Forum: Program and politics

Conan wrote:

I too wonder exactly why one bothers to "assess" loss-exchange ratios when one deliberately excludes the multitude of advantages the West has that are crucial to the combat power they possess but then deliberately enhance those of the opposing forces and then exclude all the elements of warfare in a battlespace except for tactical fighters engaging other tactical fighters...

But the claim made by the USAF and Lockheed that the F-35 would enjoy a 3:1 loss exchange ratio against the reference threats arose from exactly the same sorts of comparison or are you saying that the loss exchange ratio touted by both those organisations was actually the loss exchange ratio given the “multitude of advantages the West has that are crucial to the combat power they possess”? And then you turn around and claim that they’ve ‘enhanced’ the opposing forces, based on what?

Conan wrote:

You are taking the biscuit now pal, whatever that means exactly. You know full well you are talking semantics with this argument. The F-35 can't equal the F-16 and F/A-18 level of performance "because it hasn't done so yet."

And given the buffet, drag and roll-off issues it’s unlikely to. But don’t worry Conan, I’m sure they’ve got their best marketing people working on a way of explaining how it’s performance ‘approaches’ the F-18’s and F-16’s without actually matching them. After all, they’re happy enough to regig the requirements to make up the combat radius shortfall, I’m sure that they’ll come up with something equally convincing about its performance and agility.

F-16.net Sponsor

They do have a counter to stealth.

Nuclear weapons
Hybrid warfare
Terrorism
Cyberwar
Economic warfare

What no one has is the ability to deal with VLO planes the way that conventional planes can be dealt with. The existence of VLO and PGM's means the other side has to quit the game and try something else.

Simulations ran by the DoD have many advantages over civilian Sims :
1. They know the actual performance of the F-35 systems like the EODAS, EOTS and APG-81 (in both detection and jamming modes)
2. They know the EXACT RCS of the F-35 from every angle.
3. They know the true capabilities of the F-35's ESM and how it integrates with the -81.
4. They know the performance specs of the AIM-120D (or D+) and it's all-important ECCM functions.
5. They know the true tactics used in A2A combat.
6. They likely have access to non-public info on the Su series.

shingen wrote:

They do have a counter to stealth.

Nuclear weapons
Hybrid warfare
Terrorism
Cyberwar
Economic warfare

What no one has is the ability to deal with VLO planes the way that conventional planes can be dealt with. The existence of VLO and PGM's means the other side has to quit the game and try something else.

I must have missed the memo. When did they decide that counter stealth VHF, UHF, OTH and bi-static radars wouldn't work?

Which of those generates a track of sufficient quality for targeting or even to slew a system capable of tracking a VLO target so it can develop a track that can be engaged?

I'll wait for your reply while you go to APA and use the search function.

You could also try emailing Kopp or Goon directly, maybe you cn get them to come here for you.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Simulations ran by the DoD have many advantages over civilian Sims :
1. They know the actual performance of the F-35 systems like the EODAS, EOTS and APG-81 (in both detection and jamming modes)
2. They know the EXACT RCS of the F-35 from every angle.
3. They know the true capabilities of the F-35's ESM and how it integrates with the -81.
4. They know the performance specs of the AIM-120D (or D+) and it's all-important ECCM functions.
5. They know the true tactics used in A2A combat.
6. They likely have access to non-public info on the Su series.

They didn’t know any of this when they published the claim that it would enjoy a 3:1 exchange ratio with the Su-27/30 or the Eurofighter. I wonder which version of the design they based them on.
I wonder how up-to-date those claims are given the weight gain and design ‘discoveries’.

I’m also wondering exactly how they determine the effectiveness of ECM, ESM and EA systems.

shingen wrote:

Which of those generates a track of sufficient quality for targeting or even to slew a system capable of tracking a VLO target so it can develop a track that can be engaged?

I'll wait for your reply while you go to APA and use the search function.

You could also try emailing Kopp or Goon directly, maybe you cn get them to come here for you.

That's right Shingen, the Russians and Chinese are building those systems because they don't work. Brilliant.

I didn't say they didn't work. (They being OTH and VHF). Read the post. I don't think you know enough to know the difference between a smear track and a track that is of sufficient quality for targeting purposes. You can take Kopp's belief that the AESA VHF is sufficient for targeting if you want but it seems no one else does.

I know for sure you don't know enough to know that even if these systems can slew another sensor and increase the probability of the slewed sensor providing targeting data that the interaction between the sensors creates another link in the kill chain, a link that can be weakened or broken.

I know for sure that you don't have a clue how x- and s-band VLO increases the effectiveness of decoys or jamming.

Go ahead and post Kopp and Goon's latest in reply.

You don't think they knew what the F-35 was designed to be, what the -120 can do or what the SU could do...

All they had to do was plug in those numbers into TAC BRAWLER

btw, the weight gains are still under the NTE slope.

I get the impression that the simulations in question are a lot like running a simulation of a knight vs. an archer on open ground, and then declaring that long-bowmen were useless in the conflicts between England and France.

shingen wrote:

I didn't say they didn't work. (They being OTH and VHF). Read the post. I don't think you know enough to know the difference between a smear track and a track that is of sufficient quality for targeting purposes. You can take Kopp's belief that the AESA VHF is sufficient for targeting if you want but it seems no one else does.

Except for the Russians and Chinese you mean? They obviously believe these systems will 'work' ie enable them to track and destroy stealth aircraft. Otherwise why continue to invest in these systems?

SpudmanWP wrote:

You don't think they knew what the F-35 was designed to be, what the -120 can do or what the SU could do...

All they had to do was plug in those numbers into TAC BRAWLER

btw, the weight gains are still under the NTE slope.

I’m pretty sure they designed the F-35 to be a couple of thousand pounds lighter if that’s what you mean. And I’m sure they know what the 120D can do, do they know what the opposition ECM can do. Just what sort of turning circle do you think a missile traveling at M4 has anyway?

Yes the weight is still below the slope but:

DOTE 2011 Annual Report wrote:

The November 2011 weight data show only 230 pounds of margin between the current weight and the intended not-to-exceed weight of 32,577 pounds, which is the program’s technical performance measurement threshold for empty aircraft weight currently programmed for January 2015. This weight margin represents 0.71 percent of the current weight and allows for only 0.22 percent weight growth per year until the technical performance measurement assessment deadline, which is prior to the end
of SDD. The program recently determined that allowing a greater descent rate to touchdown (7 feet per second) plus possible positive thrust margins available from the lift fan may add an additional 142 pounds of weight tolerance to the technical performance measure not-to-exceed weight. This additional weight increases the margin to 1.2 percent of current weight and allows for 0.36 percent weight growth per year. Managing weight growth with such tight margins for the balance of SDD will be a significant challenge, especially with over 70 percent of the scheduled F-35B flight sciences test flights remaining to be accomplished in the next 60 months. For comparison, weight growth on the F/A-18 E/F was approximately 0.69 percent per year for first the 42 months following first flight.

count_to_10 wrote:

I get the impression that the simulations in question are a lot like running a simulation of a knight vs. an archer on open ground, and then declaring that long-bowmen were useless in the conflicts between England and France.

Sorry count, did you mean the original USAF and LM claims or the more recent APA claims?

I don't believe those clowns did any kind of "simulation" at all. They just used that word because they figured it would sound more credible than "stuff we made up".

jeffb wrote:

shingen wrote:

I didn't say they didn't work. (They being OTH and VHF). Read the post. I don't think you know enough to know the difference between a smear track and a track that is of sufficient quality for targeting purposes. You can take Kopp's belief that the AESA VHF is sufficient for targeting if you want but it seems no one else does.

Except for the Russians and Chinese you mean? They obviously believe these systems will 'work' ie enable them to track and destroy stealth aircraft. Otherwise why continue to invest in these systems?

jeffb=slowman3

Start answering the points or you'll be reported as the troll you are.

Explain the difference between a smear track and a track that allows targeting.

We'll give you a few days for a research project.

Forum: Program and politics

Joint strike fighter program a 'failure' (from beloved APA)