspects the F-35 has a -10 dBSM to -20 dBSM X-band RCS (.1m2 to .015m2), then the SA-21's Grave Stone radar could track it more than 50nm away.

That's a long ways away.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If he is right, and at certain beam aspects the F-35 has a -10 dBSM to -20 dBSM X-band RCS (.1m2 to .015m2), then the SA-21's Grave Stone radar could track it more than 50nm away.

All stealth shaped aircraft have high RCS before application of RAM on certain angles, usually the NE, SE, SW, SW (compass) angles between 40-50 degrees of the fore and after centrelines. This comes from the application of common angles to the aerostructure, the so-called 'seration'. It is perfectly reasonable to have these high return aspects because in a moving stealth vehicle it is impossible for any system that is not perfectly matching the stealth vehicle's vector to track it. You need to saturate an area with radars and network them together with a data fusion system to get some sort of tracking of stealth aircraft from these returns. Of course these 'serations', especially the wing leading edges, is where RAM is applied.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The quality of this analysis depends, in part, on how accurately he modeled the sections of the F-35 in question. From what i can tell, he felt that, given open source imagery, he could come very close.

He didn't include certain areas of the F-35 which where troublesome from an RCS perspective, and his analysis didn't include edge effects and surface traveling wave effects. So his numbers may actually be optimistic.

I'm not in a position to question his methodology or data, but it appears to raise some interesting issues, IMHO.

What's new to me is that in some circumstances, the F-35 may be little stealthier than a clean, 4th gen fighter.

Edit: His numbers may be optimistic before materials are factored in. However materials do not contribute the lions-share of RCS reduction.

Unless he has got access to radar pole data for the F-35 and ACTUAL performance data, rather than brochure based statistics for his beloved "high end" SAM systems, his analysis isn't worth squat.

This is the list of design changes from the AA-1 airframe to the optimised AF-1 airframe:

(1) The wing switches from a 1 piece design integral with the upper fuselage to a more traditional 3-piece design mated at the roots. This is more time consuming to build and is more expensive, but lighter
(2) The single front landing gear door is replaced with smaller dual doors. This reduces the aircraft's tendency to drift sideways during landing when strong gusts are present.
(3) The vertical tails are smaller. This reduces weight and drag and is made possible because they no longer need to balance out the possible yaw moments from the large single gear door.
(4) The internal bulkheads are optimized and lightened while still retaining 9G capability in the "A" variant.
(5) The fuel capacity is increased slightly from 8.1 tons to 8.4 tons due to an optimized lofting of the upper fuselage.
(6) The intakes are tweaked slightly to further improve efficiency.
(7) The rear fuselage (around the nozzle) now incorporates stealth treatments and sawtoothing -- these were eliminated on the AA-1 for expedience because they weren't tangible to initial flight qualities verification flights.
(8 ) The APU turbine is relocated from the upper side to the lower side.
(9) The aircraft's construction is done on the a moving assembly line, unlike the AA-1 which was done on a prototyping "static" station.
(10) Overall weight is reduced; numbers have yet to emerge as to exactly what the weight is. (The AA-1 was 13.1 tons; the weight attack shaved 1.2 tons from the B variant and a portion of that benefits A and C variants as well).

The changes from the X-35 to AA-1 are immense.

Dr Kopp's so-called analysis is based on the X-35 concept demonstrator...

So let's look at what his so-called analysis includes shall we?

1. RCS figures based on a visual inspection of photographs of a concept demonstrator.

2. RCS data of an aircraft NOT fitted with the saw-toothed exhaust, nor any stealth treatments around the tail (on AA-1. AF-1 is fitted with same).

2. Wrong aircraft weight (takeoff and max), thrust and range figures.

3. An assumption that the NEWER APG-81 AESA radar IS going to be less capable than not only the APG-77, but also the APG-79...

4. An assumption that F-35 will not have a capable EW system because it needs to remain "stealthy" despite the known fact that the F-22 DOES.

The other issue is his current "low band" mantra. Do y'all think th USA is stupid? Go look at the Tolicha Peak radar testing sites on Google Earth. You can SEE the S-300, Clamshell and Flap Lid radar systems that impress Dr Kopp so much... Arguing that the USA is somehow being outpaced by Russian radar development is a joke. They are using the very systems that supposedly "outmatch" their LO efforts in their design and testing phases...

Damn, no wonder people consider him an "expert"...

 

[the road runner]

Sorry... he has bee soooo disproved over the years that I still classify him as an idiot.

The whole "Can't climb, can't turn & can't run" claims came from off-the-cuff analysis such as those of Kopp's ilk.

What you will always see with his papers is that he will give all the "benefit-of-the-doubt" to Russian equipment without knowing any of the classified info about the JSF.

AGREED.

To add.. i read DEFENCE TODAY magazine,his Articles always refer to equipmen that is not even developed yet..E.G Mig 35 ect..how can he know the capabilities of a MIG 35 when its not even in service?He loves to refer to the JSF as the wong plane for Australia...i guess an F-111 with new avionics fitted out by his company is a much better option:

 

[SpudmanWP]

Originally Posted by SpudmanWP
A couple of things are going to happen in this scenario:

1. The air package may contain decoys. We used them in both gulf wars. The USAF just approved LRIP for the new MALD. It has a range of over 500 miles and can be carried by the first wave and launched ahead to entice the enemy to activate the search and targeting radars.

The search radars will already be active, it's the targetting radars that are cold. Secondly they will activate, take the shot, and go cold again relocating in a hurry.

If by search radars you mean fixed site radars (like airports etc) then they will be targeted by the first wave B-2s and cruise missiles. Any portable SAM & AAA that lights up a search radar in the presence of our assets will be dealt with in either an passive, active, or lethal manner.

2. By moving your mobile SAMs around a lot, you will make a very good, and hot, target that will be picked up nicely by high-altitude assets.

Please elaborate. I'm not sure what you mean.

JSTARS, U2s, small low-altitude UAVs, or larger high-altitude UAVs will be able to find them easier the more they move around using SAR and FLIR .

3. The new HARM upgrade has a MMW seeker to enable targeting and engagement of SAMs & AAA that have turned off their radars. Not only that, but it will be able to target the control vehicle, not just the radar antenna.

How will it discriminate between a cold SAM unit, and a decoy SAM unit? Remember both sides can use decoys.

By using a combination of GPS and Millimetric Wave Radar. An inflatable decoy will not fool a MMW radar seeker.

4. JDRADM will probably be IOC within a few years of the F-35 going into squadron level service. The JDRADM will be both a AIM and a HARM. It will have a tri-mode seeker that will be able to be carried internally in the F-35 and F-22. If it sticks to a 7-8 inch folding-fin body, then they should be able to carry 10 internally in the F-22 and at least 8 internally in the F-35.

I don't understand the relevance. Please elaborate.

Currently, HARMs are too big to be it be carried in the F-35. They have to be carried externally thereby increasing the RCS of the F-35. The JDRADM will combine the capability of the AMRAAM with the HARM. It will be a 7-8 inch, 12 foot long missile with folding fins. The F-35 will be able to carry 4-5 internally PER-BAY and use them against both enemy fighters and SAM & AAA sites. They will have many more missiles available for SEAD & DEAD than a comparable package of HARMs today. Also, the JDRADM will have an IIR seeker in addition to the Active and MMW radar seeker that the HARM has now making it even MORE difficult to escape or fool.

5. The newer ECMs in the F-22 and F-35 can geo-locate an emitter in a matter of seconds.... If an emitter lights up, it’s location WILL be known.

By the time the emitter (targetting radar) lights up it's a little too late. Not to mention after lighting up, it goes cold again, and relocates. So its "known" location isn't much good.

Not in the least. Because of the small RSC of the F-35, the targeting radar will have to stay up longer to provide data for the missile because the radar in the SAM head will not be powerful enough to detect the F-35 until it gets VERY close. This lengthened targeting time gives the F-35 even more time than legacy aircraft for a response, either passive jamming, active jamming, or launching a HARM / JDRADM / SDB at the targeting radar. Remember that HARMs are VERY fast and arrive within 10-20 seconds of launch.

6. Any enemy air-assets in the area can be engaged, or not, at the discretion of our VLO assets. Any airports are likely to be targeting early on by our best assets, ie B-2s and stealthy cruise missiles.

Engaging those enemy air assets is likely to bring you into range of the GBAD, and if the two act in a complimentary manner, the strike mission becomes comprosmised as you're left fighting your way through the IADS instead of a stealthy penetration strike. Not to mention that once you have engaged, your location (and possibly your target) is more or less known. This allows the defender to send additional assets into the area, and potentially give advance warnings to air-defense assets around the target you're planning to strike. Again, I'm not talking about bombing a third world sh*thole. I'm talking about a power with comparable in theater assets.

Where are these assets coming from? How long do they hang around? Are they always active? Where is the F-22 CAP? These and other questions will play a big role in determining whether the enemy air assets are even an issue.

I would only engage those assets if they tried to engage me first. I would not need to go closer towards their GBAD assets.

Just because they know where I was, does not mean they know where I am going. That is all part of good route planning. Even saying than and given that JDAM and SDBs can be launched from miles away from the target, the F-35 may not even have to get with 10-15 miles of the target.

Let’s not forget that the F-35 can internally carry stealthy JSOWs also.

 

[Aussie Digger]

A small window of forward VLO to X-band radars.

The principles of stealth shaping are well known. Assuming he made no major gaffs, there is still a margin of error in his analysis (given the lack of real data). How much is open to question.

However if he did not make "orders of magnitude" errors, then this does put into question the ability of a production F-35 to penetrate a modern IADS.

If he is right, and at certain beam aspects the F-35 has a -10 dBSM to -20 dBSM X-band RCS (.1m2 to .015m2), then the SA-21's Grave Stone radar could track it more than 50nm away.

That's a long ways away.

What is the range of F-35's standoff weapons again?

AARGM is about 80k's. It is an interim weapon that will eventually be replaced by JDRAAM, a dual role anti-air/anti-radar missile that will provide a significantly improved weapon that also increases missile load.

JSOW is about 130k's , with an -ER variant planned that provide 500k's.

JASSM is about 400k's, with an -ER variant planned that provides about 1000ks.

Suddenly that 50nm range isn't looking so hot...

 

[B.Smitty]

The changes from the X-35 to AA-1 are immense.

Dr Kopp's so-called analysis is based on the X-35 concept demonstrator...

The basis of his analysis is was the AA-1 aircraft.

According to him, the X-35 had superior shaping on the underside of the fuselage to the AA-1.

X-35 underside:
http://www.ausairpower.net/X-35-Dem-Val-Ventral-1S.jpg


AA-1 underside:

http://www.ausairpower.net/JSF-Proto-AA-1-First-Flight-5.jpg

Note the various bulges.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Because of the recent false accusations that the F-35 is too slow and a "dog" LM said they are going to have to back up the F-35 in hopes to bring back support for the aircraft and try to resell the fighter to many nations that have yet to decide their next generation fighter jet.

It is likely that LM will show off the true capabilities of the F-35 which is something they should have done 7 years ago and just hope people will have confidence in the aircraft by not saying anything. That was pure carelessness on LM's part and hopefully they will show people what the F-35 can really do in AtA and ATG combat.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/010609dnbusjsf.3b6036a.html

 

[B.Smitty]

All stealth shaped aircraft have high RCS before application of RAM on certain angles, usually the NE, SE, SW, SW (compass) angles between 40-50 degrees of the fore and after centrelines. This comes from the application of common angles to the aerostructure, the so-called 'seration'.

Edge alignment on stealth aircraft means that they will all have high RCSs in certain, narrow aspects.

The problem with the F-35, according to Dr Kopp, is that it has a high RCS (approaching clean, 4th gen fighter designs) across a significant range of aspects and frequencies.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Because of the recent false accusations that the F-35 is too slow and a "dog" LM said they are going to have to back up the F-35 in hopes to bring back support for the aircraft and try to resell the fighter to many nations that have yet to decide their next generation fighter jet.

It is likely that LM will show off the true capabilities of the F-35 which is something they should have done 7 years ago and just hope people will have confidence in the aircraft by not saying anything. That was pure carelessness on LM's part and hopefully they will show people what the F-35 can really do in AtA and ATG combat.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/010609dnbusjsf.3b6036a.html

I do not think that this is all LM's fault. I lay a lot of the blame at the feet of the USAF and their desire for more F-22s. The whole F-22 --> F/A-22 --> F-22A deal was just to keep it from getting $hitcanned in favor of more F-35s sooner.

The shaping, radar, computer, ECM, sensors, and RAM coatings of the F-35 have a 10-15 year jump on the F-22.

People are going to be very surprised when they start to let that pony run publicly.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Edge alignment on stealth aircraft means that they will all have high RCSs in certain, narrow aspects.

The problem with the F-35, according to Dr Kopp, is that it has a high RCS (approaching clean, 4th gen fighter designs) across a significant range of aspects and frequencies.

Let's see.... who shall I believe???

A. The USAF and LM who have all the REAL data and 25+ years of building stealth aircraft.

or

B. A man who had a financial stake in keeping the F-111s operational, no REAL DATA, and has been proven consistently wrong...

Tough call.... NOT

 

[south]

The limited 40 NMI standoff range and time of flight of the GBU-39/B SDB glidebomb denies the Joint Strike Fighter the use of the lethal suppression strategy flown by the F-22A. Most missile batteries will have “scooted” away from the bombs’ aimpoints before they arrive. Indeed, the range from which the Joint Strike Fighter would need to release the SDB would in many IADS geometries leave it exposed to long range SAM shots, which it is ill equipped to handle.

The result of increasing IADS capabilities and the degradation of the Joint Strike Fighter’s stealth design through the SDD leaves it with only one tactical option for penetrating an IADS environment.

That option could be best labelled as “shooting a path through defences”, which is essentially the “conventional” model pioneered and perfected during the Vietnam conflict and incrementally improved since then. In this model a strike package intended to penetrate an IADS will be escorted by aircraft armed with anti-radiation missiles such as the HARM family of weapons. These are launched in large numbers to destroy threat radars which continue to emit, and force others to shut down for fear of attack.

This strategy in its basic form is now in its twilight years, and basically only useful against legacy IADS equipped with Cold War era weapons. This is a result of two basic changes in IADS operating doctrine and supporting technology. The first of these is the adoption of active emitting decoys which will seduce some fraction, if not ideally all of the anti-radiation missiles launched. The second of these is the modern practice of defending search and engagement radars with “counter-PGM” capable short range point defence missiles, such as the SA-15, SA-19, SA-22 and the 9M96E missiles in the SA-21 system. Such missiles are intended to shoot down inbound anti-radiation missiles – or glidebombs.

Along with what was mentioned by AD above WRT standoff ranges and Kopps analysis...

I fail to see why the SDB launched by a F-22 is going to get to the target sooner than from an F-35?

Why would a Harm/glidebomb etc launched from a F-22 be invulnerable to point defence systems when the F-35 weapons are?

WRT to the scenario/diagram. Why would a F-35 IF IT THOUGHT IT WAS BEING TRACKED/ENGAGED, limit its speed to 500KTAS on RCS issues of the Nozzle? Stuff that, push it up on ingress, get higher and faster, launch from further away, and then get out of dodge in burner if necessary...

As always with much of Kopp analysis, lots of hypothesising/assumptions on future russian equipment, lots of if's, buts and maybe's. No future expansion to the capabilities of F-35/American Kit.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I do not think that this is all LM's fault. I lay a lot of the blame at the feet of the USAF and their desire for more F-22s. The whole F-22 --> F/A-22 --> F-22A deal was just to keep it from getting in favor of more F-35s sooner.

The shaping, radar, computer, ECM, sensors, and RAM coatings of the F-35 have a 10-15 year jump on the F-22.

People are going to be very surprised when they start to let that pony run publicly.

I was not putting all of the blame on LM I was just saying how it was pure crap that they did not talk about the F-35s combat abilities for both ATA and ATG. Over the past 7 years all they said was the F-35 will be stealthy and it will replace the F-16 and others but thats it. They did not talk about the superior combat performance and weapons ability that the F-35 will have. Like the 6 internal AMRAAMs, top end combat speed, maneuverability, and acceleration.

But LM did show off the F-22 Raptor and how it was the best fighter ever and even the Russians talk about the Su-30 and SU-35 being better than the F-15 Eagle. But not the F-35...I don't know maybe it was just bad luck but in a way that study of how the F-35 was "clubbed like baby seals" actually helped the F-35 because it gave LM a wake up call and they found out they need to get their act together and show people what the F-35 can really do. I would just hate to see a good fighter like the F-35 go to waste because its makers were quiet about it.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I know I'm going to catch hell for posting this, but Dr Kopp has recently weighed in on the matter of the F-35's stealth characteristics. He's done some actual RCS modeling and has posted his analysis here,

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html

Like him or hate him, he does appear to know what he's talking about.

The other problem with Kopp is he makes no allowance for operational tactics.

There was a well known attack on an Iraqi radar system in GW1 where Apaches and MH-53's attacked and destroyed a key radar installation.

I don't expect even Dr Kopp would unfavourably compare the RCS of an MH-53 or even an AH-64 to an F-35. The radar range of this radar system and the range available to the Iraqi defensive SAM systems (at that time) VASTLY exceeded the range of ANY of the weapons utilised in this attack, and yet it was successful.

According to Dr Kopp's world view and logic, they should have been decimated.

Wonder why?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Along with what was mentioned by AD above WRT standoff ranges and Kopps analysis...

I fail to see why the SDB launched by a F-22 is going to get to the target sooner than from an F-35?

Why would a Harm/glidebomb etc launched from a F-22 be invulnerable to point defence systems when the F-35 weapons are?

WRT to the scenario/diagram. Why would a F-35 IF IT THOUGHT IT WAS BEING TRACKED/ENGAGED, limit its speed to 500KTAS on RCS issues of the Nozzle? Stuff that, push it up on ingress, get higher and faster, launch from further away, and then get out of dodge in burner if necessary...

As always with much of Kopp analysis, lots of hypothesising/assumptions on future russian equipment, lots of if's, buts and maybe's. No future expansion to the capabilities of F-35/American Kit.

Because of the F-22A's magnificent speed don't you know?

Apparently a supersonically launched glide bomb is MUCH more effective when it is launched by a fighter on dry thrust than one that is launched from a fighter on reheat...

 

[B.Smitty]

The other problem with Kopp is he makes no allowance for operational tactics.

I believe the point of his analysis was to show that the F-35 would have trouble with penetrative strikes (where extensive SEAD/DEAD was not performed beforehand), contrary to LM and USAF assertions.

 

[SpudmanWP]

You need to read the good article that takes apart the original APA article, point by point.

http://ozzyblizzard.blogspot.com/

Now you will understand what an idiot Kopp is.

 

[B.Smitty]

Because of the F-22A's magnificent speed don't you know?

Apparently a supersonically launched glide bomb is MUCH more effective when it is launched by a fighter on dry thrust than one that is launched from a fighter on reheat...

Kopp mentions that he constrained airspeed to 500kts to minimize nozzle RCS in his "Joint Strike Fighter Best Case SAM Engagement Geometry and Timelines" vs a long-ranged SAM site.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I believe the point of his analysis was to show that the F-35 would have trouble with penetrative strikes (where extensive SEAD/DEAD was not performed beforehand), contrary to LM and USAF assertions.

Seems about as useful as discussing whether 6x F-22's could fight 72x SU-30 Sukhois then...

Dr Kopp just likes to discuss unrealistic situations, I guess.

NO aircraft in the world is going to fight ANY sort of IADS system without being part of a force package, with complementary capabilities.