Comments on: JSF Kills Best SAMs Too: Heinz

By: Boog

Boog — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 11:42:32 +0000

Well put, sir, well put. I’ll cretlainy make note of that.

By: skunk

skunk — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 21:20:00 +0000

Gentlemen,
It seems that this entire chain of commentary was initiated by Brig. Gen David Heinz’s response: “While I will do the mission differently, I am still delivering first day of the war capability.” It is amusing that only one of you picked up on the fact that this response was a non-response to the question: ‘So I asked Heinz if the JSF could kill advanced SAMs.’ Actually, first day of the war capability should consist primarily of killing SAM sites and only killing SAMs if you are detected (SEAD). This naturally begs the question of actually detecting a stealthy platform. One must remember that the basic premise of stealth is that the configuration reflects radar energy away from the transmitter. Unfortunately, recent developments in radar technology could reduce the effectiveness of this basic concept. Two developments in particular could achieve this; bistatic radar and low-frequency radar transmission. It has been indicated that low frequency transmissions reflect more strongly than higher frequencies and bistatic radars are those in which the transmitter and receiver are not co-located. Therefore, a low frequency bistatic radar system stands a better chance of detecting a stealthy platform. Not that this better chance will be significantly better, just better than current systems. As to the ‘all over the map projections’ of F-35 production quantities, based on recent experience, I would not bet on a domestic production run of over 200, if that many. This is not to say, however, that license production will not exceed this value.
As a totally unrelated matter, I recently found an interesting item out on the web to the effect that proofreading seems to be a lost art.

By: ELP

ELP — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:03:30 +0000

Heinz also thinks the USMC will see IOC with the F-35 by 2012. Program management via the crack pipe.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:58:53 +0000

BTY there is serious discussion about returning prop driven air assests to our arsenal. Long loiter times, cheaper to build, and great payload capacity. Updated guns and missles hanging off them would be a fine weapons platform. Too bad the AF can’t get off their mental set that everything has to be faster and have more gadgets. The A-10 is a great tank buster but not sexy enough for the fighter jock mentality.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:54:07 +0000

It is unlikely we will ever engage China or Russia in a war where air dominance is a factor. They don’t want a piece of us as much as we don’t want a piece of them. More likely, is an assault will be made on our over reliance on command and control from space assets, and cyber assets. It is far cheaper and just as effective if not more so. Virtually every piece of our resource base (military, power distribution,etc) is data dependent. Both China and Russia are fully engaged in data and intel disruption strategies. We have no defence against an assault on our power grid, which is already far too vulnerable. Our biggest concern would be anti-air missle and gun technology transferred to proxy states. We have the technology to deal with that now. We would be building an aircraft with not much effect in the outcome of asymetric war fighting.

By: HERD

HERD — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:14:47 +0000

Cannot afford both; especially in this era.

Fortunate to get JTF, if?

Pilots make the difference.….….…..

By: colron

colron — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:43:02 +0000

There are 2 main issues that people are overlooking
1. Air dominance — without it a ground war becomes a battle of attrition rather than a crushing winning effort.
The F-22 is the 5th generation air dominance aircraft and without enough to carry on a battle against large numbers of 5th generation fighters produced by China and/or Russia then our dominance will be lost in short order.
2. Once an industrial base is lost due to shut down of a production line the price to restart generates skyrocketing costs as well as time lost.

F-35 is a very good airframe and has its place as a replacement for the F-16 but it is NOT a replacement for the F-22 and it was designed as a compliment to the F-22 not an either/or aircraft.

By: dvortex

dvortex — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:02:23 +0000

The s-300 has been marketed and sold to many countries that usa/nato might have conflicts with in the future, this is a threat that has to be taken into account. Dogfighting capacities are still required, especially in Europe during peace time where airspace violators are escorted out. The eurofighter was made för this.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:55:13 +0000

Weaponhead,

Do some research about how that one F-117 was shot down. And note that that ‘miracle’ (was not really a miracle but until you learn how it actually happened it might as well be) had never been accomplished in hundreds of provious F-117 sorties & has ot been repeated since.

By: Alex

Alex — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 20:54:18 +0000

Kevin it’s not that simple any more. Radar/missile seekers don’t just go on one frequency, they have complex (nearly impossible to crack) algorithms that make the frequencies jump around so that you can’t just jam it. We spend a lot of time intercepting these radar signatures and trying to crack the algorithms so we can jam them.

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:59:17 +0000

Seems like there is worry when it comes to the Russian S-300/400. On the 1st nite of a strike, there has to be SEAD. The F-4 was used in ’91, wat aircraft will deliver this capability? The JSF is not ready yet, so for now wat do we use? The F-22? I imagine it could. Air superiority? That too. The non-stealth aircraft will have to be used too. Boeing’s F-15SE is a darkhorse, maybe a good stopgap before JSF is ready. As for the A-10, no aircraft can provide the CAS that it does. It is truly a scary sound when that cannon is fired. This plane is so valuable to guys on the ground, and the enemy truly fears it. Let’s spend, but spend wisely. The F-117 downed in Serbia, was picked up by modified low-frequency radar, plus as said above, using the same routes will eventually get you killed.

By: solomon

solomon — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:40:39 +0000

why not buy stealth eagles? ’cause the F-35 will be cheaper and provide more capability.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:28:11 +0000

Sorry (decent Jammers)

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:27:22 +0000

All this talk is silly, I have known some vry excellent engineers that tell me if a person can find the frequency and pulses (time and width), nothing fancy using O-scopes and Reflectometers, he can build a decent, just ask Northrop Grummann with their ALQ’s.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 07:14:46 +0000

Why not buy the Boeing propose F-15SE (Silent Eagle), an upgraded F-15E utilizing F-22 like Stealth technology at only 100M a copy? It has upgraded avonic systems, phased array radar and the missles come out from modified CFT’s (Conformal Fuel Tanks). Google F-15SE and you’ll see what I mean. Technology is there. The Vertical Stabilizers (fins) have been angled 15 degrees to lower the radar signiture.

By: Joe Katzman

Joe Katzman — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 04:36:16 +0000

Weaponhead, re: “Don’t need maneuverability,” that actually has more basis in fact than the SAM and production boasts.

Here’s the concept. We know that missiles have much wider seeker cones (boresight) these days, and are hard to decoy thanks to twin improvements in computing power and imaging quality seekers. We also know, and air forces have proven, that if you can cue missiles like Python 5, ASRAAM, or AIM-9X to fly using inertial navigation to a point that puts a fighter behind you in their seeker cone (and better still, update that via 2-way datalink), you can kill over the shoulder.

The RAAF did it with their F/A-18A+ Hornets and ASRAAM recently, so nothing revolutionary there.

The F-35 has embedded sensors, of many types, all around the plane. They include staring infared, sensors that can pick up electromagnetic waves (radar, comm, etc.), and more. The F-22 also uses this unique embedded approach, but in fairness, the F-35 goes farther with it.

Now, if the F-35’s sensors can “see” aircraft in a 360 field of view around the plane (and they’ll project this data onto the HMDS helmet), and 2-way datalinks let you target missiles in a 360 degree sphere… then you may not have to maneuver into position when dogfighting. And beyond visual range, maneuverability won’t matter much anyway.

So, that’s the theory. Unlike the production numbers, it’s not a lie. But it is untested against modern hyperspectral countermeasures, the vagaries of combat, and other things we’d have to experience before we could tell whether this was the real deal, or a repeat of the “unbeatable missiles” fiasco of the 1960s that got guns eliminated from the F-4, and ended up killing pilots over Vietnam because those unbeatable missiles, were. A mistake that the Israelis, to their credit, never made.

DID has covered the F-35’s air to air capability controversy in some depth:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:38:46 +0000

Thanks for the input Hoot, certainly more informational than the rest of the know-it-alls screaming about how the F-35 is better, cheaper, blah blah. I would certainly be curious to know what some of the problems are ;) buttt I don’t think they want our enemies to know! In any case, this is a new aircraft and everyone knows that stealth like this is tough to keep OR, but I imagine they should be able to get the OR much higher once they work out all the kinks and get into a rhythm in their deployments?

By: Hoot

Hoot — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:18:03 +0000

Retired old rotor head Blackhawk guy, and worked most airframes on the Army Aviation scene also as a secondary, since retirement been in Fighter/Bomber Acquisition stuff, a little bit of everything including still (believe it or not) spares for B-57 Canberra (still a few around). Anyways,currently working airframes acquisition spares F-15/F-22. Everyone has their pet aircraft, it’s understandable. Fact of the matter is the F-22 is a fantastic aircraft, but the OR rate (not giving away anything here, it’s already been published) is a pitiful 62%. And, it has yet to drop a bomb in anger. Anyone with contacts/in the biz (especially Langley) knows what the problems are. Not to mention the “ahem” problem on the first deployment to Kadena causing an RTB over the Pacific for the entire group. We’ve been here before folks. The F-22 will go down as a revolutionary aircraft and a platform for future developments, but will not be produced in mass quantities. Like the F-117, it will be used as best it can and may score some great victories, but will eventually fade off into AMARC (F-117 actually went back to original base for storage). It’s just the way things cycle :)

By: G-man

G-man — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:19:27 +0000

I don’t understand why we are paying all this money for companies to develope technology, then some Junior Senator thinks he is going to make a name for himself by cancelling a program and weend up with a less capable aircraft. If we have the best of the best, why throw it out? I also have seen too many allies end up with first line equipment, only to turn on us and we end up sacrificing good men and women becasue they are going up against equal capabilities. Our entire doctrine is based on having superior equipment and training. Why give them a leg up. Maybe if our allies didn’t have the top line stuff, they wouldn’t be so damn ready to start conflicts that the US ends up finishing and paying for.

By: md

md — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:08:02 +0000

I know that we will never have anyone attack us EVER, but that’s the whole point, it does not matter if they never attack us, its because our defence is our DEFENCE. WHEN YOU TAKE GUNS AWAY FROM PEOPLE DO U THINK THAT NO CRIMINALS WILL CARRY GUNS OR NO HONEST PEOPLE. WHO WILL TURN THEIR WEAPONS IN TO ATTHORITIES? THIS COUNTRY WAS FORMED BY PEOPLE THAT WERE THE PEOPLE THAT FOUNDED THIS COUNTRY. DID THEY TRY TO CHANGE OTHER PEOPLE WHO WERE FORMING IT. NO.., AND WE STARTED BELEIVING THAT DEFENCE WAS ESSENTIAL, NOT TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD IN A HOSTILE WAY, BUT IN A CIVIL WAY. ALL IS FAIR IN WAR, ALL PLUGS PULLED OUT, FOR A REASON. WE WERE A STRONG CONTRY BUT PEOPLE ARE DISECTING IT. DO U THINK THAT WHEN GOD SENT THE 10 LAWS(COMMANDMENTS) TO US, DO YOU THINK THAT HE THOUGHT THAT WE WOULD OBAY THEM ALL EVERY DAY? ABSOLUTLY NOT. HE SENT THEM TO US TO SHOW THAT WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS WRONG AND RIGHT. IF YOU THINK THAT HE WAS STUPID ENOUGH TO BELIEVE WE WOULD FOLLOW THEM TO THE T THEN U ARE GOD. ONCE AGIAN, RAMBLING. SEE WHAT IT DOES? WILL WE ALL STOP RAMBLING ABOUT THINGS WE DONT UNDERSTAND AND REALLY LOOK AND LEARN ABOUT WHAT IS GOOD AND NOT. F22, GOOD. U.S. ARMY, GOOD. ALL MILITARY, GOOD. PEOPLE DISECTING THE FOUNDATION OF WHAT WE ARE FOUNDED ON, BAD. AND IF U THINK THAT IT IS GOOD, THEN U THINK THAT THIS COUNTRY IS GETTING BETTER. WE ARE IMPLOADING. 10 LAWS? GOOD. RELIGON? BAD. GOD? GOOD. PEOPLE DISECTING? BAD. WE NEED TO DEFEND OUR GREAT PLACE, NOT TRY TO LOOK AT THINGS THAT U THINK ARE COOOOOL DUDE, AND PUT IT IN PLACE LIKE U DID AT 16. YES I AM CHANGING THE SUBJECT, BUT NOT REALLY, I JUST WANT U TO THINK. HINDSIGHT IS 20/20. MURPHYS LAW? GOOD. DEFENCE? GOOD PUNCTUATION AND CORRECT SPELLING? GOOD.…