F-16.net

It cant be "cracked" such thinking only shows your ineptitude when dealing with such technology. Its a combination of design and proper use that allows an aircraft to be stealthy. And the laws of physics govern its effectiveness.

Stealth only gives you an advantage in drastically lowering your detection by radar and IR (which both the F-22A and F-35 do).

When properly used with ELINT, standoff jamming, and proper flight profiles, then no advance in radar technology can give you a substantial edge.

As time goes by, maybe by the end of the century, we may use systems that do not rely on radio waves. But those days are nowhere near, and the best radars in the world reside in the USA. Constantly being used to improve our own stealth tactics.

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

What's with some of you people? Since when is someone not allowed to express their opinion, without getting flamed? I agree with FireFox's view on the F-35 (as I've never really cared much about the whole JSF idea anyway...), and I also personally believe that for $200+ billion, something BETTER could have (and should have) come out of an F-16 (my favorite aircraft/machine of all time, might I add) replacement. But I suppose that it's too late now, as the F-35 appears to be a "done deal" by now. Crying or Very sad

This may not be "jsfsucks.com ", but this is F-16.net, a site dedicated to the F-16. As we all are "F-16 fanatics", I don't see why we should only talk in a positive tone towards the F-16 replacement.

So... its ok for him to rip on the JSF? But I cant take a position in defense?

Quote:

So... its ok for him to rip on the JSF? But I cant take a position in defense?

Of course you can and should but it is the way that you and some others do it. Leave the abuse and condesending remarks at the door and try to be a bit more civil.

Quote:

Snypa
I think you advocate a high end solution? I could be reading you incorrectly here.. If a higher spec` aircraft were fielded (read-more expensive) the same assumption regarding the compromise of stealthy aircraft would still apply, including the F-22.

Yes you are correct. I think we need many more F-22s. While a Raptor's stealth may also be compromised (remember it is assumed it is more stealthy than JSF) it still has something the JSF does not. Raw performance. It can fly higher or lower faster. It has a better rate of climb and at the end of the day I bet (my opinion) it will be much more maneuverable than JSF. Couple it with twin engines and you have a survivable bird even without stealth. I'm not sure you can say the same for the JSF.

Quote:

Firefox
Too bad the AF isn't pursuing that B-1R!

For good reason. It would only have 1/2 the range of the original.

Quote:

Skipr
Reading the 1st paragraph of both articles is just testament to the sensationalist claims of people in power who only want to spend F-35 program money on their own crap.

I reread both paragraphs. Where is the sensationalism. It is a fact the purchase has already been cut by 72 due to rising costs and an extended development cycle. The two sources are not the Washington Post. They are shooting straight.

Quote:

In the end, the naysayers only have their words, and cannot do crap to the program since it is within its budget and timeframe.

Can you cite any recent article from a credible source that supports this?

Quote:

Snypa
Now, use an all LO force and the defenders game gets much harder does it not? Would you fly a Strike Eagle into a still dangerous environment or a LO F-35? Right now stealth works, it may not work as well in the future but the same applies to the F-22, right?

Point well taken. Some of the money spent on the JSF could/should be spent on more numbers/capable F-22s, stealthy UCAVs and improved cruise missiles. While there are "Kosovo" quality AD elsewhere it is not as prolific as the older ADs. Application of above such force makes it possible to put boots on the ground. Boots on the ground seek out those AD batteries in hiding and bayonet the SOBs manning them.

Quote:

Snypa
If you launch a JDAM at a russian built TOR M SAM site, the site can shoot the thing down if you believe what the Russians say about it`s capabilities along with LGB.

LOL. Just like they jammed GPS guided bombs in Iraq and shot down 4000 AC in Vietnam.

Quote:

agilefalcon16
and I also personally believe that for $200+ billion, something BETTER could have (and should have) come out of an F-16 (my favorite aircraft/machine of all time, might I add) replacement. But I suppose that it's too late now, as the F-35 appears to be a "done deal" by now.

I could not have said it better myself.

Thumper3181 wrote:

Quote:

Skipr
Reading the 1st paragraph of both articles is just testament to the sensationalist claims of people in power who only want to spend F-35 program money on their own crap.

I reread both paragraphs. Where is the sensationalism. It is a fact the purchase has already been cut by 72 due to rising costs and an extended development cycle. The two sources are not the Washington Post. They are shooting straight.

Quote:

In the end, the naysayers only have their words, and cannot do crap to the program since it is within its budget and timeframe.

Can you cite any recent article from a credible source that supports this?

Both articles cited the increase ad cost and extended development as if it were a "bad" thing. When in fact, these increases were anticipated early on in the program. It has gone from purely developmental, to prototypical (with the production of the 1st F-35 test aircraft).

As for extended development, this is a result of a revision in the design of the aircraft, and re-prioritization of prototype development. They decided that all efforts would be made to iron-out the F-35B design as it was the most complex of the three.

Flight International did a whole piece on the F-35 when it was officially named. And went into detail about how the program is arranged.

skrip00 wrote:

It cant be "cracked" such thinking only shows your ineptitude when dealing with such technology. Its a combination of design and proper use that allows an aircraft to be stealthy. And the laws of physics govern its effectiveness.

Stealth only gives you an advantage in drastically lowering your detection by radar and IR (which both the F-22A and F-35 do).

When properly used with ELINT, standoff jamming, and proper flight profiles, then no advance in radar technology can give you a substantial edge.

As time goes by, maybe by the end of the century, we may use systems that do not rely on radio waves. But those days are nowhere near, and the best radars in the world reside in the USA. Constantly being used to improve our own stealth tactics.

Sorry, but I am a very educated person in matters of physics, mathematics, and engineering. You are obviously not aware of what is taking place in research facilities/companies/universities in regards to low RCS aircraft detection. I don't know your background, nor do I care to inquire.... But I do know what is being "researched".

Clearly when one examines the problem/nature of "stealth", with proper perspective it is logical to conclude that something which exists in material form interacts with its surroundings... be said interactions electro/magnetic/optical/heat/ect/ect. As computer/electrical/software technology developes logically over a time table which is well within the lifetime of the B-2, F-22, and F-35 (and anything else not yet public), detection ranges will drop to manageable levels for targeting requirements.
(Do such systems already exist? Hm?)

There are I am certain already prototype "stealth busters" being a) field tested, or b) being engineered for field testing.

If a British ship in GWI spotted F-117's on their missions.... 15 years ago, it doesn't take Albert Einstein to draw up engineering schematics for something more purposefully designed for "stealth" aircraft detection.

Unless an aircraft is a "black body," it radiates 'something', it interacts when 'probed', and it is i.e. detectable -- Governed by very very fundemental principles of p h y s i c s.

"Stealth" has a tactical usefullness, but I dare say that the strategic (as thought of 30 years ago) intent has been nibbled away here and there.

Stealth (RCS reduction) will ALWAYS have tactical usefulness and will never be obsolete. The point of diminishing returns is when your adversary goes stealthy too (again, I mean RCS reduced). Even in this scenario, it would be retarded to not consider RCS reduction in your designs and revert back to "conventional" designs. Stealth is now the convention despite the "stealth-obsolete-maker" detector (even if it really is/will be fielded); any military enterprise that hasn't figured that one out will be filling for chapter 11 soon.

Thats physics

FireFox137 wrote:

Sorry, but I am a very educated person in matters of physics, mathematics, and engineering. You are obviously not aware of what is taking place in research facilities/companies/universities in regards to low RCS aircraft detection. I don't know your background, nor do I care to inquire.... But I do know what is being "researched".

Clearly when one examines the problem/nature of "stealth", with proper perspective it is logical to conclude that something which exists in material form interacts with its surroundings... be said interactions electro/magnetic/optical/heat/ect/ect. As computer/electrical/software technology developes logically over a time table which is well within the lifetime of the B-2, F-22, and F-35 (and anything else not yet public), detection ranges will drop to manageable levels for targeting requirements.
(Do such systems already exist? Hm?)

There are I am certain already prototype "stealth busters" being a) field tested, or b) being engineered for field testing.

If a British ship in GWI spotted F-117's on their missions.... 15 years ago, it doesn't take Albert Einstein to draw up engineering schematics for something more purposefully designed for "stealth" aircraft detection.

Unless an aircraft is a "black body," it radiates 'something', it interacts when 'probed', and it is i.e. detectable -- Governed by very very fundemental principles of p h y s i c s.

"Stealth" has a tactical usefullness, but I dare say that the strategic (as thought of 30 years ago) intent has been nibbled away here and there.

Ahhh, so your just a jack of all trades then. You got pals in the aviation community, and inside knowledge on all things Stealth and Sensors.

Wonderful.

Yet you still cant figure out why the USAF and its pilots want the F-35...

Enthusiast Joined: Jul 30, 2006 Posts: 49 Status: Offline

Popular science recently reported on some novel research in material science. Apparently scientists recently developed prototypical materials that certain EM wavelengths pass straight through (the prototype only works for microwaves). Imagine the future of stealth!

FireFox137 wrote:

Sorry, but I am a very educated person in matters of physics, mathematics, and engineering. You are obviously not aware of what is taking place in research facilities/companies/universities in regards to low RCS aircraft detection. I don't know your background, nor do I care to inquire.... But I do know what is being "researched".

Yeah, I notice you say you are "very educated", not " very experienced". (Although your previous posts have made this painfully obvious). Twenty years ago, I qualified as "very educated", but I didn't know diddly squat about designing systems that could actually be built, and actually worked in the highly non-linear world outside the pristine, controlled environment of a research facility or university. What you are conveniently ignoring is the tremendous gap between research and the fielding of an actual product that reliably functions in the field (at a 'reasonable' price). How long have physicists understood the basic operation of a fusion reactor? Four or five decades at least, right? How much 'research' has been done in that time? Any of the electricity in your house coming from a nearby fusion power plant?

I realize your solution is to forget stealth and just build faster and faster and higher and higher flying fighters and fighter/bombers. Problem is, it's a whole lot easier to improve raw anti-aircraft missile (AA and/or SA) performance than aircraft perfomance. So, I spend a bunch of money to build a non-stealthy f/b that flys at Mach 3+, at 80k feet and can pull 12G's (super-duper G-suit). Well, our 'enemies' can much more cheaply and easily improve their missiles (from Mach 4 to Mach 8, 20G's to 30, 60k to 100k, (whatever the numbers are) add improved seeker logic, etc, etc) to totally nullify the aircraft improvement.
I much prefer making our 'enemies' spend their time and money on radar improvements that have not been proven, are much more expensive and technically challenging, and will in the long run be easier to 're-defeat'...

mil_hobbyist wrote:

Popular science recently reported on some novel research in material science. Apparently scientists recently developed prototypical materials that certain EM wavelengths pass straight through (the prototype only works for microwaves). Imagine the future of stealth!

Theyve had it for awhile... Carbon Composites, and fiberglass.

But we still cant build aircraft out of those materials... 100%.

Enthusiast Joined: Oct 16, 2006 Posts: 80 Status: Offline

Why not use a laser to range and track the plane?

A while back the USAF put out a paper about using Lidar to track stealth AC.

Laser doesnt have the same properties as a radar does in terms of scanning capability.

Systems like LIDAR would work with RADAR for improved target tracking and identification.

Quote:

Why not use a laser to range and track the plane?

A while back the USAF put out a paper about using Lidar to track stealth AC.

Because a laser has much shorter range than radar. Because a laser is active just like radar.. And because it cannot be electronically scanned and/or have a wide field of view (conical spread) and hence volume search which lasers are a joke. The same can be said of IRSTs except that they are passive and have about twice the range, but provides no accurate range, vector or velocity data.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Why again are we going with the JSF?