Forum: Program and politics

jeffb wrote:

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.

The NTE slope is tied to the KPP, which it is still under.

btw, the small weight gain over what they wish they had has nothing to do with the primary drivers of what drives the outcome of that scenario (eg RCS, APG-81 performance, EOTS performance, and AIM-120D performance).

My overall point is this:

The DoD, through TAC BRAWLER, can accurately simulate what the F-35 will likely do in combat because they KNOW what the F-35 and the AIM-120D are capable of and likely has access to non-public data on potential enemy systems.

APA, OTOH, only has access to public info which contains almost no info about important systems like the radar, ESM, and ECCM systems.

Despite this glaring lack of accurate information, you are are willing to believe the APA simulation over the DoD's?

F-16.net Sponsor

rkap wrote:

I have always believed that and it has nothing to do with APA. I thought that 10 years ago. I just happen to agree with APA on that one and I also agree with them when it comes to Stealth remaining a dominant advantage in the long term. It was sheer arrogance to think that others would not find cheap cost effective counters to stealth.
I certainly hope the F35 if ever it loses its stealth advantage which I am certain it will in the next 10/15 years against nations with a real air-force and air-defense capabilities has the agility and will have the weapons to fight on a conventional basis as well as many on this forum are saying. The problem is most of it is from a mate of a mate type info.

The F-35 will always enjoy a stealth advantage over conventional designs, no matter what technologies appear. There's nothing that's going to happen in 10-15 years, that will overcome the laws of physics, which radars are subject to. There will be improvements no doubt, but there will also be improvements to the F-35. Even without the stealth advantage, the F-35 isn't at a disadvantage in a conventional fight, so that's not an issue either.
Not only will the F-35 enjoy numerical superiority, but qualitative superiority.

Quote:

The development of systems to defeat stealth are well on the way.
There is no point trying to deny that with the normal - its all crap. To do that is like crawling under the covers as a child to keep the monsters away.
Common sense says it would have been a priority in Russia and China now for about 20 years and will quickly become a priority with the PakFa on the horizon and stealth missiles etc. in many other countries. How do we counter there stealth. No doubt there are top people thinking about it in the USA now.

If the Russians and Chinese were certain that stealth was only a near term concern, then why are they spending a lot of money on stealthy aircraft? It's because they know that there isn't anything in the near term that's going to render stealthy aircraft as visible as conventional designs.

rkap wrote:

Taken in context it inferred that.
Here is the latest I have - I forget which Russian Media source I found it on - not worth keeping to put up on this Forum. All you would get is the normal -"lying Russians" or because the Russian Officer was honest - "we told you the SU35 was crap all along."
Russian media interview with one of there Airforce people: I forget who.
Thats all I ever put up - What Russians say:
He said: Last year we built 6 - SU35's. There are problems with the Russian version to be solved.
Notionally the RU Airforce has 11 now. Some of the first ones though are not true production Aircraft.

You can't count pre-production aircraft towards an operational number, first of all. Secondly, presumably the problems will need to be solved, before we see higher production rates. Thirdly, I doubt you'll see many exports till the RuAF actually has the aircraft in service, as it's doubtful export orders would come first.

jeffb wrote:

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?

Based upon having access to classified information, that APA doesn't have access to, when assessing threat capabilities. It makes a big difference in one's assessment, if you have access to the information that will allow you to realistically estimate a foe's potential. APA doesn't have the luxury of using the CIA, DIA, NSA, NRO, etc... when analyzing new threats, and potential capabilities.

Quote:

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.

Unlike the buffeting that other aircraft experience in that portion of the flight envelope, or how the flight control software was modified to eliminate the other issues discovered?

Quote:

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.

The change of the KPPs was as a result of a cost/benefit analysis. Is it worth X millions USD, to get 10-20nm improvement? There have been no changes to the KPPs with regard to speed, altitude, AoA, G limits. Nice red herring though.

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?

No, that's not what the Russians and Chinese believe(nor do they make any claims along those lines.) Those systems are trip wire systems only, and have no capability in guiding weapons systems. Additionally, they are large, and generally immobile systems that wouldn't have a long life expectancy in the event of hostilities. It's really a non-issue as there is no scenario, where the F-35 would be flying to Moscow.

Quote:

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?

No, their approach is one you take when you have limited resources by which to respond to a competitor that has ample resources and decades of lead time and experience on you. It sells systems to fund technology development and industry as well as security to the domestic audience. Better than nothing.

Quote:

It's really a non-issue as there is no scenario, where the F-35 would be flying to Moscow.

A one-way flight from Israel to Moscow avenging Russia's contribution to the destruction of Israel perhaps by Iran. Far-fetched but there once was rumoured to exist a dusty plan for that contingency in a Negev bunker. Otherwise, I have no hope of persuading Hollywood to remake "Failsafe" and "Dr. Strangelove" with a Middle East cast, which is my secret retirement plan.

It is getting to the point that all those dicussion become tiresome.
Well intended discusions, well and semi informed, are now such that you can not see the forest through the trees.
Everybody has their bias on display. Lets just sit on the fence and wait for the end result or even better a fly off between all the 5th gen fighters. But that will never happen

In the mean time Europe as a whole is going broke, The US is going broke, Norway and the Netherlands are not too bad off. So you wonder in how in all honesty we can blow those astronomical amounts of money on military hardware. Let us hope that sanity will prvail but I doubt that.

Never the less all those 5th gen planes whether Russia, China or the USA have intriguing technologies that just like a new toy you want to play with.

Time will show us how it all will work out for better or worse. Just let's not get carried away. And I think that is what most of us are just doing.

Quote:

Let us hope that sanity will prvail but I doubt that.

Why this? Large-scale international total wars of mass attrition to which F-35 could be applied have not occurred in nearly 70 years. The Soviets are dead and the Russians are a minor nuisance. The Chinese are vanguard of the developing world but that's the developing world. Brazil and India aren't projecting power, and the Europeans keep things pretty local. America can take care of itself and its allies. I'm cautiously optimistic except when I'm feeling pessimistic. F-35 will help preserve status quo at the worst and peace at best; things could grow worse without F-35.

jeffb wrote:

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?

The APA claims.

It amazes me how arrogant people can be such that they think they know more, as a hobbyist, than an entire industry that operates largely under a classified cloak. Simply amazing.

Last edited by jeffb on Mar 13, 2012 - 06:39 AM; edited 2 times in total

shingen wrote:

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.

“Reported as the troll you are…”
But if you’ve already decided I’m a troll it doesn’t matter what my reply is does it? Or do I need to prove myself to you Shingen? Good luck with that.

You made the statement that the only counters to stealth aircraft are nuclear weapons + a couple of other equally stupid and unlikely scenarios. I asked when it had been decided that VHF, UHF, OTH and bi-static systems had been ruled invalid. You then ADMITTED that stealth aircraft could be detected by VHF and OTH systems but then started wriggling around claiming that no missile targeting information could be garnered from such information and thus the systems under discussion were effectively useless against stealth aircraft. I pointed out the continued investment by Russia and China in these systems which, on the face of it, call your claim that these systems are ineffective into question. You demanded technical details of tracking stealth aircraft via VHF and OTH systems and claimed that if I could not provide that data that I must be a troll.

In short, you made a bullshit assertion.
I pointed out that you were full of $hit.
You admitted that your original statement was incorrect or incomplete.
Throughout our exchange you used derogatory language and guilt by association in a lame attempt to undermine my argument and protect your BS assertion.
Finally, you accused me of being a troll.

I’d say otherwise but this is pretty much par for the course for you Shingen, frankly I should report you as the troll. I’ll throw myself on the mercy of the mods. If they consider my responses as simply trolling then so be it, report away.

It's as easy to look up sferrin's join date and mine and then look at the two of us posting in the same thread as it is to look up some of the technical stuff I suggested you look up.

Maybe if they posted sferrin's and shngen's F-16 posting stats on APA...

Edit:

Add this link: http://www.amazon.com/Network-Centric-W ... amp;sr=8-1

Read this and maybe it will help. It talks about the importance of surveillance vs observables and the difference between tracking and targeting. If you don't know the difference between the 2 I can't really have a discussion with you unless you can somehow explain how you think a VHF radar enables one to target an aircraft.

shingen wrote:

It's as easy to look up sferrin's join date and mine and then look at the two of us posting in the same thread as it is to look up some of the technical stuff I suggested you look up.

Maybe if they posted sferrin's and shngen's F-16 posting stats on APA...

Edit:

Add this link: http://www.amazon.com/Network-Centric-W ... amp;sr=8-1

Read this and maybe it will help. It talks about the importance of surveillance vs observables and the difference between tracking and targeting. If you don't know the difference between the 2 I can't really have a discussion with you unless you can somehow explain how you think a VHF radar enables one to target an aircraft.

Apologies Sferrin, my bad.
Post corrected.

maus92 wrote:

First of all, I appreciate you viewpoints. If anything, they serve as a reality check to us (mindless?) skeptical media types. However, nothing in your response has refuted any factual information that I have presented. I take it that you are an uncritical supporter of the program, and that is fine as far as I am concerned. I have a more measured view of the program - and strive to bring balance into the discussion. I have never said that the program is a disaster - that is your characterization of my view.

Actually I'm obligated to be critical due to my work, but in my professional opinion I do think that the F-35 is the right choice for Canada. This judgement is based the facts of the program and looking at dozens of programs over the years. Is it perfect? absolutely not. By participating in the JSF project, there will be issues for us that won't be easily met. My job is to understand how the overall features of the project will affect our national security interests going forward.

There are a number of things I am concerned about, like how working with a multinational program will manage our own domestic needs concerning O&M, and other issues. PBL offers advantages and disadvantages. These are specific issues that have very real effects on operational effectiveness. Its not the sideshow that the Canadian journalists are putting out concerning this issue like about per-unit costs, in service date and number of aircraft. Most of those estimates are ridiculous. Furthermore given what the government has put up with other programs, those are is really small potatoes. Even at its theoretical worse the F-35 won't reach the levels of mismanagement and cost as the Cyclone project. Yet for some reason nobody seems to care about that program. Furthermore there is significant evidence that shows the price won't reach the worst case scenarios.

However I'd disagree that you're providing "balance." You're just posting negative information without any forethought or contextualization. Several times you've posted information that has already been discredited, such as ridiculous cost estimates and opinions poorly informed individuals.

I would have hoped that by participating in this forum you would have at least educated yourself about some of the basic aspects of the program and that of defence procurement. Instead you seem to be continually drawn to the "shiny objects" of defence reporting, which is the harshest criticism of this program, no matter the source.

maus92 wrote:

The LRS-B is a direct competitor to the F-35 in the strike role - particularly in the WestPac - in my view. The USAF has been using B type aircraft in roles traditionally performed by tactical aircraft of late (in part because of their inherent endurance,) enabled by precision weapons and targeting technology - the same weapons envisioned for F-35. The trouble with an aircraft program 10+ years in gestation is that circumstances and strategies change. No question that we need to replace aging aircraft, but does the F-35 fulfill emerging requirements at reasonable cost? Should we be looking at larger, longer range aircraft (which would decouple the limitations imposed by STOVL?) Are interim solutions a better choice? All legitimate questions worthy of civil discussion.

I'm sorry, this is an implausible response. The USAF will never send long range bombers into contested airspace without support. It would be utter suicide given the IADS heavy environment of China. It was a bad idea in 1943, and it would be an even worse idea today. For these assets to operate successfully, they require air superiority, SEAD/DEAD, among other things... all of which are provided by the F-35. Furthermore there are more than enough bases heavily defended by ABM and SAM systems, which would enable the F-35 to make a key difference in the region.

What's the balance? Its unlikely there will be more bombers than today, particularly given the US and Russia will to drawdown their nuclear forces as part of START II. That frees up more units for conventional activities. If there are cost considerations, then certainly it will require a rebalance between the two... however TAC air is a critical component that will allow these aircraft to operate in this theater.

I do try to post articles here that have been overlooked or ignored by other members, apparently are what you consider negative, fallacious, etc. The content I post is meant to provide balance, insight, and additional information to the discussion, which in my view is essential for intelectual honesty. If any of it is inaccurate, please provide an example.

USAF doctrine beginning with the Cold War relied on penetrating (unescorted) bombers to form one leg of the nuclear deterrence triad. As AD technology improved, so did the aircraft - from B-36 to B-2. LRS-B is the latest iteration of an aircraft designed to breach heavily defended airspace unescorted (but not necessarily unsupported - high altitude high endurance ISR, EA/EW/Cyberwarfare, cruise missiles, MALD, etc.) In the strike role, LRS-B will have several advantages over the F-35 - superior range, payload, and stealth (ELO vs VLO) - and an optionally manned mode for strikes against the most heavily defended targets. Superior range gives it the ability to operate from bases beyond those denied to F-35 by TBMs, superior payload translates to fewer sorties thus less exposure to threats, and superior ELO stealth makes it is harder to find and target. All three of these qualities will compliment F-35 capabilities, and could plausibly alter the mix of tactical aircraft, reducing the total F-35 requirement.

Forum: Program and politics

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