Feedback on APA/REPSIM Submission

[popcorn]

As expected, the APA/REPSIM presentation was dismissed in no uncertain terms..

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs. ... nt&src=hp8

Assembly of first RAAF JSF starts soon
Published 5:39 PM, 16 Mar 2012

Australia's first Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) aircraft, the forerunner of as many as 100 advanced combat aircraft, is set to start down the production line in the next few weeks.

Air Vice Marshal Kym Osley, head of defence's new air combat capability program, rejected criticism of the JSF by organisations such as Air Power Australia (APA) on grounds they had not seen all the classified US data on the aircraft's performance...

The JSF has faced steady criticism that it would be late, expensive and wouldn't deliver the promised level of capability.In a committee hearing last month APA said JSF was totally outclassed by new Russian and Chinese aircraft and radar systems and was also more expensive than the much more capable F-22 Raptor.

Air Vice Marshal Osley said the APA analysis was flawed through incorrect assumptions and a lack of knowledge of the classified F-35 air combat performance information.

[munny]

Hilarious. Back to the kiddies table for APA.

[tacf-x]

This is just GOLD!!!

[delvo]

It would have been better with less emphasis on the lack of knowledge of classified details and more emphasis on the fact that they lie about details that are known.

[munny]

Decided to check back in the submissions folder. Looks like the fight between Defence and Repsim/APA continues. Something I found VERY odd in submission 12 from Mike Price from REPSIM.

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Bus ... 1/subs.htm

Corroborating this analysis was the statement by Lt. Gen. Herbert Carlisle, U.S. Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans and Requirements reported in Aviation Week 08 March 2012.

“Quantity is a factor,” says Carlisle. “You may have incredible capability, but you can only be so many places at once. You have to man combat air patrols in the South China Sea scenarios. As we’re moving into the fifth-generation aircraft, we are doing an assessment of the number of fighters we need.”
Then there is the conundrum of determining how capable a Block 1 or 2 F-35 is against sophisticated enemy air defenses.
“Software is a huge challenge” to provide the needed Block 3 upgrade, says Carlisle. “We’re not making progress as fast as we would like. We’re redoubling our efforts to get better at it. [Not having the upgrades] means less capability. Could you employ it against a very capable anti-access, aerial-denial threat? Probably not.”


This is a current assessment, not a hypothetical future assessment in 2020 or 2030. The deficiencies of the F-35A in the specific context of what RAND Project AIR FORCE specified and what REPSIM constructed in its simulations are reasonable and representative of the likely outcome of air combat against modern, not future, integrated air defence systems.

So is this saying that for their contribution to Project Airforce, REPSIM's simulations were done with block 1 or 2 F-35's? But Block 3 will be current when RAAF receives their 1st squadron, there's a whole lot of difference.

Also while stating that their simulations were of MODERN and not FUTURE combat scenarios, they included a Chinese airforce flying the Su-35S.[url][/url]

[count_to_10]

I saw a graphic in one of the APA documents comparing altitude and moch numbers for the F-15, F-22, and F-35. The comparison was "with a useful Air-to-Air load, which they then defined as the F-22's full internal load -- which would specifically mean that the F-35 would be stuck with two or four external pylons.
Not exactly a fair or useful comparison.

[SpudmanWP]

Not exactly a fair or useful comparison.

The definition of most APA articles

[southernphantom]

I happen to agree with APA on the Raptor, but their articles fail to give 4.5-generation aircraft enough/any credit, and also neglect the F-35's SA improvements.

I see a smaller force of long-range, higher-capability strike/air dominance aircraft as better for the RAAF, but the F-35 is definitely the next-best thing.

[spazsinbad]

'southernphantom' says: "...I see a smaller force of long-range, higher-capability strike/air dominance aircraft as better for the RAAF,..." and in the same vein I want to be 45 years younger. Any offer? Beuhler? Anyone?

[munny]

Personally I think the F-35 is pretty ideal. We should invest in some PAC 2's and 3's. Combine those and the Hobart class AEGIS fitted ships with the ability to handover midcourse updates to forward F-35's and you have a decent anti-air system.

APA fail in a lot of areas. Kopp wrote a piece on the PAK FA and many of his comments regarding RCS were correct. The thing is a mirror ball for radar from its side aspect and not so hot from the front either. Yet when he compares it to the F-35 he states that they are equally as bad. Simply not even close to the truth.

An RCS polar plot of a 50cm axial cross section (underside only) of the F-35 and PAK FA in the areas near their nozzles. I used the lumpy part of the F-35 where the hook is for this example to capture the worst features of the area. Both samples used same materials, 10GHz frequency. Note that the actual RCS values are not indicative of the real RCS as a PEC was used rather than RAM.

The simulation application was calibrated against published real life RCS tests of simple objects and the simulated results were within 3 dBSM of the real results.



Take note that the RCS range on the two samples are different, you need to look at the actual RCS values of both rather than just their apparent sizes. At about -5 degrees (the most relevant angle for these aircraft), this section of the PAK FA has an RCS in excess of a 100 times larger than the F-35.
The reason is that the tangential angle of the exposed, outer surface of the PAK FA's engine nacelles are at almost 90 degrees to a horizontal incident ray. Every lump and bump on the F-35 has an angle not exceeding arounf 65 degrees. 55 degrees for the F-22 BTW.

[archeman]

APA <heavy>

What we have here folks is a love affair that wasn't meant to be.
This Kopp guy is so in love with the F-22 that he can't imagine that he is going home with anybody else.
The F-22 assembly line is being boxed up bit by bit right now being shipped off to be parked next to the Arc of the Covenant in some giant dusty warehouse somewhere never to be seen again most likely. Continuing to make a case that can't be won, after the jury has gone home and the lights in the courtroom have been turned off is --- a little bit crazy. No longer respectably dedicated.

So now the entire existence and their credibility is tied to a decision that was never in the hands of the Australians at all (Purchase of F-22) and that whole website (which appears to be a respectable bit of work!) are now being converted into an "I told you so" living document instead of coming to grips with reality as it really is.

What needs to happen is that the word F-22 needs to be expunged from that site and then re-assemble it all into something sensible that Australians can turn to for relevancy.

I'm not a Dr but, perhaps the bards Hall & Oats might help the Good Dr Kopp here with his F-22 problem:

Everybody's high on consolation
Everybody's trying to tell me what's right for me
My daddy tried to bore me with a sermon
but it's plain to see that they can't comfort me

Sorry Charlie for the imposition
I think I've got it, got the strength to carry on
I need a drink and a quick decision
Now it's up to me, ooh what will be

Chorus:
She's Gone Oh I, Oh I'd
better learn how to face it
She's Gone Oh I, Oh I'd
pay the devil to replace her
She's Gone - what went wrong

Up in the morning look in the mirror
I'm worn as her tooth brush hanging in the stand
my face ain't looking any younger
now I can see love's taken her toll on me

She's Gone

Think I'll spend eternity in the city
let the carbon and monoxide choke my thoughts away
and pretty bodies help dissolve the memories
but they can never be what she was to me

She's Gone

[tacf-x]

As munny said, every contour on the F-35 is shaped such that nothing close to a 90 degree angle shows up. The F-35 exemplifies an attention to RCS reduction details that far surpasses what the Russians seem capable of in a manner similar to how American turbomachinery possess far smaller error tolerances vs. Russian machines.

Kopp needs to wake up and stop fantasizing. There's no way anyone is going to seriously resurrect the F-22 now.

F-35 offers everything the Australians could ask for in terms of performance and capability so why bother looking for anything else?

[f-22lm]

Munny can you please elaborate more about the f-35's humps please I really want to know. Tell me of all it.

[count_to_10]

Munny can you please elaborate more about the f-35's humps please I really want to know. Tell me of all it.

If you look at a picture of the underside of the F-35, you will see a number of individual curved surfaces, or "humps". They reduce RCS from shallow side angles, but not from steep side angles.

[f-22lm]

Thanks for the info count to 10 really thanks, but a little more information please?