Yep, the small radar in the seeker of active radar guided missiles are going to have trouble "seeing" LO aircraft, at a useful range, thats where IR guided missiles will come into their own, mica IR may well be very useful indeed.
Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates
ASRAAM may even become a better load out than AMRAAM due to its long range. Another reason for the RAAF to retain them as the HUGBUGs retire.
The UK has paid to integrate ASRAAM onto the F-35B...
Doesn't mean that this integration will automatically just carry over onto the -A model...
In addition to which, I haven't seen anywhere that ASRAAM has been upgraded since released to service. It's still running with the same seeker as AIM-9X Block I... As seen with Australia's recent request AIM-9X is already in-service on Block II standard and work is on Block III. Perhaps RAAF aren't real happy with the level of follow-on support and improvement on ASRAAM? No such issue arises with AIM-9X and we have to operate that weapon anyway, with the Super Hornets...
AMRAAM's radar seeker I understand only becomes active in the terminal phase of flight anyway. In the -D variant at least (which is what we'll likely be operating by then) it uses the fighter radar, data-links and GPS/INS to navigate on it's flight profile to a predicted impact point and home on jam and active radar guidance capabilities to target in the last stages of it's flight.
LO aircraft may have an advantage against radars, but the user with the greatest understanding of LO (ie: the USA) is still happy employing future variants of radar guided weapons as their primary air intercept missile...
I don't think they'd bother given the passive advantages of IR guided weapons, if it was really that important. It would be easy enough to adapt the AIM-9X seeker onto the AMRAAM missile body (in fact they already have for NCADE) but they are still investing in radar guidance as the primary seeker technology for their primary weapons.
Look at SM-6...
A lot of the integration work will carry over however - UAI means that getting the missile to talk to an F35 is a done once on any model, done on all aircraft with UAI - that leaves carriage and separation trials to be done to make sure the thing comes out of the bay okay and doesn't do a loop straight into a control surface or whatever.
I suspect given the lack of development work on ASRAAM then shifting to 9X Block II is the smarter move however. Be interested to see if the aerial component for CAMM does emerge however (ASRAAM body and warhead with a radar seeker--wonder if that's where the future of ASRAAM is?)
Besides AMRAAM/ASRAAM/AIM-9X, it'll be interesting if anything eventuates out of the CUDA concept that was unveiled last year. As far as I remember that was using active radar guidance too.
A bit of info here: Lockheed Reveals New Air-Launched Missile Concepts | AWIN content from Aviation Week
A bit of info here: Lockheed Reveals New Air-Launched Missile Concepts | AWIN content from Aviation Week
The AF is being very tight-lipped about CUDA, allowing LM to reveal only the bare essentials. I think there is a very compelling case for carrying a dozen medium-range HTK missiles internally.
Depending on the range even a mixed internal loadout of 4 Cuda and 3 AMRAAM-D might be practical. No idea what the performance of the Cuda will be though (or even if it's going to lead to an operational weapon system) so it's hard to say at the moment.
Once you factor in the numbers of aircraft flying for a given mission and the datalinking capabilities of the F-35 you'd have a tremendous number of options for missile shots from different platforms, which is one reason why the idea of 4x AMRAAM internally doesn't bother me so much...
Lots of flexibility indeed... where I like having a lot of CUDAs is in a scenario where a limited number of F-35s may have to deal with a large swarm of incoming cruise missiles/ASHMs. Together with SM-6 in a maritime,scenario,,a significant portion of the threat may be neutralized at extended distances
weegee
Active Member
I came across these photos today after following this link from the Russian air force page.
bmpd -
I wonder what APA would make of these. Showing that the "much superior" Russian offerings can too carry missiles under their wings. I wonder if their LO will be effected? Probably not as much as the F35
:
bmpd -
I wonder what APA would make of these. Showing that the "much superior" Russian offerings can too carry missiles under their wings. I wonder if their LO will be effected? Probably not as much as the F35
:
Last edited:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4,211
Thank you for that notion. Now my head hurts.I came across these photos today after following this link from the Russian air force page.
bmpd -
I wonder what APA would make of these. Showing that the "much superior" Russian offerings can too carry missiles under their wings. I wonder if their LO will be effected? Probably not as much as the F35
Having taken a look at the pictures though, I do note that Russian does not appear to have learned (or perhaps is not applying) some of the shaping lessons which the US has. The slant angle of the tailfins for instance is different from the slant angle of the engine intakes...
-Cheers
Nick underscore
Member
RAAF MRRT's no.1 & no.5 undergoing Boom upgrade 3 (higher accuracy tanking larger aircraft) in Getafe, Spain through Airbus DS.
Seems Airbus are marketing the A330 MRRT "Enhanced" which features the above mentioned boom upgrade, plus other systems and structural improvements. Australia will be funding the cost with Airbus regarding Boom upgrade.
Not sure whether the RAAF will be taking on the structural and other mainly mission systems upgrades.
Not able as yet to post link, but mentioned on Janes yesterday.
Seems Airbus are marketing the A330 MRRT "Enhanced" which features the above mentioned boom upgrade, plus other systems and structural improvements. Australia will be funding the cost with Airbus regarding Boom upgrade.
Not sure whether the RAAF will be taking on the structural and other mainly mission systems upgrades.
Not able as yet to post link, but mentioned on Janes yesterday.
Always cracked me up when the russian and chinese kids used to dismiss LO - until they got their own
Is it a good idea to be first cab off the rank?
Sings waited again and are getting theirs with the upgrade. They aren't perfect but I wonder if they could put our pollies and procurement guys on one of their training courses?
Even the Indian kids are getting into the act. It's just some western european kids that think it's rubbish now and ofcource our ever-loving BS &coAlways cracked me up when the russian and chinese kids used to dismiss LO - until they got their own
I had a look this year's Review of the Defence Annual Report 2012-13 Submissions.
It isn't going to be nearly as entertaining, the usual suspects have packed up their tents and left
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary...ade/Defence_Annual_Report_2012-13/Submissions
Mind you Jense is trying, it's just that no one is taking the bait and is getting appropriate replies
Dr JENSEN: As a professional, having previously been a fighter pilot and also working in test and evaluation—and I do not know what level of classification of information you have of this—what is your assessment of the threat posed by the Russian T-50 PAK-FA and the Chinese J-20?
Mr Whalley : I really do not have sufficient knowledge of those systems to be able to comment. And I guess also that I do not have sufficient knowledge of our systems as they exist right now when it comes to (inaudible). So I would be reticent to comment.
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...nt/0b6ee58c-c085-45b2-b846-270356b353dc/0000"
this is interesting
General Michael Hostage: ""I believe that the comments I made in the interview with the Air Force Times on 2 February and my comments that [if] I do not keep the F22 viable and the F35 frankly will be irrelevant have been taken out of context by folks in Australia [and the internet]. The overall context was an acquisition focus about building the United States military force capable of independently engaging a near-peer competitor on their own turf with the densest and most dangerous integrated air defence system. I was asked why I needed to upgrade the F22 if I had the F35. I said in that context a reduced USAA F fleet of 763 F35s — we had just finished a conversation on how I needed 1 , 763 F35s and not a single aircraft less — would not provide the air combat capability necessary without the additional 180-plus F22 s. The question I answered was about the F22, not the F35. Of note, I used the reference to the F35 to emphasise the importance of the F22, not to denigrate the F35. It was in that context of an independent US major combat operations with a near- peer competitor. ""
It goes on, but I will table the rest of the comments.
http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...nt/0b6ee58c-c085-45b2-b846-270356b353dc/0000"
Last edited:
it's less about procurement, it's more about the govt processes and gate elements.
3litres of water won't go into a 2litre container.
Where is this quote from?
from the link below it
ParlInfo - Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 06/06/2014 : Department of Defence annual report 2012-13
CHAIR: If you can condense it to the maximum extent possible, that would be great.
Air Marshal Browne : He said:[General Michael Hostage]: ""I believe that the comments I made in the interview with the Air Force Times on 2 February and my comments that [if] I do not keep the F22 viable and the F35 frankly will be irrelevant have been taken out of context by folks in Australia [and the internet]. The overall context was an acquisition focus about building the United States military force capable of independently engaging a near-peer competitor on their own turf with the densest and most dangerous integrated air defence system. I was asked why I needed to upgrade the F22 if I had the F35. I said in that context a reduced USAA F fleet of 763 F35s — we had just finished a conversation on how I needed 1 , 763 F35s and not a single aircraft less — would not provide the air combat capability necessary without the additional 180-plus F22 s. The question I answered was about the F22, not the F35. Of note, I used the reference to the F35 to emphasise the importance of the F22, not to denigrate the F35. It was in that context of an independent US major combat operations with a near- peer competitor. ""
the other section from the same link is
Dr JENSEN: You referred to General Hostage's comment. I just want to read into the record exactly what he said, because it is pretty damned unambiguous:
If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.
It is all very well trying to nuance it, set it up in context and so on. You have got three options: he is lying, he is telling the truth or he is incompetent. Which is it?
Air Marshal Browne : Like I said, I have read the previous one. You have selectively quoted from him. If I just go back a bit further on that quote, it puts a little bit more context on it. He is talking about the F22:
Then, I have to go through the [service life extension plan] and [cost and assessment program evaluation] efforts with airplanes to try to get modern technology into my legacy fleet. That is why the current upgrade programs to the F-22 I put easily as critical as my F-35 fleet.
Then he goes on to the quote. I asked my guy who has flown the F22 how he interpreted that. If you will bear with me, I will read his answer. This is a person who is a fighter combat instructor who has had 3½ years on the F22. He said:
'The US has the luxury of having two exceptionally well-designed fifth generation fighter aircraft. A combination of F35 and F22 may allow the USAF to role differentiate, if it chooses, between purely air-to-air and multirole functions. With only 189 F22As, it is not possible nor practical to assume that the F22A and the F35 will operate jointly in all cases. The F22 and F35 will most certainly operate independently in a large percentage of mission sets. The F22 was designed, from its inception, as a single role air superiority fighter, as a direct replacement for the F15C. It should be noted, however, that the F22A, as a single role platform, was nearly cancelled. JDAM, SDB and other air-to-ground functionality has been slowly added to the F22 to keep it capable and relevant in other than just air-to-air roles.
He goes on:
'The USAF knows that it is not financially viable to have a $100 million plus platform dedicated to a single task in these physical types. Integration with these capabilities has not been without its challenges. The F22 remains an incredible but role and weapons limited fighter when compared directly to the F35. An F35 configured in the air- to-ground role is just like any other strike platform. It has limited air-to-air self-protection capability when its weapons bays and pylons are largely being utilised for air-to-ground missions. It is important to acknowledge, however, that the F35's low observable design, sensor fusion and electronic attack capability make it the most survivable, networked and lethal aircraft ever designed.
You do not send single-role strike platforms against near peer adversaries without dedicated air support and escort. This escort role, however, may be equally performed by an F35 or F22 aircraft. In Australia's context, we will intelligently stack our packages as a direct result of the threat that we fight on any given day. Dedicated strike assets require dedicated air support. The F35 will do both.'
Dr JENSEN: Regardless of that lengthy lecture—and I appreciate it—the fact is it was still a very strong comment and very unambiguous, that the F35 needs the F22 and the F35 without the F22 is irrelevant. That was his comment.
Air Marshal Browne : Dr Jensen if I can just point back to the previous comments I made where he clarified those particular claims—
Dr JENSEN: They can be clarified but they stand. Your clarification is on record.
Air Marshal Browne : They are actually from the man who made the comment. I have just read to you an explanation on how to use fifth generation aircraft by one of my most experienced fighter combat instructors, who has flown the F22 for 3½ years. I do not think there are many people more expert anywhere in the world than the person whose comments I have just read out.
Dr JENSEN: In 1999—this is obviously before Lockheed Martin was selected as the preferred vendor—Lieutenant General Gregory Martin, who was then the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, in a statement to Congress said that the F22 optimised for the air-to-air role provides air dominance and enables an affordable JSF which is optimised for the air-to-ground capability to provide precision engagement. He further stated that the JSF will be designed as a stealthy multirole air-to-ground fighter reliant on the enabling force of the air dominant F22. Is his testimony false?
Air Marshal Browne : Well, it was taken in 1999. What I would like to offer to you, Dr Jensen, is if we could go in camera and I could give you some descriptions of further discussions I have had over F22 versus F35.
ParlInfo - Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 06/06/2014 : Department of Defence annual report 2012-13
CHAIR: If you can condense it to the maximum extent possible, that would be great.
Air Marshal Browne : He said:[General Michael Hostage]: ""I believe that the comments I made in the interview with the Air Force Times on 2 February and my comments that [if] I do not keep the F22 viable and the F35 frankly will be irrelevant have been taken out of context by folks in Australia [and the internet]. The overall context was an acquisition focus about building the United States military force capable of independently engaging a near-peer competitor on their own turf with the densest and most dangerous integrated air defence system. I was asked why I needed to upgrade the F22 if I had the F35. I said in that context a reduced USAA F fleet of 763 F35s — we had just finished a conversation on how I needed 1 , 763 F35s and not a single aircraft less — would not provide the air combat capability necessary without the additional 180-plus F22 s. The question I answered was about the F22, not the F35. Of note, I used the reference to the F35 to emphasise the importance of the F22, not to denigrate the F35. It was in that context of an independent US major combat operations with a near- peer competitor. ""
the other section from the same link is
Dr JENSEN: You referred to General Hostage's comment. I just want to read into the record exactly what he said, because it is pretty damned unambiguous:
If I do not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant. The F-35 is not built as an air superiority platform. It needs the F-22.
It is all very well trying to nuance it, set it up in context and so on. You have got three options: he is lying, he is telling the truth or he is incompetent. Which is it?
Air Marshal Browne : Like I said, I have read the previous one. You have selectively quoted from him. If I just go back a bit further on that quote, it puts a little bit more context on it. He is talking about the F22:
Then, I have to go through the [service life extension plan] and [cost and assessment program evaluation] efforts with airplanes to try to get modern technology into my legacy fleet. That is why the current upgrade programs to the F-22 I put easily as critical as my F-35 fleet.
Then he goes on to the quote. I asked my guy who has flown the F22 how he interpreted that. If you will bear with me, I will read his answer. This is a person who is a fighter combat instructor who has had 3½ years on the F22. He said:
'The US has the luxury of having two exceptionally well-designed fifth generation fighter aircraft. A combination of F35 and F22 may allow the USAF to role differentiate, if it chooses, between purely air-to-air and multirole functions. With only 189 F22As, it is not possible nor practical to assume that the F22A and the F35 will operate jointly in all cases. The F22 and F35 will most certainly operate independently in a large percentage of mission sets. The F22 was designed, from its inception, as a single role air superiority fighter, as a direct replacement for the F15C. It should be noted, however, that the F22A, as a single role platform, was nearly cancelled. JDAM, SDB and other air-to-ground functionality has been slowly added to the F22 to keep it capable and relevant in other than just air-to-air roles.
He goes on:
'The USAF knows that it is not financially viable to have a $100 million plus platform dedicated to a single task in these physical types. Integration with these capabilities has not been without its challenges. The F22 remains an incredible but role and weapons limited fighter when compared directly to the F35. An F35 configured in the air- to-ground role is just like any other strike platform. It has limited air-to-air self-protection capability when its weapons bays and pylons are largely being utilised for air-to-ground missions. It is important to acknowledge, however, that the F35's low observable design, sensor fusion and electronic attack capability make it the most survivable, networked and lethal aircraft ever designed.
You do not send single-role strike platforms against near peer adversaries without dedicated air support and escort. This escort role, however, may be equally performed by an F35 or F22 aircraft. In Australia's context, we will intelligently stack our packages as a direct result of the threat that we fight on any given day. Dedicated strike assets require dedicated air support. The F35 will do both.'
Dr JENSEN: Regardless of that lengthy lecture—and I appreciate it—the fact is it was still a very strong comment and very unambiguous, that the F35 needs the F22 and the F35 without the F22 is irrelevant. That was his comment.
Air Marshal Browne : Dr Jensen if I can just point back to the previous comments I made where he clarified those particular claims—
Dr JENSEN: They can be clarified but they stand. Your clarification is on record.
Air Marshal Browne : They are actually from the man who made the comment. I have just read to you an explanation on how to use fifth generation aircraft by one of my most experienced fighter combat instructors, who has flown the F22 for 3½ years. I do not think there are many people more expert anywhere in the world than the person whose comments I have just read out.
Dr JENSEN: In 1999—this is obviously before Lockheed Martin was selected as the preferred vendor—Lieutenant General Gregory Martin, who was then the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, in a statement to Congress said that the F22 optimised for the air-to-air role provides air dominance and enables an affordable JSF which is optimised for the air-to-ground capability to provide precision engagement. He further stated that the JSF will be designed as a stealthy multirole air-to-ground fighter reliant on the enabling force of the air dominant F22. Is his testimony false?
Air Marshal Browne : Well, it was taken in 1999. What I would like to offer to you, Dr Jensen, is if we could go in camera and I could give you some descriptions of further discussions I have had over F22 versus F35.
he can kiss his cushy job at BAE Australia Goodbye when he retires
Air Marshal Browne : I think it gets back to the difference in the commentary, what is important and what is important in future fighters. Fundamentally, with speed these days—you know the Mirage was a lot faster than an F18 but nobody would want to be in a Mirage against an F18. I have flown a Typhoon—and, frankly, I will win no popularity contests with BAE—but I would still rather be in a classic Hornet.
The difference is in what people understand is important in air combat. It is the situation awareness that you have is important—that is all important. Manoeuvrability is important when you are defensive and that is the only time when it comes to be important. Manoeuvrability since helmet-mounted sights has become far less important in offensive situations, because with a helmet-mounted sight and an off-boresight missile you do not have to manoeuvre to somebody at 6 o'clock. You can actually shoot them when they are in your 6 o'clock almost—that is the difference. I would say it is a difference in what is important in air combat capability. What Lockheed Martin says, frankly, I have never taken much notice of.
Air Marshal Browne : I think it gets back to the difference in the commentary, what is important and what is important in future fighters. Fundamentally, with speed these days—you know the Mirage was a lot faster than an F18 but nobody would want to be in a Mirage against an F18. I have flown a Typhoon—and, frankly, I will win no popularity contests with BAE—but I would still rather be in a classic Hornet.
The difference is in what people understand is important in air combat. It is the situation awareness that you have is important—that is all important. Manoeuvrability is important when you are defensive and that is the only time when it comes to be important. Manoeuvrability since helmet-mounted sights has become far less important in offensive situations, because with a helmet-mounted sight and an off-boresight missile you do not have to manoeuvre to somebody at 6 o'clock. You can actually shoot them when they are in your 6 o'clock almost—that is the difference. I would say it is a difference in what is important in air combat capability. What Lockheed Martin says, frankly, I have never taken much notice of.
He is a child. You can transpose this argument across to the 5.56mm v 7.62mm ammunition debate. His POV is that because 7.62mm has some better ballistic characteristics in some parts of the energy chart, the 5.56mm round is inferior and therefore it's users will lose in combat.
To draw such a conclusion you have to rely on an astonishingly vast range of assumptions with everything 'being equal' except the characteristics you want to use to support your argument...
Get into the real world Jensen and forget this APA inspired lunacy. The real world isn't equal.
China doesn't fly as many tankers as the US does. It doesn't have as many AWACS as the US does. It's radars are different, it's missiles are different and it's tactics and doctrine are different.
You cannot "assume" everything is equal because it isn't and therefore your simplistic assumptions fall over.
Why the RAAF bothers arguing with this idiot I'll never understand. Run with the corporate line and be done with it. The F-35 could shoot down 100 PAK-FA's / J-20's tomorrow in nothing but 1 v 1 aerial engagements and all this actual combat experience still wouldn't convince these idiots otherwise.