Forum: Program and politics

jeffb wrote:

]

Got the original pricing they submitted?

Seeing as though you are such a fan of facts and figures, their F-111S upgrade costs from 2005 can be found here:

http://tinyurl.com/88rppot

There are two different prices for F-111 upgrade in that chart alone but apart from this their prices have also changed significantly over the year, in fact they ballooned out from about $3.3b for overall cost in 2004 to just under $8b in 2008...

I do like the prices mentioned in your little pic from earlier though. I dare you to get your calculator out and see if APA"s F-111 and F/A-22 sums listed in the bright green column actually add up to the total they mention at the bottom.

Let me just say that it puts "great" confidence into the figures they input into their computer games and then try and present as "evidence..."

F-16.net Sponsor

jeffb wrote:

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

You hit the nail on the head. VHF, OTH, UHF, etc. is the key.
If there was a flaw in the scenario it was simply the fact APA allowed the defending OTH radar to work all the way through. That would not happen in practise. It would be taken out by Cruise Missiles or other Missiles before F-35's were put into the air. A completely different scenario if multiple portable versions were available that could not easily be taken out.
If incoming aircraft are picked up early it would be easy to vector Fighters to intercept on there terms - higher altitude, higher speed and vector them to close from the least stealthy aspect of the F35. If you can do that then most of the advantages of stealth are negated. You certainly are not going to surprise the enemy - you are the one that is going to get a surprise when you find them higher than you going faster than you and approaching from your least stealthy aspect.

I don't know how good OTH,VHF,UHF etc. actually is but it must be OK.
The Russians are not developing portable versions for nothing.
That is the key. Portable radars that can be set up in 30 minutes and moved easily to avoid being taken out. Spread out and data connected to get longer ranges at which they can pick up incoming stealth aircraft.
From what I have read they are now good enough for mid course guidance of Missiles. Not terminal guidance -easily overcome by having a self seeker in the missile for the terminal stage.
They are not proposing wing mounted L-Band radars for no reason on the PakFa. If too weak on there own then I assume with data links etc. just like OTH ground based stations etc. they will rely on multiple dispersed stations to be effective.
That to me looks like the way counter stealth is going - already part way there. The same as the F35 - just over half way.
Any experts out there?

Last edited by Conan on Mar 20, 2012 - 02:51 PM; edited 1 time in total

rkap wrote:

jeffb wrote:

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

You hit the nail on the head. VHF, OTH, UHF, etc. is the key.
If there was a flaw in the scenario it was simply the fact APA allowed the defending OTH radar to work all the way through. That would not happen in practise. It would be taken out by Cruise Missiles or other Missiles before F-35's were put into the air. A completely different scenario if multiple portable versions were available that could not easily be taken out.
If incoming aircraft are picked up early it would be easy to vector Fighters to intercept on there terms - higher altitude, higher speed and vector them to close from the least stealthy aspect of the F35. If you can do that then most of the advantages of stealth are negated. You certainly are not going to surprise the enemy - you are the one that is going to get a surprise when you find them higher than you going faster than you and approaching from your least stealthy aspect.

I don't know how good OTH,VHF,UHF etc. actually is but it must be OK.
The Russians are not developing portable versions for nothing.
That is the key. Portable radars that can be set up in 30 minutes and moved easily to avoid being taken out. Spread out and data connected to get longer ranges at which they can pick up incoming stealth aircraft.
From what I have read they are now good enough for mid course guidance of Missiles. Not terminal guidance -easily overcome by having a self seeker in the missile for the terminal stage.
They are not proposing wing mounted L-Band radars for no reason on the PakFa. If too weak on there own then I assume with data links etc. just like OTH ground based stations etc. they will rely on multiple dispersed stations to be effective.
That to me looks like the way counter stealth is going - already part way there. The same as the F35 - just over half way.
Any experts out there?

You should try putting your question to the Royal Australian Air Force, RKAP.

1 Radar Surveillance Unit operates one of the biggest and most capable over the horizon radar systems in the world.

http://www.airforce.gov.au/Units/1rsu.aspx

We've also bought F-35, so I can imagine few who would be "more" expert on such a subject...

They also operate an extremely powerful and capable L Band radar on the Wedgetail, an L Band ESA radar at that, with the L Band AN/TPS-77 ESA radar as well.

Perhaps they might just have a clue about the effects of OTH and L band radar systems in relation to LO aircraft?

Quote:

That to me looks like the way counter stealth is going - already part way there

Yet the same country making the "counter stealth" radars is still investing heavily in stealth aircraft ... see the logical anomaly?

Quote:

A completely different scenario if multiple portable versions were available that could not easily be taken out

Radars are at their most useful when doing radar'y stuff, not when being switched off and going on road trips.

Quote:

Spread out and data connected to get longer ranges

All things equal, the detection range of an entire IADS is only as long as the radar closest to the enemy aircraft.

Quote:

If incoming aircraft are picked up early it would be easy to vector Fighters to intercept on there terms - higher altitude, higher speed and vector them to close from the least stealthy aspect of the F35

So tell us again how a low band radar many 100's of miles behind the fight is going to allow a swarm of aircraft, each with a side aspect spike RCS of 1000's msq to get first look advantage over VLO aircraft? VLO aircraft which when networked have the most comprehensive array of sensors ever equipped on a fighter.

With 4kb/sec TKS-2 datalinks on the flankers (ie. 10 times slower than an old dialup modem) their network literally could not hope to keep up with the data updates of a 240v240 fight LMAO

....and then there's the other little issues...

- they'd need to get in much closer for a side-on shot due to the shorter NEZ
- they still need to emit to communicate (F-35's see them coming 100's of miles away...F-35's don't have this problem btw)
- It only takes 1 F-35 out of 240 to turn a few degrees sidewards to detect the enormous discoball of flankers 180 miles away (a few times their engagement range) and 8 seconds for the whole F-35 fleet to turn towards them and their entire advantage is gone. They are now short a few thousand pounds of fuel for going the long way round, and they are further from their airfields.

Quote:

*From what I have read* they are now good enough for mid course guidance of Missiles

Source? Link?

rkap wrote:

jeffb wrote:

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

You hit the nail on the head. VHF, OTH, UHF, etc. is the key.
If there was a flaw in the scenario it was simply the fact APA allowed the defending OTH radar to work all the way through. That would not happen in practise. It would be taken out by Cruise Missiles or other Missiles before F-35's were put into the air. A completely different scenario if multiple portable versions were available that could not easily be taken out.
If incoming aircraft are picked up early it would be easy to vector Fighters to intercept on there terms - higher altitude, higher speed and vector them to close from the least stealthy aspect of the F35. If you can do that then most of the advantages of stealth are negated. You certainly are not going to surprise the enemy - you are the one that is going to get a surprise when you find them higher than you going faster than you and approaching from your least stealthy aspect.

I don't know how good OTH,VHF,UHF etc. actually is but it must be OK.
The Russians are not developing portable versions for nothing.
That is the key. Portable radars that can be set up in 30 minutes and moved easily to avoid being taken out. Spread out and data connected to get longer ranges at which they can pick up incoming stealth aircraft.
From what I have read they are now good enough for mid course guidance of Missiles. Not terminal guidance -easily overcome by having a self seeker in the missile for the terminal stage.
They are not proposing wing mounted L-Band radars for no reason on the PakFa. If too weak on there own then I assume with data links etc. just like OTH ground based stations etc. they will rely on multiple dispersed stations to be effective.
That to me looks like the way counter stealth is going - already part way there. The same as the F35 - just over half way.
Any experts out there?

OTH radars can only give a 2D image - they're bouncing stuff off the ionosphere to the ground and back - so what they track, they can't get an altitude on. Add to which, the resolution grid of a radar is partly driven by the wavelength - OTH stations tend to have a fairly large resolution grid or in other words, a single contact on the screen could be anywhere in a large area, or could be many objects in that same space.
Here's a publication by the Canadian Government on the subject:

http://pubs.drdc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc81/p527279.pdf

From the exec summary:

"Large aircraft, such as commercial jets, can generally be observed 24 hours per day and located to within about 30 km of their actual position. Smaller airplanes and cruise missiles cannot be easily detected at night. In addition, the radar suffers vulnerability to outages due todisturbances in the ionosphere caused by adverse solar (or “space weather”) events"

30km for a passenger jet? Ouch...

Last edited by spazsinbad on Mar 23, 2012 - 05:50 AM; edited 1 time in total

Joint Strike Fighter aircraft to cost almost $70 million each by: By Max Blenkin From: AAP March 22, 2012

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaki ... 6307430345

"AUSTRALIA can still expect to pay an average $US70 million ($A67 million) for each Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, even as production of the next generation F-35s ramps up.

The head of the JSF program for US aerospace company Lockheed Martin, Tom Burbage, said production was now running at four aircraft per month.

"We believe over the purchase time of your 75 airplanes, that cost will average out somewhere around $US70 million ($A67 million)," he told reporters in Canberra.

"The early ones will be more, the later ones will be less.

"It is dependent on an assumption that we are going to go up in the production rate."...

...Australia's first JSF aircraft will be produced in what's termed low rate initial production (LRIP) lots, with aircraft contracted at a fixed price....

...Mr Burbage said so far, 16 top tier air forces had fully assessed JSF and they were all still backing it.

"So I would put my stock in their evaluations and their take on what the airplane is going to be capable of doing," he said.

Mr Burbage said those views counted for more than those from a series of pundits who lacked access to all the JSF information and refused to accept that it would be highly capable...."

Quote:

conan
You should try putting your question to the Royal Australian Air Force, RKAP.

Trouble is they will not answer. Of course they are buying the F35 - what else is there to buy?

munny

Quote:

Yet the same country making the "counter stealth" radars is still investing heavily in stealth aircraft ... see the logical anomaly?

Nobody said Stealth was of no value. It is just one aspect that is being countered.
The other aspects of aircraft design should not be traded off too much just to achieve stealth.
Your assertion that OTH, VHF and UHF etc are of no value is completely illogical.
If not would you care to explain why AWACS etc. use all types of Radar?

stobiewan

Quote:

OTH radars can only give a 2D image

Thats what I thought - OTH only gives very early warning. Not much use for anything but early warning and then sometimes unreliable.
It would be really interesting to know just how far they have advanced with it but that will of course stay a secret for a long time.
The real question is the VHF and UHF radars etc. against stealth aircraft at ranges of 500km etc.

rkap wrote:

Quote:

conan
You should try putting your question to the Royal Australian Air Force, RKAP.

Trouble is they will not answer. Of course they are buying the F35 - what else is there to buy?

On the contrary, they have answered many times. You just haven't listened.

What else could we buy?

F-15, F-16, F/A-18 Super Hornet from the US alone.

From Europe: Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon.

From Russia: MiG-29/35, SU-27, 30, 35, PAK-FA.

From China / Pakistan - JF-17, J-10, J-20.

Plenty of options available. But we're happy with F-35 and what it will bring to the table.

rkap wrote:

munny

Quote:

Yet the same country making the "counter stealth" radars is still investing heavily in stealth aircraft ... see the logical anomaly?

Nobody said Stealth was of no value. It is just one aspect that is being countered.
The other aspects of aircraft design should not be traded off too much just to achieve stealth.
Your assertion that OTH, VHF and UHF etc are of no value is completely illogical.
If not would you care to explain why AWACS etc. use all types of Radar?

1. What aspects of "fighters" has the F-35 "traded"?

Is it capable of high subsonic cruise and supersonic dash performance? Yes.

Is it an agile fighter aircraft (designed to be at least to satisfy JeffB's need for semantics)? Yes.

Does it have advanced air to air weapons and sensors? Yes.

Does it have advanced air to ground weapons and sensors? Yes.

Where is the "tradeoff" you speak of, exactly?

F-35 uses tech advances to have 4th gen performance in a 5th gen sig managed platform.

Fanboys want the tech advances for performance higher than a 4th gen despite the experts' willingness to trade performance for sig management.

There's no use convincing them. They want their hot rod the same as a 20 year old wants a fast car.

The 30 year old with a job and family ends up with a station wagon or minivan that's actually useful but dreams of a hot rod. Same thing.

Forum: Program and politics

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