How have your opinions of the JSF changed over the years?

[munny]

APA (yes I said it, and feel dirty) posted an analysis recently .....

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2011-03.html

..... where they used a commonly used RCS simulator to create 3 dimensional diagrams of the Chinese J-20's RCS. From the front, the J-20 is a much larger aircraft with a lot larger and more leading edges than the F-35. The diagrams would be a good sample to estimate the F-35's RCS from all aspects.

Their simulator doesn't yet take into account reflecting surface waves, but also doesn't factor in RAM, so they'd cancel each other out to a degree.

The charts show that the frontal RCS of the J-20 against higher frequency radars at long to medium range is VERY good. You could only expect the F-35's to be better all the way out to about 40 degrees either side of the nose due to less clutter on the frontal aspect and same, but smaller intake design.

While Kopp has been spouting for the last 7 or so years that the F-35's side RCS is abysmal and everything that has been built since by other nations is "far superior" from the side aspect, his charts show that the even the great J-20, with its superior F-22-like wing/body join is spotted from maximum range by most early warning radars.

The chart also shows that all a pilot has to do to hide the more reflective underwing/side of the aircraft is dip his wing towards the enemy radar by about 4 degrees to make himself LO again (is this what they learn in stealth tactics?). Of course in true APA fashion, there's no mention "anywhere on their site" of heavily matured and proven US RWR technology which helps stealth fighter pilots put their aircraft at the optimum aspect to maintain low RCS to enemy radars.

His analysis also shows theat the rear RCS of the J-20, although nowehere near as good as the front, is still not too bad and implies that the F-35 would be better from this angle.

But....you've actually gotta give it to em, the method they use to present the data (something Kopp and his friend created themselves) is VERY good.

Bet we won't see a similar RCS simulation done of the F-35 so people can compare. Maybe Carlo should post something in this thread

[shep1978]

Kopp sees what he wants to see. Its really not worth wasting your time with his so called analysis.

[delvo]

The last time I saw an Australian Air Power article, it was not merely biased but just playing lying.

[shingen]

From the article by Kopp:

"The chined J-20 nose section and canopy are close in appearance to the F-22, yielding similar specular RCS performance in a mature design."

When you come across this sentence you have two choices. Stop or keep going. What you choose to do says a lot about your level of education and how you judge claims.

[munny]

His stupid commentary aside, the application (PO Facets rewritten in C++) they used to generate the RCS charts is valid and is used by educational institutions. If you skip around the words and look at the charts, you can get a pretty decent insight into how the vlo designs work and what their weaknesses/strengths are. You can also make conclusions about the F-35 that Mr Kopp failed to mention (deliberately) as well.

The fact he has access to this software now is probably the reason he has been very quiet about the F-35's RCS for more than a year.



"The chined J-20 nose section and canopy are close in appearance to the F-22, yielding similar specular RCS performance in a mature design."

BTW that comment isn't so absurd. Similar to the F-22, yes, matured design, yes ...... but not by the Chinese.

[southernphantom]

The SDB is already online(it would seem that there are a number of topics that you haven't been following too closely). .

Sorry, I mixed up the designations. I meant the GBU-53 SDB-II. Its IOC is guessed at the 2017 range. The SDB-II is IMHO the first SDB increment with a truly useful capability (uncooled IR guidance) besides hitting stationary targets. Definitely awesome for tank plinking, especially on the Beagle, which carries 28!!!!

[SpudmanWP]

The F-35 could carry 32 if it REALLY wanted to.

[ozzyblizzard]

The F-35 could carry 32 if it REALLY wanted to.

I don't get the fascination with internal weapons stores for this type of mission. If the F-35 is carrying SDB-II's then its most likely the second day of the war and the high end GBAD and C4ISTAR were taken out by "clean" F-35's on the first day. Once the super duper S-300's are no longer an issue the simply F-35 doesn't need to be a mini B2. With its already very small RCS and EWSP/EA capability, even a dirty F-35 isn't going to have any issues with Buk ect.

[shep1978]

The F-35 could carry 32 if it REALLY wanted to.

I don't get the fascination with internal weapons stores for this type of mission. If the F-35 is carrying SDB-II's then its most likely the second day of the war and the high end GBAD and C4ISTAR were taken out by "clean" F-35's on the first day. Once the super duper S-300's are no longer an issue the simply F-35 doesn't need to be a mini B2. With its already very small RCS and EWSP/EA capability, even a dirty F-35 isn't going to have any issues with Buk ect.

Not aiming this at you but as you mentioned it I thought i'd question the concept of "first day war" for stealthy aircraft. Its just that i'd imagine that any opponent with an ounce of sense would not allow an opponent the luxury of being able to fight an air war in such a manner. I'm fairly certain that many high end threat systems would be kept back, well concealed and switched off only to be rolled out on say day 5 or even day 20 posing obvious problems for external weapon carrying stealth aircraft. Compound this with other air defence units using more frequent shoot and scoot tactics that could see them surviving for weeks or even months and therefore, to me at least, internal carriage seems the wiser option for all but the very lowest threat level theatres.

[wrightwing]

Not aiming this at you but as you mentioned it I thought i'd question the concept of "first day war" for stealthy aircraft. Its just that i'd imagine that any opponent with an ounce of sense would not allow an opponent the luxury of being able to fight an air war in such a manner. I'm fairly certain that many high end threat systems would be kept back, well concealed and switched off only to be rolled out on say day 5 or even day 20 posing obvious problems for external weapon carrying stealth aircraft. Compound this with other air defence units using more frequent shoot and scoot tactics that could see them surviving for weeks or even months and therefore, to me at least, internal carriage seems the wiser option for all but the very lowest threat level theatres.

First day of war doesn't necessarily refer to a 24hr period. It refers more to the threat conditions one would encounter, until X amount of IADS attrition had occured.

Additionally, the foe wouldn't necessarily have the luxury of knowing when that first day was going to be, in order to move their high end systems to safer locations. My guess though is that they'd rather risk the loss of the high end systems, than the loss of what those high end systems are protecting.

[shep1978]

First day of war doesn't necessarily refer to a 24hr period.

Then why on earth is it always referred to as the first day of war in the context of external or internal weapons carriage. I see the point your making but I still think future opponents will probably be alot more sneaky than we probably think they will be with their air defence setup.

Anyway best get back on topic I guess...

[wrightwing]

First day of war doesn't necessarily refer to a 24hr period.

Then why on earth is it always referred to as the first day of war in the context of external or internal weapons carriage. I see the point your making but I still think future opponents will probably be alot more sneaky than we probably think they will be with their air defence setup.

Anyway best get back on topic I guess...

Well just as an example, we wouldn't start carrying external stores after 24hrs of operations. It's about the conditions/phases of operation that are met, before the next phase begins. The high end systems aren't just randomly roving- they're protecting high value targets. This is why I said I doubt a foe would choose to lose that asset, versus the defensive system protecting it. The more random threats I think would be the shorter range systems.

[muir]

Well just as an example, we wouldn't start carrying external stores after 24hrs of operations. It's about the conditions/phases of operation that are met, before the next phase begins. The high end systems aren't just randomly roving- they're protecting high value targets. This is why I said I doubt a foe would choose to lose that asset, versus the defensive system protecting it. The more random threats I think would be the shorter range systems.

just wanna make sure I got this right. When you say "first day of war" you mean the first phase, which, I presume could last anything from a few hours to a few weeks? When certain targets are met, like a massive takedown of enemy air defences or enough corridors are opened up to more sensitive aircraft you move on to phase two whatever that is?

[wrightwing]

just wanna make sure I got this right. When you say "first day of war" you mean the first phase, which, I presume could last anything from a few hours to a few weeks? When certain targets are met, like a massive takedown of enemy air defences or enough corridors are opened up to more sensitive aircraft you move on to phase two whatever that is?

The duration would entirely depend on the foe. For some foes, 24hrs might be enough, but for a more sophisticated opponent, you're not going to start hanging external weapons on the second day of an air campaign.

[hb_pencil]

just wanna make sure I got this right. When you say "first day of war" you mean the first phase, which, I presume could last anything from a few hours to a few weeks? When certain targets are met, like a massive takedown of enemy air defences or enough corridors are opened up to more sensitive aircraft you move on to phase two whatever that is?

The duration would entirely depend on the foe. For some foes, 24hrs might be enough, but for a more sophisticated opponent, you're not going to start hanging external weapons on the second day of an air campaign.

And its quite possible that the second day may never happen, or that an air campaign may require both.

Serbia I think showed a viable political/military strategy for dealing with coalition air campaigns; absorb the body blows as best you can for the first couple of weeks and save your AD until later phases. When the coalition becomes complacent, use the AD to take down a few of their air craft to make a political statement. You are never going to see a lesser opponent stop an air offensive through purely military means. But knock down a dozen or two dozen aircraft and the political effects would be even more devastating.

Its the reason why I think the F-35 is even more vital for our future defense. With the possession of a stealthy reasonably cost multi-role fighter, western states' ability to prosecute such campaigns remains assured. It might be that an F-35 equipped air force will face an environment that remains semi-permissible for the entire campaign because of a elusive foe. Thus it will never carry external stores as the risk is too great.