F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked

[aussienscale]

Thanks for the info guy's, I fully appreciate what you are saying and agree that the F35 is the best option for the RAAF. It is good to see some real discussion on the subject rather than the usual tripe. Althought not for this thread, if this same reasoning for the F35 purchase is applied to the Tigers for the Army, makes you wonder how they come to that decision ?

 

[SpudmanWP]

LM Confirms 6 Internal AAM Capability

From Air Force Magazine

Squeezing In Two More Shots: Lockheed Martin’s “Skunkworks” operation has figured out a way to increase the F-35’s air-to-air magazine by 50 percent, company officials told the Daily Report Thursday. With “very modest” changes to the weapon bay and “no changes to the outer mold line,” it will be possible for F-35s to carry up to six AIM-120 AMRAAMs internally instead of the four that it can now bear, one official said. (In this configuration, the F-35 would carry no internal bombs.) With six AMRAAMs inside, the F-35 would match the radar-missile capability of the F-22, but without the Raptor’s two infrared AIM-9 missiles. The company is briefing the Defense Department about the potential weapons bay refinement, which could be done as a product improvement in later lots. Limited internal carriage for air-to-air weapons has been one criticism of the F-35 in some circles.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Thanks for the info guy's, I fully appreciate what you are saying and agree that the F35 is the best option for the RAAF. It is good to see some real discussion on the subject rather than the usual tripe. Althought not for this thread, if this same reasoning for the F35 purchase is applied to the Tigers for the Army, makes you wonder how they come to that decision ?

Army thought they were getting a reasonably capable armed helo that was cheaper to acquire and run than the Apache.

With the benefit of hindsight, it is now, not so sure that they are...

But as you say, let's stick to the F-35.

 

[bonehead]

anyway guys by the time this frigging lump of metal is in service stealth wont matter becasue while this goose is being built they have or are already beaten the stealth with new tech so the stealth argument in buying this plane is no longer an issue,

 

[Bonza]

anyway guys by the time this frigging lump of metal is in service stealth wont matter becasue while this goose is being built they have or are already beaten the stealth with new tech so the stealth argument in buying this plane is no longer an issue,

You can't say "stealth has been beaten with new technology" because it's not an individual set of parameters to be overcome. Low observability isn't dependent on a single technology, it's a principle pursued through multiple, varied forms of technology. As advancements in sensor/interception/etc technology have happened through history, low-observability has changed forms. As an example, go have a read (if you like) about the SR-71, the F-117, and the F-22. Consider the differences in application and form - and remember they were all considered LO platforms at their various times.

Stealth isn't a one off, yes/no thing.

 

[gf0012-aust]

anyway guys by the time this frigging lump of metal is in service stealth wont matter becasue while this goose is being built they have or are already beaten the stealth with new tech so the stealth argument in buying this plane is no longer an issue,

apparently the chinese and russians haven't received that memo yet....

emissions and signature management is but one component of LO development.

 

[Aussie Digger]

anyway guys by the time this frigging lump of metal is in service stealth wont matter becasue while this goose is being built they have or are already beaten the stealth with new tech so the stealth argument in buying this plane is no longer an issue,

A point of view supported by the "enormous" success defence's have had over many years of ensuring "stealth" aircraft are unable to complete their missions, eh?

Fact is this "game" is similar to the "arms v armour" debate. One side advances, the other plays catch up and so on.

Stealth has evolved and will continue to evolve. It will not be compromised because it is not one technical achievement. It is many technical achievements covering many areas.

Stealth is incorrect terminology, used by those with a very poor understanding of even the basics of the subject. The correct terminology is signature management and signature management will NEVER go out of fashion...

The signature management efforts inherent in the F-35 platform do not only cover radar, but IR spectrums and electronic spectrums (ie: emitter systems - comms gear, data-links, on-board radars, jamming systems etc) as well.

Technologies might indeed be built that counter extant systems on F-35, but assuming it's technologies will remain as they currently are, is stupid in the extreme.

A casual glance at the pre-planned block upgrade program shows that to be entirely un-true, let alone any real digging into the subject...

Here's a good document which shows, just how much effort and thought Lockheed Martin puts in, to considering future upgrades, threats and "technology Transition" with this platform.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA507623&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

 

[bonehead]

You can't say "stealth has been beaten with new technology" because it's not an individual set of parameters to be overcome. Low observability isn't dependent on a single technology, it's a principle pursued through multiple, varied forms of technology. As advancements in sensor/interception/etc technology have happened through history, low-observability has changed forms. As an example, go have a read (if you like) about the SR-71, the F-117, and the F-22. Consider the differences in application and form - and remember they were all considered LO platforms at their various times.

Stealth isn't a one off, yes/no thing.

Bonza as new platforms are designed so are the systems to defeat them, in this case one will be avail before the other, ie the AD system before the plane gets into service

 

[localhost127]

Bonza as new platforms are designed so are the systems to defeat them, in this case one will be avail before the other, ie the AD system before the plane gets into service

how can a defense system be available before the platform it is designed to target is operational? - and boast greater capabilities?

were more capable defense systems in place before the f-117 was operational, or even during? what about the b-2?

how can one make claims that a defense technology can defeat at platform - when that platform's LO characteristics are unknown, and certainly untested by the very defense system claiming to have such capabilities.

also, you appear to be discussing / looking at this from a single defense platform vs a single attacking platform - having one single technology in place to overcome another single technology. instead, i believe you should be comparing the attacking vs defending systems as a whole.

 

[gf0012-aust]

also, you appear to be discussing / looking at this from a single defense platform vs a single attacking platform - having one single technology in place to overcome another single technology. instead, i believe you should be comparing the attacking vs defending systems as a whole.

agreed, and to add rhetorically.

It was 17 years before anyone was able to make the claim that they could counter the F-117. In the end it was downed by a good lateral thinking ground commander who used his initiative. In some of the most highly contested sensor space in the world at the time of its first theatre and second theatre events - no one could see them coming. That includes when they ferried into the MEAO and every man and his dog had his ears up because they were nervous and unsure as to how effective the Iraqi ADS was. This included blue being "awake"

wrt to the B2, who with any confidence would claim to be able to sense and target them when in tactical mode? who has the systems to do so?

considering that every manned generation of US VLO technology platform has used different concepts and systems to achieve their return numbers, there is no such empirical thing as Stealth. I'm not sure how many times we need to state this, but "Stealth" or more correctly VLO or signature management is not a singular capability. The platforms don't only utilise onboard tools but also take advantage of other sympathetic in theatre capabilities - and also include planning events in concert with those capabilities. Contact evolves from the platform being informed at a situational appreciation and awareness level by all the supporting sensors in that area of conflict. VLO strike cues off of other assets such as SBR, fixed sensors from terran and maritime support, and from platforms such as the AWAC/AEW&C, JSTARs, Compass "nn" etc etc,,,,

Those who regard "stealth" as a singular concept really have not looked at or understood the capability at all. and for those who fixate on the Serbia/NATO events as the litmus test of its demise, really need to delve further.

Contact is a systems event - its NOT and has never been a platform event since 1991

we almost need to force people to read the sticky about the evolution of LO air to force some subject appreciation into the debate, because the old myths still exist and a lack of awareness of what VLO involves appears to be either non existent or deliberately ignored.

 

[bonehead]

agreed, and to add rhetorically.

It was 17 years before anyone was able to make the claim that they could counter the F-117. In the end it was downed by a good lateral thinking ground commander who used his initiative. In some of the most highly contested sensor space in the world at the time of its first theatre and second theatre events - no one could see them coming. That includes when they ferried into the MEAO and every man and his dog had his ears up because they were nervous and unsure as to how effective the Iraqi ADS was. This included blue being "awake"

wrt to the B2, who with any confidence would claim to be able to sense and target them when in tactical mode? who has the systems to do so?

considering that every manned generation of US VLO technology platform has used different concepts and systems to achieve their return numbers, there is no such empirical thing as Stealth. I'm not sure how many times we need to state this, but "Stealth" or more correctly VLO or signature management is not a singular capability. The platforms don't only utilise onboard tools but also take advantage of other sympathetic in theatre capabilities - and also include planning events in concert with those capabilities. Contact evolves from the platform being informed at a situational appreciation and awareness level by all the supporting sensors in that area of conflict. VLO strike cues off of other assets such as SBR, fixed sensors from terran and maritime support, and from platforms such as the AWAC/AEW&C, JSTARs, Compass "nn" etc etc,,,,

Those who regard "stealth" as a singular concept really have not looked at or understood the capability at all. and for those who fixate on the Serbia/NATO events as the litmus test of its demise, really need to delve further.

Contact is a systems event - its NOT and has never been a platform event since 1991

we almost need to force people to read the sticky about the evolution of LO air to force some subject appreciation into the debate, because the old myths still exist and a lack of awareness of what VLO involves appears to be either non existent or deliberately ignored.

Both the RAF Regt and 16 AD Regt tracked both the F117 as well as a B2 during early training sessions, with the rapier system, the new javlin system is muted equally capable of tracking the F22, the yanks were less then impressed when the RAF provided the target photos.

 

[Bonza]

Both the RAF Regt and 16 AD Regt tracked both the F117 as well as a B2 during early training sessions, with the rapier system, the new javlin system is muted equally capable of tracking the F22, the yanks were less then impressed when the RAF provided the target photos.

Please, do some more research before you make such catch-all and anecdotal statements. As I said before it's not a "yes or no" question, you have to understand the circumstances around individual situations before you can say how or why something was detected (and I'd also add that detection isn't necessarily the same as obtaining a tracking solution sufficient to target a weapon system).

I'm not trying to be condescending but I don't think you've understood GF's comments regarding the synergistic nature of enabling LO capability. You might also want to check out some more information on the Javelin SAM as it is a SACLOS (semi-automatic command line of sight) system and as such is really just for designating a target (which then must be kept in line of sight for the duration of the missile's flight), not "tracking".

 

[Todjaeger]

Both the RAF Regt and 16 AD Regt tracked both the F117 as well as a B2 during early training sessions, with the rapier system, the new javlin system is muted equally capable of tracking the F22, the yanks were less then impressed when the RAF provided the target photos.

Two questions come to mind. First, what is your source for this? Secondly, does your source specify where this occurred and under what conditions?

I ask because if the aircraft were tracked while not under EMCON, but during something like a ferry flight... It can/would make all the difference between whether the aircraft can/would be detected and tracked. IIRC the B-2 and/or the F-117 had a special radar reflector which would be deployed during some transit flights over US airspace, specifically to increase the aircraft's RCS sufficiently so that FAA ATC radars could track the flights to avoid mid-air collisions.

Similarly, if the Rapier system is capable of detecting 'stealth' aircraft from 3km away (the Rapier service ceiling) so what? With the capabilities of BVR missiles and standoff munitions, such distances would be meaning less. Even at the ~15km estimated range of the Rapier radar, that does not provide much advanced warning of the aircraft's presence.

Now if the source for the above information is reliable, indicates that the F-117s, B-2's or F-22's engaged in a sortie under the appropriate EMCON, and the detection/tracking provided target-quality data at range, that would be significant. However I believe I have heard of the incident being referenced and from what I recall it was during an exercise and the aircraft where not operating under EMCON IIRC.

-Cheers

 

[bonehead]

Two questions come to mind. First, what is your source for this? Secondly, does your source specify where this occurred and under what conditions?

I ask because if the aircraft were tracked while not under EMCON, but during something like a ferry flight... It can/would make all the difference between whether the aircraft can/would be detected and tracked. IIRC the B-2 and/or the F-117 had a special radar reflector which would be deployed during some transit flights over US airspace, specifically to increase the aircraft's RCS sufficiently so that FAA ATC radars could track the flights to avoid mid-air collisions.

Similarly, if the Rapier system is capable of detecting 'stealth' aircraft from 3km away (the Rapier service ceiling) so what? With the capabilities of BVR missiles and standoff munitions, such distances would be meaning less.

Now if the source for the above information is reliable, indicates that the F-117s, B-2's or F-22's engaged in a sortie under the appropriate EMCON, and the detection/tracking provided target-quality data at range, that would be significant. However I believe I have heard of the incident being referenced and from what I recall it was during an exercise and the aircraft where not operating under EMCON IIRC.

-Cheers

Tod

Your are correct as you have discussed this before, the rapier on the b2 was tracked from RAF HONINGTON while the plane was on way to an airshow, the F117 was tracked in kosovo, and the F22 at redflag the yanks requested a rapier system as a test system for aircraft on ground attack missions, yes rapier is designed for low level however the point of mentioning this was that stealth is a myth and aircraft with such claims can and will be tracked, the systems are already available, i also understand israel have already approched BAE systems to upgrade there versions, even if the b2 was operating on emcon it is still claimed even by the americans that it could have been tracked by rapier type systems at the same range, there was also an artical in international flight magazine in 2000 on this b2 incident,

its not what did it to who but the issue beeing systems are already available or will be to beat the so callled stealth of these planes, and mybe before the f35 is in service.

 

[Bonza]

the point of mentioning this was that stealth is a myth and aircraft with such claims can and will be tracked

With respect, it sounds like you're forming opinions based on your own assumptions about how LO works and what it's designed to do, rather than on knowledge. Yes, the aircraft CAN be tracked - but under what circumstances? As I've repeatedly stated (and it's been reinforced by posters far more knowledgeable than myself), it's not a black and white type scenario where an aircraft being tracked in a specific situation renders the entirety of signature management worthless.

You might also want to address the pattern of billions upon billions of dollars being spent globally on LO development, if it's so worthless. Every single major player in the military world is deploying or developing LO platforms - explain to me why they are spending billions on a "myth".

 

[bonehead]

With respect, it sounds like you're forming opinions based on your own assumptions about how LO works and what it's designed to do, rather than on knowledge. Yes, the aircraft CAN be tracked - but under what circumstances? As I've repeatedly stated (and it's been reinforced by posters far more knowledgeable than myself), it's not a black and white type scenario where an aircraft being tracked in a specific situation renders the entirety of signature management worthless.

You might also want to address the pattern of billions upon billions of dollars being spent globally on LO development, if it's so worthless. Every single major player in the military world is deploying or developing LO platforms - explain to me why they are spending billions on a "myth".

Bonza

LO is worth having, if it can help save the plane, you are correct it cannot be tracked or beaten in every case, many situations defer, i did not state that, i only pointed out that the stealth on the F35 can be beaten and is not and should not the the main reason to buy the frigging lump of metal, i do not form opions nor do i base my discussions on assumptons but on 22 years experiance in the forces, including 5 years in trails and development, and also people i know in the industry. but many thanks for pointing it out. maybe you would like to check out the following systems already being designed to counter the so called stealth systems

one being designed by Thales Holland called L-Band the other by SAAB called AASR system, remember SAAB also make grippen and BAE make rapier and the replacement starstreak

 

[gf0012-aust]

Both the RAF Regt and 16 AD Regt tracked both the F117 as well as a B2 during early training sessions, with the rapier system, the new javlin system is muted equally capable of tracking the F22, the yanks were less then impressed when the RAF provided the target photos.

sorry, thats been done to death on the other forums and explained to death as well.

F-117 and B2's over europe keep their FFT comms up - I have tried tp explain this to some kid on SP years ago. They have 3 antennas which are raised over friendly territory. a blind man without a dog would have seen them coming.

its an urban myth which doesn''t go away and has now unfort been accepted as fact. Its abject nonsense.

over the most saturated sensor space outside of the chinese east coast, the US does not have their VLO assets in tactical mode over such space,

again, when F-117's were being ferried into friendly space, there is documented traffic of those aircraft seeking permission to land on short finals... 4km out the GBR could not see them, even though they were WVR. Compare this to when they entered friendly space (at the airshow where the urban myth has grown to USAF unannounced visits) and where the Rapiers could obviously track them.

Having worked on the Rapier2 upgrade when contracted to BAe, I can assure you that its absolute rubbish that they tracked any VLO with its ears down.

 

[Marc 1]

Bonza

LO is worth having, if it can help save the plane, you are correct it cannot be tracked or beaten in every case, many situations defer, i did not state that, i only pointed out that the stealth on the F35 can be beaten and is not and should not the the main reason to buy the frigging lump of metal, i do not form opions nor do i base my discussions on assumptons but on 22 years experiance in the forces, including 5 years in trails and development, and also people i know in the industry. but many thanks for pointing it out.

Yes, it can be tracked if the operators want the aircraft to be tracked - if they do not want it to be tracked such as in combat they would use the aircraft differently. To use a different example - if you stick a fluorescent pink helmet on top of an otherwise well cammed up soldier, he will be seen - particularly if he is moving non tactically. Remove the fluoro cover from the helmet (the equivalent of stowing the radar reflector on the plane) and get the soldier to use the ground to best advantage and move with far more care and you will not see him anywhere near as easily.

To your comment: "is not and should not the the main reason to buy the frigging lump of metal"
I don't think anybody has suggested that the F35 is only being purchased because of its 'stealth'. The F35 is not being purchased because of its LO characteristics alone - even without the so called 'stealth' features it's range, performance, systems such as DAS, Link 16, the radar and weapons load are all competitive with or superior to most of the teen series machines in an operational sense*. Even without the LO features the F35 would be a credible upgrade to (in Australia's case) the FA/18A's and B's we presently have. The fact that the aircraft features an aditional 'feature' (if you will) in it's LO characteristics is a game changer. In modern BVR warfare, "he who see's first shoots first." You get the first shots away and then can due to the LO characteristics of you airframe decide whether to engage or not, you hold quite a few of the cards in any air battle.

*Note the use of "in an operational sense", I mention that deliberately to prevent some bozo (I'm not saying you) popping up and reminding me that the F15 is a Mach2 plus machine whereas the F35 is a Mach 1.8ish machine. In an operational terms, F15's don't go zipping around everywhere at Mach 2.5.

 

[Todjaeger]

Bonza

LO is worth having, if it can help save the plane, you are correct it cannot be tracked or beaten in every case, many situations defer, i did not state that, i only pointed out that the stealth on the F35 can be beaten and is not and should not the the main reason to buy the frigging lump of metal, i do not form opions nor do i base my discussions on assumptons but on 22 years experiance in the forces, including 5 years in trails and development, and also people i know in the industry. but many thanks for pointing it out. maybe you would like to check out the following systems already being designed to counter the so called stealth systems

one being designed by Thales Holland called L-Band the other by SAAB called AASR system, remember SAAB also make grippen and BAE make rapier and the replacement starstreak

The AASR system was cancelled a decade ago, before undergoing a hardware test. Incidentally, the system was already brought up and discussed (by myself and others) here on DT some time ago. Again revolving around the relevance of LO/VLO aircraft vs. detection capabilities. From what was brought up about the AASR system, while it was expected to have a comparatively low cost... It also had significant limitiations in terms of capability. Amongst them was that it was intended to detect the radar "shadow" a LO aircraft or cruise missile would cast while within the AASR detection grid. The requirement that the object be within the detection grid would have mean that it was already within Swedish airspace, therefore it would only allow a response to an intrusion, and not prevent an intrusion.

IIRC the examples I gave of methods to eliminate such a system were to start with some of the exterior transceivers and target them to 'cut' corridors through the grid. And/or locate and destroy the data collation point(s) or trunk lines. Heck, given that the system was expected to require 900 nodes to cover Sweden, a number of the nodes could likely have been attacked by infiltrators in the run-up to or the commencement of hostilities. A single person with the correct knowledge and equipment would likely have been able to disable or destroy one, and IMO there would have been no real, practical way that they could all have been defended as that would have required several thousand personnel on guard duty alone, at all times.

What you seem to be projecting is that the developments in terms of detection capabilities are outstripping the developments in sig management and LO/VLO aircraft. Given the operational history of LO/VLO combat aircraft and the fact that the US is on it's third generation of LO/VLO combat aircraft, it does seem that detection capabilities are somewhat behind the curve, not ahead of it.

-Cheers

 

[bonehead]

Yes, it can be tracked if the operators want the aircraft to be tracked - if they do not want it to be tracked such as in combat they would use the aircraft differently. To use a different example - if you stick a fluorescent pink helmet on top of an otherwise well cammed up soldier, he will be seen - particularly if he is moving non tactically. Remove the fluoro cover from the helmet (the equivalent of stowing the radar reflector on the plane) and get the soldier to use the ground to best advantage and move with far more care and you will not see him anywhere near as easily.

To your comment: "is not and should not the the main reason to buy the frigging lump of metal"
I don't think anybody has suggested that the F35 is only being purchased because of its 'stealth'. The F35 is not being purchased because of its LO characteristics alone - even without the so called 'stealth' features it's range, performance, systems such as DAS, Link 16, the radar and weapons load are all competitive with or superior to most of the teen series machines in an operational sense*. Even without the LO features the F35 would be a credible upgrade to (in Australia's case) the FA/18A's and B's we presently have. The fact that the aircraft features an aditional 'feature' (if you will) in it's LO characteristics is a game changer. In modern BVR warfare, "he who see's first shoots first." You get the first shots away and then can due to the LO characteristics of you airframe decide whether to engage or not, you hold quite a few of the cards in any air battle.

*Note the use of "in an operational sense", I mention that deliberately to prevent some bozo (I'm not saying you) popping up and reminding me that the F15 is a Mach2 plus machine whereas the F35 is a Mach 1.8ish machine. In an operational terms, F15's don't go zipping around everywhere at Mach 2.5.

LOL yes i know the f35 is not being sold just because of the LO issue however it is being pushed very heavy by lockheed as a major factor why you should buy it, in Australia its a case of do we really need an aircraft with such capability at the moment or would the F18 be suitable and more cost effective to keep and upgrade as required! the orginal question was is it doomed while we have gone off track a little i still maintain it has come along at the wrong time for the countries to commit to actual signed production contracts. and as such could be doomed as a result of pricing its self out of the market. issues with LO and the ongoing engine issues and raising costs are not helping. and your comment on how you use the aircraft is very important point. as with any equipment it can be the best in the world but its down to the man on the day using it.