Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 program

Program progress, politics, orders, and speculation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 08:24

optimist wrote:
marsavian wrote:Optimist, Linkomart also said this as you previously quoted "It’s a report about..... operational analysis simulations (sort of) and the model used in the simulation has that RCS.(Page 50)
However the author claims that the data comes from 'Radarmålareor är erfarenhetsvärden från FOI Försvarsanalys personal.' (Page 54)” which directly translates to "Radar areas are experience values ​​from FOI Defense Analysis personnel."


It was a 2002 university simulation with speculative data of what could be in 2020 input. wriggle all you want to. The paper is there for all to read. :mrgreen:

this is the undoctored summary at the end of the original

Untitled.png


All I see is

Issuing Organization = FOI Swedish Defence Research Agency (whose long elaborate CV I gave earlier) System Technology

Sponsoring Agency = Swedish Armed Forces

Customers Code = Commissioned Research (it was paid for)

Now tell me again how this is some University kid's thesis and not serious paid research for Sweden's air force ?

p.s. the 'doctored' page's extra information still had the exact same words from the body of the report (page 50) so nothing factually false about it.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24893
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 08:52

"...p.s. the 'doctored' page's extra information still had the exact same words from the body of the report (page 50) so nothing factually false about it." What are you talking about now? Do we have the two pages to compare? Do we take your word for it? So many questions. Is the document in a foreign language. Why do we even talk about it on an English forum?
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 09:06

Optimist posted it earlier* and it does say abstract next to the extra information so it's pretty obvious it's compound information and it has the original link on it too. The abstract information is on page 50 as I have quoted many times but lastly with this link ...

viewtopic.php?p=434637#p434637

* viewtopic.php?p=434619#p434619

Image

Image
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1255
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 09:21

marsavian wrote:Optimist posted it earlier* and it does say abstract next to the extra information so it's pretty obvious it's compound information and it has the original link on it too. The abstract information is on page 50 as I have quoted many times but lastly with this link ...

viewtopic.php?p=434637#p434637

* viewtopic.php?p=434619#p434619


thanks for posting the doctored one again that has been around for years on forums, followed by the correct one. You can clearly see that first doctored one isn't in the FOI-R--0338--SE original paper.

FOI-R--0338--SE.pdf

download/file.php?id=32354

english
english translation.pdf

download/file.php?id=32355

Image
Aussie fanboy
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1255
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 09:37

spazsinbad wrote:"...p.s. the 'doctored' page's extra information still had the exact same words from the body of the report (page 50) so nothing factually false about it." What are you talking about now? Do we have the two pages to compare? Do we take your word for it? So many questions. Is the document in a foreign language. Why do we even talk about it on an English forum?


Just to clear up the nonsense that this shows the gripen has a RCS of 0.1 Mars is hanging on to it like a dog with a bone.

This document is a fabrication and doesn't exist in the FOI-R--0338--SE paper. The one I posted above does.

Image
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 09:44

You still are not getting it. The 'doctored' one is compound information of --abstract-- from the text which does exist on page 50 from the report and the report summary. Why is this so hard to grasp ? It basically highlights the relevant information about Gripen in the report and the report summary information showing its official nature.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1255
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 09:49

marsavian wrote:You still are not getting it. The 'doctored' one is compound information of --abstract-- from the text which does exist on page 50 from the report and the report summary. Why is this so hard to grasp ? It basically highlights the relevant information about Gripen in the report and the report summary information showing its official nature.

Because it is a fabricated document with a letterhead and a single line taken out of context. As everyone who has read it is saying, including linkomart.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 09:59

It's because I wanted to see the context we actually have the document as I went looking for it at FOI. Note I did not quote that 'doctored' 'fabricated' page in this thread, you did ! I quoted the second link to the full document (that's now dead too) and I understood and stated the context ('Swedish defense contractor uses 0.1 sq m for simulations') when linking and quoting it. I then uploaded the document again so everyone could see the context. Regardless there is nothing factually wrong with that compound 'fabricated' page, every word appears in the full document.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1255
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 10:14

marsavian wrote:It's because I wanted to see the context we actually have the document as I went looking for it at FOI. Note I did not quote that 'doctored' 'fabricated' page in this thread, you did ! I quoted the second link to the full document (that's now dead too) and I understood and stated the context (research paper) when linking and quoting it. I then uploaded the document again so everyone could see the context. Regardless there is nothing factually wrong with that compound page, every word appears in the full document.

I thank you for finding the original, and the google translation of it gives the context.
The line does appear, but the doctored document doesn't include pages 48-54 that gives the context. It is 2002 speculating about 2020. It was just assigned a RCS of 0.1, it could have just as easily been 0.00001
english translation.pdf
download/file.php?id=32355

page 48 and the start of the simulated example
"General comments on the type case
Robots are typically taken from a source that has chosen significantly higher performance than today's robots.
To match this, performance on above all radar has also been set higher than today's. The problem
what is clear already at first glance is that the typical case becomes extremely sensitive to small variations in
detection distance. It is not entirely unlikely that the models need to be made much more accurate and
more truthful to make it possible

page 54
"FSR890 according to Jane's all the worlds aircraft 1995-96. Radar performance corresponds to assessments of what
may be a reasonable development for 2020
made by Rolf Kaddik, FOI Defense Analysis"
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24893
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 10:30

:applause: Again thanks for the explanation 'optimist' [& 'linkomart']. Probably we have not heard the last of it though <sigh> .
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1255
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 10:34

spazsinbad wrote::applause: Again thanks for the explanation 'optimist' [& 'linkomart']. Probably we have not heard the last of it though <sigh> .


It seems to be on a wash rinse repeat cycle of every 6 months. I've taken the drastic step of book marking this, to make it easier for July this year, when it kicks off again. :doh:
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 10:45

Optimist, those 2020 estimates are for radar performance not RCS value of the Gripen. It is actually spot on as Saab do claim a radar performance of 100 km for 1 sq m RCS for Gripen E's ES-05 as the Finns are about to test. The fpl (fighter plane) RCS is estimated by FOI analysts, the full translation from page 54 states

"Fpl and robots are based on report FOI d no H2001 / 203. Radar radar areas are experience values from FOI
Defense analysis personnel. Radar performance corresponds to assessments of what may be reasonable development for 2002 made by Rolf Kaddik, FOI Defense Analysis."
Last edited by marsavian on 12 Feb 2020, 11:26, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

magitsu

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 655
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 10:50

optimist wrote:page 48 and the start of the simulated example
"General comments on the type case
Robots are typically taken from a source that has chosen significantly higher performance than today's robots.
To match this, performance on above all radar has also been set higher than today's. The problem
what is clear already at first glance is that the typical case becomes extremely sensitive to small variations in
detection distance. It is not entirely unlikely that the models need to be made much more accurate and
more truthful to make it possible

Here robot should be translated to missile. Kryssningsrobot would be a cruise missile (though attackrobot is used in the paper more often).

But it really seems like an assigned estimate based on nothing specific. Page 48 says "JAS39 which has a hull where signature dampening measures have been taken. RCS 0.1m2."

Otherwise very long forward looking scenarios, for example jets with ramjet aams vs jets with ramjet cruise missiles.
Last edited by magitsu on 12 Feb 2020, 11:04, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1255
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post12 Feb 2020, 11:01

magitsu wrote:
optimist wrote:page 48 and the start of the simulated example
"General comments on the type case
Robots are typically taken from a source that has chosen significantly higher performance than today's robots.
To match this, performance on above all radar has also been set higher than today's. The problem
what is clear already at first glance is that the typical case becomes extremely sensitive to small variations in
detection distance. It is not entirely unlikely that the models need to be made much more accurate and
more truthful to make it possible

Here robot should be translated to missile. Kryssningsrobot would be a cruise missile.


Thank you google does it's best. I didn't want to try and interpret it and get it wrong. If you have anything else to add, it would be welcomed.

@mars I would suggest the 2002 is a typo and like the others meant 2020. This is the time it is set in.
I posted all of concluding page 54 before. The janes reference 3 is for aircraft?
V ALUATION THE NETWORK -
ORIENTED WAR WARRIOR
52
1 Fpl and robots are based on report FOI d no H2001 / 203. Radar radar areas are experience values from FOI
Defense analysis personnel. Radar performance corresponds to assessments of what may be reasonable development for 2002
made by Rolf Kaddik, FOI Defense Analysis.
2 Generic model based on the corvettes in the Visby series with LV robot type Bamse. The radar area is
calculated on a standard basis as one tenth of what vessels of similar size have today.
radar Performance
corresponds to assessments of what may be a reasonable development for 2020 made by Rolf Kaddik, FOI
Defense Analysis.
3 FSR890 according to Jane's all the worlds aircraft 1995-96. Radar performance corresponds to assessments of what
may be a reasonable development for 2020
made by Rolf Kaddik, FOI Defense Analysis.
4 Radar performance like FSR890 above.
5 Generic model similar to LV robot type Teddy bear. Radar performance corresponds to assessments of what can
be a reasonable development for 2020
made by Rolf Kaddik, FOI Defense Analysis.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2788
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Feb 2020, 01:15

marsavian wrote:Ricnunes, let me take your inconsistent illogical statements and ask you this about them ;


Just because you don't understand my statements that doesn't make them illogical. Actually I don't see anyone else complaining or disagreeing with my statements (which have been discussed in the past several times) which should be enough evidence to prove that the problem likely lies in your "comprehension skills" (using your own term) and not on my statements.

marsavian wrote:If Super Hornet uses all the RCS stealth features known to man and which you constantly bleat about why is it not VLO ?


Because:
A- The Super Hornet is not a VLO aircraft which means that its airframe was not designed to be VLO like the F-22 or F-35 for example. And for example one just need to look at Super Hornet's the fuselage/nose section and compare it to the F-22 or F-35 for example to reach this conclusion.
B- The Super Hornet does NOT "uses all the RCS stealth features known to man", I never say this! For the "millionth time", what I said was that the Super Hornet USES MORE "RCS stealth features" compared to other 4.5th gen fighter aircraft like the Gripen E. Again, I never said or implied that it has the same level of RCS reduction features as aircraft like F-117, F-22 or F-35. Jezz, what's wrong with you?! (or should I say, what's wrong with you comprehension skills??)


marsavian wrote: What prevents it from getting down to F-22/F-35 levels if the engine blocker doesn't when Boeing was starting with a brand new design ?!


What about the FUSELAGE and SURFACES SHAPE?? The Super Hornet does have a very interesting set of RCS reduction features for an aircraft which is not VLO like the F-22 or F-35. Saying otherwise is "stupid" and "being blind". But on the other hand saying or implying that if the Super Hornet didn't use Radar Blockers but used DSI instead it could or would have a similar level of RCS compared to a F-22 or F-35 would be plain ridiculous and preposterous!


marsavian wrote:Why is it that Su-57, another plane with an engine blocker, is not VLO either following the same standard stealth design methods ? Two RCS reduced planes with engine blockers and yet neither can get under 0.1 m2, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ...


Like happens with the Super Hornet, it would be preposterous to think that the Su-57 would be far more stealthier (or have far less RCS) if it used DSI instead of Radar Blockers!
From what I see Radar Blockers should actually be more complex to design and build compared to DSI or like you say, hiding the engine fans, this for an aircraft designed "from scratch". So if Radar Blockers are so ineffective like you say/hint then why didn't the Russians design their new aircraft (Su-57) with DSI instead?? The Russians may have many faults, namely technologically speaking but there's one thing they cannot be accused of: They cannot be accused to not knowing how to design an aircraft. I'm pretty sure that designing an aircraft with DSI or otherwise with the engine fans hidden wouldn't be a problem for the Russians!


marsavian wrote:I have already explained to you why they are suboptimal, radar waves can go through the gaps in them that air goes through to feed the engine. To make them completely stealthy would require no gaps but then the engine would have no thrust ;).


And yet you forget that radar/radio waves must travel both ways in order for a radar to detect something. You seem forget that even with gaps most of the radar/radio waves would still be "captured" when the waves travel towards the engine and also that most of the few and weaker returning waves would also be "caught/captured" by the same Radar Blocker. So any of the radar/radio waves which somehow managed to come back to the radar source would be very weak or severely weakened.

And you also forget that if Radar Blockers wouldn't be effective nobody would use them!

And I already explained to you that Stealth isn't only about DSI/Radar Blockers or resuming hiding the engines. There are so many other things/features at stake here which again you seem to choose to ignore.


marsavian wrote:In a frontal head on angle radar waves will not see the flat sides of the EWP they will only see the angled up and down front of the EWP, this is a stealthy frontal design along F-117 lines, angle waves away from the horizontal. A self proclaimed stealth expert like yourself should have been able to surmise this without me having to spell it out to you.


LOL, since when the shape of this:
Image

in any way, resembles this:
Image

???

If you think that by just putting some angled edges in front of a parallelepiped-shaped object, you'll get instant VLO object then I have some bridges to sell you!


marsavian wrote:You talk about inlets and then go off on a F-16 tangent when I say actually worry about the RCS treatment inside the inlets. F-16 with a partially hidden engine and Have Glass RAM is around 1 sq m RCS, Super Hornet is barely better with an engine blocker and all the RCS methods applied to it, no way on Earth is it 0.1 sq m if it is equivalent to two fuel tanks, two bombs and two missiles.


I have shown you that the Super Hornet RCS while clean is better than 1 square meter. It's likely closer to 0.1 square meters than closer to 1 square meters.


marsavian wrote:Again Boeing said it halved when enclosing these stores. Even if you perversely believe the EWP has no RCS shaping and is is no stealthier than a bomb or fuel tank what about the other 5 tanks, bombs and missiles ? Super Hornet RCS is not even below 0.5 sq m !


I never said that there weren't any RCS benefits or RCS reductions with EWPs. I just said that they aren't as good as you seem to claim.
Again, here's one more evidence of your lets say bias and how you carefully ignore what doesn't fit your narrative, lets see:
You claim that Radar Blockers which are proven - or else they would they be used at all since they surely add weight and it's not an easy piece of hardware to design I believe, not to mention they should be an extra burden during engine maintenance - aren't effective in reducing RCS (at least considerably) but then again the EWPs which afterall ended up being cancelled are suddenly magical pieces of VLO equipment...

For what's worth and IMO, EWP does and should somehow reduce the RCS compared to when carrying weapons externally, specially when carrying weapons with a somehow larger RCS like 500lb or 1000lb bombs. But then again, EWPs most certainly don't have a lower RCS compared to a Radar Blocker since and again the former was cancelled while the later is used and a somehow evidence of this is that I don't see the EWPs being replicated elsewhere - for example for usage on Typhoons and Rafales (I won't say for usage on Gripens since this would be a gold comedy!).
Last edited by ricnunes on 13 Feb 2020, 01:34, edited 2 times in total.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
PreviousNext

Return to Program and politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: noth and 11 guests