F-35 Multirole Joint Strike Fighter

[gf0012-aust]

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.

Since 1982 - when and where was the last instance of an air campaign being mounted sans supression of the defenders ADS?

In fact 82 is the cogent example of what happens when you make assumptions about the enemies capacity to respond.

If Kopp was genuine then he would add meat and context to the argument. He would also be more than aware of the history of air penetration since 82 and even more aware of how much pre-strike suppression was undertaken before "vanilla" single manned air strikes were conducted.

Considering that the JSF is regarded as having superior aspect emisson suppression than the F-117 across a majority of vectors, and considering that the loss of the F-117 over Serbia was due to indolence rather than technology management - then one would really have to say that he's stating the worst of the worst case scenarios for mission and systems planning - ever.

Maybe he needs to read about anti-ADS campaigns conducted from 82 on for some refresher examples.

 

[gf0012-aust]

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.

again, he waxes lyrical on gobbledygook to make a case - and yet ignores the fundamental reality of how ADS is suppressed (and has been suppressed using every example from 82 on) prior to single manned vanilla fixed wing combat aircraft being committed.

 

[B.Smitty]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[south]

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.

Understood, however, if you are getting tracked/engaged, and you dont believe that it is going to change by just stooging along, clearly minimizing RCS no longer matters, getting out of dodge does matter.

When you are on Ingress, I fail to see how the radar is going to have a view on the Nozzle, so once again AB is a consideration. The only problem with going to Burner is your IR signature, which is going to be affected by a whole host of things.

Its all guess work. Educated perhaps. But to make an assumption as to the RCS from a photograph using the fuselage only, not knowing the surface treatments, not knowing any sneakybeaky crap the F35 has, not taking into account any supporting assets on either side - its a pretty long bow to draw meaningful conclusions. Its not like these assets are going head to head 1v1 if the real deal kicks off....



p.s. does anyone really believe the US is not going to have ECM in their latest fighter... cmon...

 

[south]

More importantly, the degradation in the stealth capability of the Joint Strike Fighter through the SDD program is forcing the Joint Strike Fighter into the use of a defence penetration strategy no different to that used by legacy aircraft, which is inherently expensive in expended munitions and in the number of sorties required to achieve a given effect. There is no economic advantage to be found in this game by using a Joint Strike Fighter instead of a HARM shooting legacy type such as the F-16, or F/A-18 (with its aeroelastic limitations) or, better still, the very capable HARM shooting F-111.

This was my Favourite paragraph.... :nonsense

He cant help himself from having a dig at the Hornet while still dreaming of the Uberpignfloorl:

 

[B.Smitty]

This was my Favourite paragraph.... :nonsense

He cant help himself from having a dig at the Hornet while still dreaming of the Uberpignfloorl:

Yes, I winced at that Pig reference too.

 

[gf0012-aust]

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

There is a strong point of principle though. Kopp self proclaims and advertises himself as one of Australias leading Defence Analysts - although I note that since the ABC were taken to task and humiliated for not checking on his actual Defence bona-fides, that he has prefixed his crown with "freelance".

The point is, that Kopp self appoints and annoints himself as a subject matter expert, and yet creates a sceanrio where he ignores how systems (since 91) have been used to deal with the enemy ADS well before manned "'vanilla" strikers are sent in?

The kindest thing I can think of is that his enthusiasm to get himself attention has resulted in him forgetting the basic principles and recent history of electronic and emssion warfare and its use as a vehicle of suppression. I suspect that I'm being much too generous in thinking that he doctored a scenario to assist his view of how flat the combat earth is....

 

[Aussie Digger]

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.

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.

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.

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

Kopp overlooks fact however.

He insists upon using the "2x internal AMRAAM" metric, despite L-M confirming F-35 will have 4x AMRAAM carriage capability from Block 3 onwards and 6x internal carriage capability from Block 5 onwards.

He insists upon the great technological advance of the Russian/Chinese fighter, missile and radar systems, yet refuses to acknowledge similar or greater developments in the West.

He insists upon using operational data reviews of AIM-120A AMRAAM combat performance, yet makes no inclusion of improved AMRAAM capability during that same time.

AIM-120A was not re-programmable, had no HOJ capability and one expects, relatively limited ECCM capability. Many fighters that employed it, didn't even have a data-link capability capable of mid-course updates.

How this is relevent to C-5/7 or D model AMRAAM's I have no idea...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yes, I winced at that Pig reference too.

And he compromises the sincerity test by including it. Somehow, the F-111 with a low survivability score and must be escorted by dedicated defenders (according to RAAF), can go into contested battlespace and is more useful than a 5th generation platform that can have higher autonomy and enter threat space more easily?

Oh wait, this is the precursor for stating that you buddy up the F-111 with the F-22

No wonder he's regarded as an idealogical academic troll....

:nutkick

 

[B.Smitty]

Understood, however, if you are getting tracked/engaged, and you dont believe that it is going to change by just stooging along, clearly minimizing RCS no longer matters, getting out of dodge does matter.

When you are on Ingress, I fail to see how the radar is going to have a view on the Nozzle, so once again AB is a consideration. The only problem with going to Burner is your IR signature, which is going to be affected by a whole host of things.

Well, of course, there are scenarios. If this is a penetrative strike, there may be SAM sites behind the F-35 as well.

But I agree, an F-35 could go burner before toss its SDBs.

Its all guess work. Educated perhaps. But to make an assumption as to the RCS from a photograph using the fuselage only, not knowing the surface treatments, not knowing any sneakybeaky crap the F35 has, not taking into account any supporting assets on either side - its a pretty long bow to draw meaningful conclusions. Its not like these assets are going head to head 1v1 if the real deal kicks off....

It is all educated guesswork. He is guessing that LM hasn't made any leaps in materials physics that would change the equation significantly.

IMHO, it's understandable that he does not take into account supporting assets because it is strictly a discussion of the F-35 capabilities and (alleged) limitations.

Certainly a larger discussion of such topics is appropriate, but it's important to understand the characteristics of individual platforms as well.

p.s. does anyone really believe the US is not going to have ECM in their latest fighter... cmon...

Well, it does have a passive ECM suite, along with flares and chaff. To my knowledge, there has been no mention of an active component, outside using the APG-81 as an S/X band jammer.

They COULD be keeping it a secret, for some reason, but given how much we know about the rest of the aircraft, I think that's unlikely.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Certainly a larger discussion of such topics is appropriate, but it's important to understand the characteristics of individual platforms as well.

Nobody fights at the platform level - they fight at the systems and symbiotic level.

Thats just a convenient argument used to escape proper rigour. (not directed at you - but at him for having the gall to say it with a straight face)

In fact when he gets on a roll and argues for the F-111 and F-22 combo he actually self declares by proxy the use of systems responses rather than platform responses.

he can't have his cake and eat it as well....

 

[B.Smitty]

Since 1982 - when and where was the last instance of an air campaign being mounted sans supression of the defenders ADS?

Baghdad in '91? Certainly there was suppression of the overall Iraqi early warning and C4I nodes, but not of Baghdad itself, IIRC. I will go back and see if I can find any mention of it.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Baghdad in '91? Certainly there was suppression of the overall Iraqi early warning and C4I nodes, but not of Baghdad itself, IIRC. I will go back and see if I can find any mention of it.

In 91 all the network nodes were compromised prior to Zero hour. It included helicopter strikes, Special forces insertions and logic bugs. F-117's were tasked with specials and secondary hub targets. Tomohawks were also tasked for specials.

 

[B.Smitty]

Nobody fights at the platform level - they fight at the systems and symbiotic level.

Nobody fights at the platform level, but it's pretty important to understand what you are (and aren't) getting for your money.

If you're paying twice as much to get narrow, frontal VLO, marginal range increases and sensors/comms which could go on any 4 gen aircraft, is it really worth it?

I admit, I'm looking at this from a U.S.-centric view. We already have a more survivable aircraft in production - the F-22 - with known costs that are actually going down with each aircraft we produce. We also have several proven, significantly less expensive, 4th gen designs still in production.

Do we really need the F-35?

 

[B.Smitty]

In 91 all the network nodes were compromised prior to Zero hour. It included helicopter strikes, Special forces insertions and logic bugs. F-117's were tasked with specials and secondary hub targets. Tomohawks were also tasked for specials.

I wonder, given this level of SEAD/DEAD, would we have felt comfortable sending the F-35 to perform the same mission?

What if we were to fast forward and replay the same ODS Baghdad scenario in 2020, with modern SAM systems replacing the old systems used by the Iraqis?

If Kopp's RCS analysis is correct, my guess would be 'Maybe' to the first scenario, and 'No' to the second.

Would we send the F-22 or B-2 in the second?

 

[Aussie Digger]

I wonder, given this level of SEAD/DEAD, would we have felt comfortable sending the F-35 to perform the same mission?

What if we were to fast forward and replay the same ODS Baghdad scenario in 2020, with modern SAM systems replacing the old systems used by the Iraqis?

If Kopp's RCS analysis is correct, my guess would be 'Maybe' to the first scenario, and 'No' to the second.

Would we send the F-22 or B-2 in the second?

I think the F-35 and the weapons it will be using will be quite comfortable engaging any likely threat.

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/video/JASSM-z-28-jul-08_2.mpg

 

[B.Smitty]

I think the F-35 and the weapons it will be using will be quite comfortable engaging any likely threat.

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/video/JASSM-z-28-jul-08_2.mpg

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.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Why is it that every time we want to have a discussion on the F-35 and F-22 it ends up being about Carlo Kopp and the RAAF? This crap just pollutes any discussion on this i come across.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I have to go, so I'll make this quick:
1. Anytime you use SAR, and illuminate a SAM/AAA site, it sees the full emition, not some "fleeting EM source". If the SAM/AAA is well camofloged, then the SAR may not even pick it up. If it does pick it up, it may not be able to recognise it. In all these cases, the combo of the better SAR of the F-35, the EOTS, and the DAS makes unexpected GBAD less likely.

1. Your assuming the SAM/AAA site has sophisticated ESM equipment, not necessarily so.

2.The EM source is fleeting because its only emitting while the scan is taking place, once the scan is complete the source goes cold and thus it is "fleeting". Emission power has nothing to do with it.

3. If the GBAD detects the SAR scan all it has s a threat bearing, it wont be able to geo locate the source without multiple bearings. Thus this information is useless to anyone without range information, including the battery being interrogated.

4.Any operational high end SAM threat (ala S300 PMU) will have very large TEL's and also large (and moving) PESA antennas deployed (ala the 10m high Big Bird). While operating these systems are not easily camouflaged. Any tactical SAM's or AAA which can be camouflaged more effectively are likely to be out of range as the F-22A would most likely be penetrating at high altitude.

Below are pictures of a Deployed S-300 PMU battery, you think 3rd gen AESA generated SAR is going to have trouble spotting that?

5. EO DAS is only going to be used for targeting GBAD if the threat is VERY close and under any cloud cover (much more dangerous than using SAR). EOTS will enable the F-35A to engage the threat from altitude only if weather permits. If not (like most of the time during OAF) then the F-35A will be using SAR for targeting.

2. As far as the DAS being virtually the same as MAWS, the DAS is much better. The DAS provides not only launch and tracking but also IIR imagery of all air and ground targets. It enables over the shoulder AIM shots without having to use the HMD. Check this pdf for some nice SAR and DAS imagery from the F-35.

5. Mate you need to read what your quoting, you've basically repeated what I said and drew a different conclusion. I never said the MAWS was "virtually the same as EO DAS" I said it was developed from the F-22A's MAWS. As i stated earlier the major benefits are in the A2A regime (not relevant to this discussion) and the ability to display IR imagery in the HMD. If the GBAD site is close enough to be targeted through the EO DAS then the platform is probably close enough to be compromised by all and sundry at low level. If either platform is engaged by a missile both the MAWS and EO DAS will provide the driver with threat baring information (what they're both designed for), the only difference is the Lightning driver will be able to view the threat with IIR. Pretty small advantage in the circumstance i would say considering both systems will communicate the same information.

3. All the features for the F-35 are paid for and WILL happen. Upgrades for the F-22 are NOT PAID for and have been trimmed back for even the ones that they have planned on.

6. That may be true, but if you want to follow that line of logic we shouldn't even be discussing this because the F-22A exists in the real world and the F-35A is a test and development program (ok and some LRIP). One exists and the other one doesn't. Thats why I prefer to discuss what is reasonably likely, as I'm sure the F-35A will see squadron service, but we cant be certain can we?

Thus your stacking the cards in your favor, by comparing the F-35A of 2015~2020 and the F-22A of 2009.

4. The difference between the F-22 and F-35's RCS, when compared to legacy systems, is very small.

7. But were not comparing other platforms, we're comparing these two, thus comparing performance of legacy platforms is irrelevant.

 

[Aussie Digger]

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.

A. I'm not sure they are all that cheaper. Particularly as in the Block II Super Hornet configuration that USN wants and nothing less than an evolved F-16 (AESA etc) would satisfy the USAF. New build Super Hornets and new build F-16's would still be needed to replace worn out legacy USAF/USN fleets. USMC fixed wing airpower would suffer as they'd be forced to go to Super Hornet and lose STOVL capability.

B. The F-35 is STILL a VLO fighter and this has enormous benefits in ATA, CAS AND strike and recce missions. Does every mission require "penetration of S-400 equipped IADS systems?" Is an aircraft at threat when facing legacy SAM systems and fighters? Of course it is.

You're also assuming Kopp is even close to being right. I prefer to assume the 11 Defence Departments that have analysed the aircraft and found it IS the most capable and suitable aircraft out of the current crop of tactical fighters, are making a more accurate assumption...

C. You are ignoring the other basic qualities of the platform. Fuel fraction, internal weapons, sensor and avionics packages.

Sure you could put the F-35's sensor and avionics into another airframe (except for DAS) but at what cost? You'd need a significant design phase, significant testing and development period all to gain a new build 4th gen fighter with capable avionics and sensors, that still features limited range and payload capability in non-LO shell. What a bargain...

It'd be easier though not necessarily cheaper, to buy more SH Bk II and Block 60 F-16's, but neither USN nor USAF are convinced they are adequate to deal with future threats and the US allies have already shown they're not interested in these aircraft for their future fighter requirements. That will have more than a minimal impact on US fighter development in the near future...