U.K. gets keys to first JSF

U.K. gets keys to first JSF

U.K. Defense Secretary Philip Hammond will fly to Fort Worth, Texas, Thursday to pick up his country’s first F-35 Joint Strike Fighter from Lockheed Martin’s assembly plant. It marks the first country of the international coalition other than the U.S. to receive one of the fifth generation fighters.

Hammond met with his U.S. counterpart, Leon Panetta, Wednesday morning at the Pentagon to discuss the F-35 program among other topics. Panetta even awkwardly presented Hammond with a model of an F-35 to open the news conference they hosted Wednesday from the Pentagon press room.

The occasion marks a milestone for the intensely scrutinized fighter jet as international cooperation has been a hallmark of the program and could very well determine its survival. The U.S. is the largest international JSF buyer, yet, the cost of each jet jumps considerably anytime a partner nation backs out.


Italy, Canada, Norway, the Netherlands and the U.K. have all either slashed the number of F-35s they plan to buy or considered backing out of the program all together. They’re not alone.

A column written by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert for Proceedings magazine earlier this month was construed as a backpedal by the U.S. Navy in their commitment to the JSF. The U.S. Navy’s top officer questioned the need for stealth aircraft as radar technology rapidly advances.

Of course, the Navy has since made sure to tell anyone that is listening that they are completely behind the program. However, the seed of doubt was most certainly planted.

So much so that a British journalist asked Panetta at Wednesday’s news conference if the U.S. military is still committed to the Joint Strike Fighter even with the looming budget cuts to include a further $500 billion cut if sequestration is executed. Standing next to Hammond, Panetta made sure to calm those fears to include stating how each one of his services support the program.

“I’ve made very clear that this fighter plane is critical to our future defense strategy,” Panetta said. “We are committed to all of the three variants because we think each of the forces will be able to use that kind of weaponry in the future so we can effectively control the skies.”

Panetta highlighted the work his team is doing to pressure Lockheed Martin, the prime manufacturer of the plane, to keep costs down. He emphasized the strides the F-35 program has made over the past 18 months to get back on schedule and control a spiraling price tag. But the work toward that goal is not finished.

“It is something we have to continue to put pressure on, to maintain cost control on, and we are working with industry to do that because we do want it to be cost effective,” he said.

For Hammond’s part, he has had his own inner squabbles when it comes to the Joint Strike Fighter. He originally planned to switch the U.K.‘s JSF order from the B-model to the C-model. Hammond has since reversed that decision once the U.K. realized how much it would cost to update their aircraft carriers to accommodate the fighter’s longer range variant.

Lockheed Martin made sure to include a British pilot when it marched out three F-35 pilots for a panel to discuss the fighter’s capabilities this month at the Farnborough International Airshow. Peter Wilson, a British Harrier pilot who is now a BAE test pilot, was one of the drivers who flew in the recent F-35 sea tests. He had one of the lines of the entire airshow when he described landing the Short Takeoff and Vertical Landing variant as “magic.”

U.S. officials hope to continue to hear rave reviews of the F-35 program because many feared the British military, which is experiencing harsher defense cuts than the U.S., could realistically back out because of JSF’s steep price tag thus putting the F-35 at further risk.

Join the Conversation

I’m taking bets as to who will back out of the F-35 program first. I currently have $30.00 on the Dutch, but the US Navy is also looking like a good bet as well. After that I’d say Canada is next in line.

This jet is just too expensive for us to afford and not everyone is going to purchase them. $400 billion dollars for the acquisition cost to the US alone is obscene.

I hear some turbo prop trainers all tricked up are cheaper.
No other new technology program is going to be cheaper. Remember how the Bush admin spent $7 bill on an ‘upgraded’ version of an existing bird for a presidential helicopter. Bell couldnt stay within budget for a small improvement of an existing helicopter.

BlackOwl against the F35? Who woulda thunk?

You are right, the Dutch ( will go Gripen NG ) will be First, Canada next, then I think Italy ( they are flat broke ) or Australia. We will see shortly. I think the Navy will pull out after Canada & Australia do ( so they can all keep flying F-18’s together ).

During the original competition, Boeing’s model was not able to land or hover due to engine exhaust getting sucked back up into the intake, cutting thrust. It was marginal at best in flight. Boeing’s 787, a commercial program was delayed repeatedly and is only now beginning to look good. We seem to be in an era of immense technical challenges when developing new aircraft, and the challenges seem to change during the life of the development, causing even more severe strain on the program. It would seem that the United States is faced with a serious challenge: either to cancel or soldier on. The first option would place our to-date unchallenged air superiority at risk within just five to ten years, and without air superiority, our global military dominance would be either lessened or eliminated.

Continuing the program will continue to bleed our defense budget, but should produce a series of planes and a technology base that is at least one generation ahead of the Russian, Chinese and Indian’s, as well as the various European efforts that are in any event, less of a challenge to the U.S.

One method of measuring the moment that a society ceases to push forward, and becomes reactionary, is this very program. We have seen a steady and in many ways violent rise of the conservative political/social movement in the United States. Historically, that has usually meant that the society ceases to grow and develop, begins to retreat in nearly all areas a society is measured by.

If The United States has a future as an economic and cultural power, that future is now being determined — not merely by the JSF, but this program is certainly an important indicator of our future.

The SU-35 and PA-50 with their “L Band ” radars will be more than a match for the F-35. They will SEE it and shot it down. China if it doesn’t already have their own version of the “L Band Radar” will shortly ( they steal Everything from Everybody). So you will see their J-11’s & J-20 with them in the near future.

Well then, here’s a thought, perhaps if the military didn’t pay contractors more to fail than they do if they succeed, companies like Boeing wouldn’t promote idiots that excel only at blocking progress and good ideas. Gee, I wonder how much better off the 787 would be doing without the military side morons dorking everything up?

L-band is not a means of fire control of attacking missiles. Just how will they illuminate the postage stamp sized radar x section at 45 miles so the missile with an even smaller seeker head can home in.

Boeing Commercial doesnt even share buildings ( or cities) with Boeing Defense.

But their Phazotron N-014 Phased Array Fire Control radar’s are capable of shooting them down.

And to do the deed they will use the “Ramjet RVV-AE-PD/R-77M” missile in Beyond Visual Range combat against reduced signature ( Stealth ) fighters

The British have been going back and forth on which F-35 to buy; but in actuality, the British government should buy the F-35B and the F-35C as they should equip their carriers for catapult launch to handle the F-35C while the F-35B can do a conventional rolling takeoff. Having both F-35B and F-35C makes sense as the F-35C with it’s greater speed and range would be used for air superiority missions while the F-35B would be for ground support like the Harrier it is replacing.

I think the Dutch will go first and switch to the Gripen NG. The Canadian’s will go second and switch to the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet. Australia will follow Canada an bail out of the JSF and go with the F/A-18 E/F Super Horne and the E/A-18G Growler. Eventually, I think the US, Israel and Japan will be the only ones flying them.

I love how you talk as if radars in the L-band are a new thing.

I think the F-35A still has a chance of making it, but the F-35C and F-35B aren’t really going anywhere and the overall price tag of the A-model is still extremely high. This is my opinion of the most likely order of withdraw and what aircraft they could possibly purchase if they decided to pull out:

1. Dutch (Gripen NG)
2. US Navy (F/A-18E/F Block III)
3. Canada (F/A-18E/F Block III)
4. UK Royal Navy (Rafale M and/or Gripen NG)
5. Italy (Rafale M and/or Gripen NG and/or more Typhoons)
6. Australia (F/A-18E/F Block III)
7. US Marine Corps (F/A-18E/F Block III and/or Gripen NG)

I would however like to note that the three parties interested in the F-35B (UK, USMC, and Italy) might want to pursue a Harrier III to compensate for their lack of STOVL fighter capability. The only other option after the F-35B is to ditch STOVL aviation all together. I would also like to note that it is still possible that the international partners could stick with the F-35A until the end and wind up with a small fleet of them.

By the way whatever happened to pfcem? I almost miss him.

I see you presume the all might and feared “L Band Radar” will be working, after it is detected by the EW of the F-35. Oh yeah, if your LBR quits working then a F-35 must be in the area.…hmmmmmm! :)

Wishing and hoping it will fail, ok for two cents; I say they all stay and drive down whatever the 3,000+ a/c will cost in what ever day, real green yankee dollars! Ha :)

Yeah, he was the JSF version of you and the Super Hornet or tee and the Gripen. No offense intended.

Yeah, and the F-35 will still be able to launch an AIM-120D+/E (or ideally a successor to the AMRAAM) long before the Flanker could launch.

Unless you have made the technological breakthrough of the century, radars dont shoot down anything. But assuming you mean the missiles , just exactly how will the fire control radar lock onto a stealth aircraft. Not to mention just using their radar — L band or otherwise will result in a missile heading their way. L-band homing signal ? Who’d have thought

For commonality reasons and to save on carrier conversion costs they will be sticking to the F35B version from now on.

@ BlackOwl18E

Tom Burbage, the Executive Vice President and General Manager, F-35 Program Integration, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics (a person who had a very successful Navy career and is one of the prime front-men for the F-35 marketing effort), he’s nothing but con-artist, crook and an outlier which has surprisingly (or not depending on your view of history) been consistent at making misleading statements to the U.S. Congress and our trusted allies. This includes a recent appearance in front of elected officials where he claimed that weight concerns on the aircraft design were manageable etc etc. These statements are completely false.

@ BlackOwl18E

I’ll also want to see my country (Australia) armed with advanced F-15s as it’s F/A-18A/B Hornet replacement. An Australian specialized F-15E+ development program… the F-15AU variant instead of just Super Hornets.

“A column written by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert for Proceedings magazine earlier this month was construed as a backpedal by the U.S. Navy in their commitment to the JSF.”

Mr. Hoffman who did the construing? (besides Mr. Ewing who wrote two stories that contradicted each other to stir the pot)

Journalism used to be reporting the facts. Now it’s all about interpreting them for the masses too ignorant to think for themselves and simultaneously fan the flames. Politicians and journalists seem to deserve each other more and more.

The mighty USAF could only be defeated by itself.
Any other country failed to weaken the USAF, but by bleeding dry the budget, the JSF is succeeding…

Good grief. You are suppose to be an expert? Your dribble is so tiresome. Is the guy you have the bet with the same one you see in the mirror in the morning?

I would miss you like I miss ARAYA, .….….….….….….NOT

So no US taxpayers dollars were used to pay for this. Are you saying Lockheed built these on their own dime or did the UK pay for them and that is why they are broke.

My I-don’t-give-a-**** meter is off the charts.

OK, will someone please educate a dumb old Army guy? I always read that “this” stealth aircraft has the RCS of a sparrow, or that “that” stealth aircraft has the RCS of a marble…but it DOES have a RCS, right? Which means (again, to a dumb old Army guy) that while the aircraft may not look aircraft-SIZED on a radar screen, it’s still a sparrow or a marble that’s moving at hundreds of miles per hour. So why wouldn’t the bad guys just shoot at anything coming from a threat axis — regardless of size — that’s moving faster than the typical sparrow or marble?

While you all seem very up to snuff on the technological aspects of stealth and radar, I am, in a word, not, so let me assure you…this is a serious question, not a joke. I’m sure the answer is simple and will make me look like like a cretin for not knowing it…

As I have said before; ditch the A model. The AF can use the C model. Like we did the F-4 in & off nam.

An F-15SE variant definitely would provide for Australia’s needs and be a formidable machine if they had to face off against any military powers that threaten their security: http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​H​b​m​v​F​A​B​N​RDA

My poor-man’s understanding is that size determines (roughly) the distance of detection and tracking. Larger targets give stronger reflections that can be reliably detected at a longer range. So if your RCS is tiny, you aren’t invisible but you need to get pretty close to a radar for them to get a reliable return. Since you can detect their emissions at much greater ranges, maybe you can plot a flight path in-between SAM radars without getting close enough for any to detect you. Or maybe you can launch your BVR missiles before an enemy aircraft is able to detect you. Radars can now use some sophisticated tricks to make this more complicated, but I think that’s the general idea. Size equals distance.

Thanks, that makes a little more sense…

Please provide an aircraft with 2 (two) engines. F-15, F-18, F-14, F-22, F-4, A-10, F-5, F-111. Don’t get me wrong the F-16 is an awsome aircraft, but one bird strike and you better be looking for a safe place to land really soon !!! http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​z​N​_​Z​l​6​4​O​QEw. F-15 Eagle Keeper

So under what business model would you propose to build a 5G fighter to maintain America’s edge over Russian and Chinese competitors? You gonna bankroll the technological risks out of your own pocket? Good luck with that.

Stick to rock-throwing. Let the grown-ups in industry who have to actually build and deliver airplanes work the hard problems.

Well now that he has the key, can he fly the thing over to Britain?

I support the F-35 becuz, I support the U.S, but I just wished Lockeed would have made a 5th generation fighter, that has enough internal weapon & fuel storage, so that the USAF, Navy, Marines, European allies, Israel, Turkey, South Korea & Japan will get their money’s worth. What I mean is look at the F-35 competitors, the PAK FA & the J-20, they all have way more range & weapons storage. Another thing, the PAK FA wil have way more powerful engines than the JSF, the russian next generation fighter will have Super Cruise & full TVC, I mean how in the world is the F-35 supposed to out run the T-50??????

My question is why are the F-22 and F-35 so damn expensive? I understand paying people to do their job but maybe just maybe some of these folks / companies are putting profit before the security of their nation.

Right, because you would know more about managing the F-35’s weight than he does…

Why does the US government settle for a 5th generation fighter, that doesn’t have a decent amount of internal storage for fuel & weapons, the F-35 will have poor range compared with it’s nearer competitors the Russian PAK FA & the Chinese J-20, I honestly don’t know why the US government has settled for what Lockeed Martin’s limited 5th generation project, I don’t get.…., when the U.S government can demand a better platform???

Israel flying the 35? You can’t be serious

I don’t know why all the F-35 haters see the need to compare the F-35 to PAK-FA and J-20. The F-35 is not an air dominance fighter, that is the role of the F-22. The F-15 (Air Dominance Fighter) has more air-air kills over the F-16 because that is the role it is designed for; the F-35, like the F-16, is a multi-role fighter. Can it do air to air? sure, but its designed and tasked more for ground attack, like the F-16.

Second, progress report for F-35 thus far in 2012 below. http://www.air-attack.com/news/article/4844/07–11
I already know some are going to say LM is making these numbers up and all, so keep that to yourselves.

I heard the Israelis are investing in the F-35 and are looking to buy into the F-35 program

I think we should only sell it to them if the Russians start selling the Sukhoi PAK-FA to their enemies in the region.

They are already scheduled to receive them from what I was told. It’s just a matter of when and the exact number of Air frames. It’s tied to the Defense package we have with them. But as usual they want to be able to add their own Avionics and missile systems to it, which LM doesn’t want them to do.

I agree with you on the Royal Navy going Gripen NG, Why else would they be “Partners with Saab ” on producing the Sea Gripen??? For Export only, I highly doubt that. They joined forces on that in Sept. of 2011.

Just to add petrol on the JSF fire, the first photos of the new Chinese Stealth Air Dominace fighter have emerged ! They will in the future have a stealthy long range interceptor/bomber ( J-20 ) and fighter ( F-60 ). The single engine and range of the F-35 will seriously undermine any genuine attempts to counter these new aircraft.
http://​freebeacon​.com/​b​e​i​j​i​n​g​s​-​r​a​p​t​o​r​-​k​n​o​c​k​o​ff/

How far from first flight or introduction ? who knows but all Western Gov’ts were caught with their pants down when the J-20 first flew so far ahead of their predictions. Thats the beauty of the security available in a closed society

*sigh*

1. Do you really expect the USN, to let the Gator boats have better TAC AiR air then a CVN?
2. The T-50 only has room for 6 missiles in the internal bays. Now what?
3. The T-50 Might be faster but its RCS is very dirty. has 0 rear aspect stealth, Large air grills on the engine nacelles, and a exposed compressor face. http://i.imgur.com/Fhw3h.jpg
The Plane will not get 1st look on a F-35.
4. Stuffing 5 L-band radars in the T-50 will make it light like a Christmas tree in the EM spectrum. L-band can be jammed just like any other frequency.
5. if your using a Huge land based L-band how will you manage all this data?
A. How do you prioritize 2000 square miles worth of data to vector fighters?
B. What about clutter? Do you realize that In and around Taiwan you could have well over 2000 Air traffic targets? TLAMS, Chinese SRBMS, patriots, Fighters, and ships in the hundreds. How do you not shoot down a passenger plane using over the horizon radar to target? Not to mention Hundreds of friendly planes.
Has data processing reached a point where you can can and track over 1k targets in real time and share the data in real time?
6. The Super hornet has no rear aspect stealth. How do I egress?
7. You do Realize that a upgraded F-15SE is over 100 million right?
8. How many targets can I hit with a super hornet using jassm, versus a F-35 using SDB? Your argument falls apart when you start discussing sortie rates. How many Hornets do I need to hit a target withign a 600 NM combat radius? lets see
20 targets need to be hit.
10X super hornet each with 2X jassm and external tanks.
2Xsuper hornets with 6X AMRAAMS
2X super hornets escort jamming
Possibly 2X Hornets buddy tanking.
Thats an entire squadron of hornets for a few targets. compared to

3X F-35A,C with 8 SDB each =24 targets hit
2X F-35 A,C With 4–6 AMRAAms jamming counter air
we are talking 5 planes versus nearly 20!
if you need 2 or 3 times the amount of hornets to do the same Job your argument falls apart

I just think it’s interesting that ‘Black Owl’ has dropped the faux respectability, carefully selected phrasing, and poorly simulated gravitas that posing as a Naval Cadet required of him. Must have been exhausting.

BTW: We may logically presume that IF the F-35 still had a serious weight challenge, they, like all the other non-challenges not mentioned, would have been brought up in the most resent GAO reports. Things must be going pretty good in the weight area, since the GAO didn’t even TRY to spin a negative angle on weight last time.

First of all the USNA does not have cadets. That’s West Point and the USAFA. We have midshipmen. Secondly: Yes, if I was to fake my identity, then a naval midshipman is the first and most obvious choice. I would never think to fake being a commissioned officer or some other member of the aviation community or something even more credible than that. USNA Midshipmen are the most ideal thing to fake because they are the most credible source ever (insert sarcasm). That makes no sense.

The GAO still mentions the terrible paper thin weight margins of the F-35B. They didn’t mention those of the F-35A or F-35C, but that doesn’t mean they’re not there. I think if they had made drastic improvements in that area Lockheed Martin would have boasted more about it.

Since the U.S picked the F-35 as the fighter they are going to mass produce & over the F-22, be it an air dominance fighter or not, at some point it is going to meet in the battle field with the PAK FA & the J-20, after all it is the fighter we picked, the one we put all the funding behind, it will be our main jet fighter of the future, so this puts it, in the direct future path of the Russian & Chinese’s path, as things are going, I think it’s going to do very well in WVR, there is noy always going to be an F-22 to come to it’s rescue, due to the disproportionate difference in numbers between these two so I’m worried.….……, the PAK FA engines really will out perform the JSF, what is the U.S government thinking, what is Lockeed Martin thinking, I don’t know.….….….….…..??????

If British Pride had not gotten in the way(we can’t EVER buy anything French), PA2 or RxxS would have been built 15 years ago and both the UK and France would both have 2 50–60,000ton 290meter CVAs with RafaleM on them at sea today. All 4 would have been built for less than the total cost of the too small, poor performing CDG and the 2 unfinished(and maybe never correctly finished) UK carriers.
The two main factors for this were 1: Pride, British mostly and French too and 2: The marketing of the Black hole of Finance, I mean the JSF.

Thats assuming all of your weapons are 100% hits. Has never happened before, most likely will never happen. Something about Human designed, Human built things, Murphy’s Law, Gravity, the cost of rice in China and the Bambino’s curse. Last time I looked the USA was attacked by a organised Air Force 71 years ago in Hawaii. Time to cut bait, go back to port have lots of beer with the fuel money saved.

For the computing issue, the possibilities are infinite, and concretely greater than you think. Current x86 processor have 16 general purpose 64bits register with L1 cache capable to perform read operation well above 100GB/s, can have up to 4 memory channed giving ~50GB/s per socket, came with specialized instruction set like FMA4, or AVX. My computer literally rivalize with a mid-90s mainframe, andI bought it more than a year ago. I got 32GB of ram and it cost me less than a macbook pro.

Better, there are much more powerful mean to perform such computation. It can be accelerated by the GPU, which are still general purpose machine. And you can accelerate it even more with FPGA –or better with ASICs– which are widely used in radar technology; grosso-modo instead of having a processor performing load, store, add, mul, you get a machine that perform the whole operation on the hardware directly as you need, with the least quantity of code imaginable depending of the implementation. That’s drastically faster.

Then came the mainframe. Millions of cores. Hundreeds of Terabytes of ram, hundreeds of Peta-bytes of storage with an incredible bandwidth (cray sonexion 1300 deliver 500GB/s of bandwidth). Current supercomputer got 10+ peta-flops (1x10^18) at linpack, in the nineties the power of the brain was evaluated at 1 peta-flops. That was (part of) the tools. Implement a efficient compression algorithm and can easilly multiply the storage capability by 100, implement a more efficient algorithm and you may process you data hundreeds of times faster, or handle more data, or both.

Now the strategies. The data link will be definitely a bottleneck, but could handle hundreds of megabytes/seconds, and perhaps in the order of gigabytes/seconds. You can virtually do whatever you want with those capabilities, you can program the plane to spend its limited computational capability on events of interest, send data potentially correlable to be gatered from multiples sources and analyzed by mainframes, process command for sending specific type of data to that mainframe, and show information coming from the mainframe.

AWACS for instance, may eventually host mainframes serving as data gateway for fighter jet, with data-link providing more bandwidth than a satellite connected to supercomputer correlating data from awacs, fighter jet, satellites, and other monitoring station.

The point is not to analyze everything, but to find everything in the air.

Just to keep it clear, it my vision of the near future, call it a dream if you want.

i think for the A and B, you are right — the A will have the F-22 to cover it from high-power air threats, and the B is meant for Marine CAS and to be covered in high-threat anti-air environments by carrier-launched fighters. i think the C is the odd man out — the navy needs a larger, twin-engine, more anti-air oriented fighter (like a navalized F-22) to protect from air threats. the F-35, by its own program description, is primarily a ground-strike fighter. it can beat SU-27s and MiG-29s convincingly, great — but since fighters last about 30 years, we need to be thinking into the next 30, not the last 30.

t-50 will likely have better all-aspect stealth performance than the f-35 since it has a flatter belly and less rounded surfaces, which act as conical reflectors. it also has 2 engines and likely much better aerodynamic performance. as for it being “experimental” and “years away”, isn’t the same true of the f-35; even after 16 years (!) of development and billions of dollars we are still in LRIP (which seems to also get shrunk and delayed every year). as for rear-aspect stealth performance, why do you think the f-35 is any better? it has a rounded engine nacelle which has the same problem as the t-50 (or the f/a-18, a 30-year-old airframe that you also mention as comparison). look at the f-22 or the f-117 for a contrast — the engine nacelles are flat and small rather than conical and large. as for the electronics and software and computer stuff, i’m tired of hearing about them — those are the easiest things to retrofit into older aircraft, and in fact we already have older airframes with data fusion capabilities, helmet queuing systems and modern radars.

For a detailed explanation of why the aircraft are so expensive, go to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and search on F-35.
You will find that the DOD agrees to fund aircraft development based on unrealistic costs provided by contractors. (Realistic costs would result in Congress not funding the programs.)
GAO reports will show you that designs of systems and subsystems are not validated before the decision to progress into development, sufficient time is not allocated for translating the designs into manufacturing, and adequate time and thoroughness of testing is not incorporated in schedules, and lacks sufficient resources to focus on requirements satisfaction. It happens over and over and over and over!

Forget the GAO’s political documents. Get a copy of RAND’s 2008 “Sources of Weapon Systems Cost Growth” free on line. From the Summary:
“Total (development plus procurement) cost growth is dominated by decisions, which account for more than two-thirds of the growth. Most decision-related cost growth involves quantity changes (22 percent), Requirements growth (13 percent), and schedule changes (9 percent). Cost estimation (10 percent) is the only large contributor in the errors category. Growth due to financial and miscellaneous causes is
less than 4 percent of the overall growth.”

I do agree with you on some of your points, I would like to point out The F-16 was designed as a Air Dominance Fighter, and later grew into the the mutirole fighter it is today. It was one of the first concept aicraft of the Fighter Mafia. The Fighter Mafia came up with the idea high-cost/low-cost or “high/low mix“
which has been a staple of the US airforce since the 1970’s. I thought in the early 1990’s Lockheed was
markiting the F-35 and F-22 as the high/low mix ??

The F-16 with it’s 9 G performance, fly-by-wire, good thrust to weight ratio is most likley the second best dogfighter behind the Thrust vectoring F-22 IMHO.

Hello Eagle Keeper

I completely agree. My country (Australia) use to to be equipped with 116 Mirage IIIO/IIID single engine high altitude interceptors at the time. We’ve lost 41 aircraft due engine failures, pilot errors and maintenance issues. In fact Australia has very limited internal basing infrastructure and surrounded by vast oceans which single engined small fighters with short range are ill-suited to our needs.

@ Eagle Keeper

Indeed, single engine makes the aircraft more vulnerable to engine failure which is totally ill-suited for overwater operations which will cause heavy losses to the entire fleet and putting pilots lives in jeopardy.
Australia has entirely different operational needs, as most roles involve long range or long endurance missions over the sea air gap. Although modern engines are very reliable (which they are), the loss of the engine over water guarantees the loss of the F-35, and also requires that the Navy commit search and rescue assets to support any operational deployment of F-35s or any single engined fighter.

I also agree that the F-16 is an awesome aircraft, but ill-suited to RAAF’s requirements, the F-16 and JAS-39 Grippen are only suitable for NATO European nations, South Ameriacan nations and some Asian nations to operate them. The reason why they are only ideal for those nations is because their range is not as important and they are surrounded by the vast land areas and more surrounded air bases for any emergencies (for e.g. engine failure or hydraulic problems)

Excuse me South American nations, my mistaken spelling.

@ Eagle Keeper

“Please provide an aircraft with 2 (two) engines”. That’s what I say too for RAAF’s fighter/strike force.

The DoD bureaucrats from the Pentagon, Congress, most USAF/USN/USMC and some other air force personals from the allies really don’t have a clue why two engines are certainly needed. The ones they say the F-35’s F135-PW-100 engine doesn’t fail, I thought “WHAT, you guys are crazy to state that this engine doesn’t fail and how would you know that it can’t fail”. Also Eagle Keeper I’m not sure if you are aware that the F-35 is not equipped with fire extinguishing system in its IPP bay which means the pilot will be put in slight disadvantage if the aircraft had engine fire or wiring problems during flight that he or she can’t put the fire out.

@ Eagle Keeper

If you’re wondering why the F-35 has no safety precautions.

The reason why the F-35 has no fire extinguishing system is because during test trials the aircraft had weight problems, then Lockheed Martin Co. made an argument to drop it in order for the F-35 to save weight, which I find it a total disaster, unacceptable and in fact dangerous without one for any emergency situations.

If I ever wanted to become a fighter pilot, I’ll vote two engines for safety and faster throttle response.

Cheers

@ Mario Navarro

If you go to the Air Power Australia, research for “Why does the Pentagon say the F-35 is a true 5th Generation Fighter. Really”? Then you’ll understand the why the aircraft is not meeting its specifications and can’t fulfill the requirements. From the very beginning I find the whole JSF program a total delusion. The F-35 is certainly a 5th Generation Failure. If I was a Defence Minister I’ll completely back out of the (F-35) failed lemon and completely scrap it, nail it down into the coffin and burn it.

@ Mario Navarro

I really don’t care how LM or the Pentagon feels that I got rid of the program because they’ve been consistent making misleading statements to the U.S. Congress and to our trusted allies, which includes a recent appearance in front of elected officials where LM claimed that weight concerns on the aircraft design were manageable, affordable etc etc — which is completely false. Its also 10 years behind schedule, costs are skyrocketing, limited weapons payload, dreadful acceleration at Mach 1.6, dreadful agility, single engine which results an engine failure and will put aircrew lives in jeapordy, very limited range, no safety precautions in the IPP bay and less powerful AESA/sensors and will be extremely expensive to operate and fly etc.

@ Mario Navarro

If not the F-35 for the RAAF’s frontline fighter/strike force what other aircraft would I consider to replace the existing F/A-18A/B “legacy” Hornets with? The right aircraft is the Australian specialized F-15E+ development program… the F-15AU variant or the F-15SE.

Also for the CAS role (close air support). I would also consider the A-10, OV-10 or any turboprop aircraft to support ground troops.

We have to ask ourselves why should the allies deserve to be partners with Lockheed Martin to join the failed JSF program that will never fulfil its mission requirements???

MarioNavarro077

If I were you never deserve to be partners with Lockheed Martin to join the lemon JSF program. Get away from them. I really to see the F-35 Program Integrators get into very serious trouble and lead to cancellation.

What are you talking about? In testing acceleration has proven to be fine, the US has operated plenty of single-engine designs before and engine reliability has come a long way in the past 30+ years, its range is not limited for a fighter of it’s size (what are you comparing it to?), and its damage control systems are better than whats on the F-16 and AV-8 for what that is worth.

Less powerful AESA radar and sensors compared to what? The AN/APG-81 is going to be one of the most capable fighter radars in the world upon introduction. Not as large an array the radars on the F-15 or F-22, but more advanced.

You know APA is horribly biased and willing to twist the facts when it comes to pushing their plan for the RAAF, right?

@ brksj1

“I don’t know why all the F-35 haters see the need to compare the F-35 to PAK-FA and J-20″.

The Russian-made Su-35S Super Flanker-E, upcoming T-50 PAK-FA and J-20 Mighty Dragon low-observable fighters (except for the Su-35S which has has no stealth but has radar absorbment material which is equal to the F/A-18E/F) now in development and flight test are progressing very rapidly. These aircraft are expected to be much more lethal in air-to-air combat against the F-35. The Su-35 and T-50 made appearances last year at the Russian aerospace industry air show known as MAKS 2011. Both aircraft will include sensors and networking which can minimise the effects of the limited low-observable qualities of the F-35. They will also have higher performance, longer range (without refuelling), more powerful radars, advanced sensors, networking, data fusion capabilities and the ability to carry more air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons than an F-35.

William C.

I know APA is certainly not twisted the facts when it comes to pushing their plan for the RAAF. Instead, I find them sources of truth. You know the Pentagon amd LM is horribly biased and willing to twist the facts when it comes to pushing their plan for the RAAF, right?

William C.

Rubbish. The testing acceleration has NOT proven to be fine, the US has operated plenty of single-engine designs before and engine reliability has come a long way in the past 30+ years, its range is limited for a fighter of it’s size and its damage control systems are NOT better than whats on the F-16 and AV-8 for what that is worth.

William C.

The APG-81 AESA radar. The nose geometry of the JSF limits the aperture of the radar. This makes the JSF dependent on supporting AEW&C aircraft which are themselves vulnerable to long range anti-radiation missiles and jamming. Opposing Sukhoi aircraft have a massive 1 meter radar aperture enabling them to detect and attack at an JSF long before the JSF can detect the Sukhoi. It has Medium Power Aperture (0) (Detection range around 140 – 150 nm at BVR)

William C.

“Less powerful AESA radar and sensors compared to what”? The N011 Irbis-E (Snow Leopard) for the Su-35S

NIIP claim a detection range for a closing 3 square metre coaltitude target of 190 — 250 NMI (350–400 km), and the ability to detect a stealthy aircraft while closing 0.01 square metre target at ~50 NMI (90 km). In Track While Scan (TWS) mode the radar can handle 30 targets simultaneously, and provide guidance for two simultaneous shots using a semi-active missile like the R-27 series, or eight simultaneous shots using an active missile like the RVV-AE/R-77 or ramjet RVV-AE-PD/R-77M.

William C.

You still don’t get it. Single engine makes the aircraft more vulnerable to engine failure which is totally ill-suited for overwater operations which will cause heavy losses to the entire fleet and putting pilots lives in jeopardy.

William C.

I also find you horribly biased and willing to twist the facts when it comes to pushing LM’s, the Pentagon, USAF/USN/USMC plan. I certainly don’t deserve to be partners with Lockheed Martin to join the failed lemon JSF program. I really to see the F-35 Program Integrators get into very serious trouble and lead to cancellation.

William C.

Again, the failed F-35 is 10 years behind schedule, costs are skyrocketing, limited weapons payload, dreadful acceleration at Mach 1.6, dreadful agility, single engine which results an engine failure and will put aircrew lives in jeapordy, very limited range, no safety precautions in the IPP bay and less powerful AESA/sensors and will be extremely expensive to operate and fly etc.

What you told me earlier on what the F-35 has, I have don’t have any confidence in your explanation.

Wlliam C.

With your comment “What are you talking about? In testing acceleration has proven to be fine, the US has operated plenty of single-engine designs before and engine reliability has come a long way in the past 30+ years, its range is not limited for a fighter of it’s size (what are you comparing it to?), and its damage control systems are better than whats on the F-16 and AV-8 for what that is worth”.

“Less powerful AESA radar and sensors compared to what? The AN/APG-81 is going to be one of the most capable fighter radars in the world upon introduction. Not as large an array the radars on the F-15 or F-22, but more advanced”.

William. This is all thana marketing BS and completely bloody false statement.

Why not try some sources other than APA? All you’re doing is shouting “No that isn’t true!”

You are aware that the F-16 never had dry bay extinguishers either, right?

The APG-81 is a 700mm diameter radar. Same size as the APG-79 of the Super Hornet, same size as the radar on the Eurofighter Typhoon, and larger than that used by the MiG-29 family. The F-15, F-22, and Su-27 family indeed have larger diameter radars, but there is more than that to radar design. We should indeed have “high-end” air-superiority focused fighters like the F-22 in addition to the F-35, but the F-35 can more than hold its own against the Su-35.

William C.

Another reason why the F-35 is a wrong aircraft for the US and the allies is because the aircraft will be detected by the 55Zh6M Nebo M. This is a multi-band counter-stealth radar. The VHF band element in that radar will detect the F-35 at a distance of tens of miles. That is without a doubt. What that means is that the aircraft is going to be in great difficulty if it tries to deal with what I call a modern or contemporary threat. The same is also true when you deal with these newer stealth fighters, because they are designed to compete with the F-22. They fly higher; they are faster and more agile—much, much more agile. They have more powerful radars and much, much better antenna packages for other sensors. The lemon F-35 is not meeting its specifications and its specifications are inadequate to deal with the changed environment.

Well you should try some sources other than APA? What you’re doing is shouting at me first. “NoWilliam that isn’t true!”

You are aware that the F-16 had dry bay extinguishers either, right?

William C.

Uhhh. The F-35 cannot hold more than its own against the Su-35.

William C.

If the F-35 was to be able to meet its specifications, the aircraft will have the ability of going up against a 1980s Soviet air defence system of the type that we saw destroyed very effectively in Libya 12 months ago, the F-35 would be reasonably be effective in that environment, because these older Soviet radars would not see it.

But if you are putting F-35 up against the newer generation of much, much more powerful Russian radars and some of the newer Chinese radars, the aircraft is quite detectable, especially from behind, the upper side and from the lower sides as well.

Reading off the brochure, aren’t you complaining about Lockheed lying? Am I expected to believe the Russians never exaggerate their capabilities? Not only that but you’re comparing those numbers to unspecified figures for the APG-81.

How many modern AESA designs have the Russians fielded? They’ve shown off a few prototypes but so far they’ve only fielded a few new PESA designs. Meanwhile we’ve introduced AESA radars onto upgraded F-15s, F-22s, Super Hornets, and have quite a lead on them.

Thanks for the input. I guess I just forgot how the Russians are always truthful when it comes to selling you stuff unlike the evil Lockheed Martin Corporation.

William C.

The F-35 will also be detected by the L-Band AESA. It is used for targetting which they’ll be able to track LO/VLO stealth planes such as the F-35 especially from behind, the upper side and from the lower sides as well.

William I’m not really sure if you understand that the back end of the F-35 in full afterburner is something like 1600 degrees (Fahrenheit). In terms of temperature, aluminium combusts at 1100. You are talking about something really, really hot. If you have got a dirty big sensor on the front of your Su-35S or your PAK-FA or whatever, it lights up like Christmas lights and there is nothing you can do about it. And the plume, because of the symmetric exhaust, is all over the place. It is not shielded, it is not ducted in any useful way.

Thanks for the in-depth evaluation there.

Even against these new radars detection ranges are severely reduced compared to conventional designs. Now combine that with ECM, decoys, stand-off weapons, and everything else that would go into cracking a first-rate IADS. It has a far better chance than anything else out there on the market. The F-22 is somewhat stealthier, but it doesn’t have the ground-attack capabilities.

Chances are that the Navy lost less A-7s to engine failure than F-14s. Not only that, but you’re looking at 40 years of engine development since the last single-engined fighters the Navy operated.

And USAF F-16s aren’t exactly falling out of the sky either.

William C 55Zh6M Nebo M “Counter Stealth Radar”. If you want to find out more about this counter stealth radar, here’s a description if you’re interested.

Development initiated late 1990s leveraging experience in Nebo SVU VHF-Band AESA radar;
2012–2013 IOC intended;

Designed from the outset to detect stealth fighters and provide early warning and track data to missile batteries and fighters;

The VHF component will provide a significant detection and tracking capability against fighter and UCAV sized stealth targets;

High off-road capability permits placement well away from built up areas, enabling concealment;

Rapid deploy and stow times permit evasion of air attacks by frequent movement, defeats cruise missiles like JASSM;

Initial Nebo M builds for Russian Air Defence Forces, but expected like other “counter-stealth” radars to be marketed for global export to arbitrary clientele.

William C.

“Reading off the brochure, aren’t you complaining about Lockheed lying”?

Yes I’m complaining about LM lying and misleading to the military and the public what they state their facts what the F-35 can do etc etc.

Are you looking at the same T-50 I am, because it certainly doesn’t have a “flatter belly”. This is the Russians first real stealth aircraft, and how many have we made now?

Do yourself a favor and Google LOAN engine nozzle, which was essentially the prototype for what the F-35 uses.

No the L-Band radars are for detection, not targeting/tracking, and considering their small size and low resolution, it likely won’t be a huge improvement over a good IRST system. Regardless, the F-35 will detect it’s opponent long before it is detected itself.

Aircraft don’t usually fly everywhere in full afterburner. And the exhaust of the Flanker, F-15, F-22, etc. is also pretty damn hot. This isn’t a unique feature of the F-35.

And you don’t see any contradiction with the way you’re promoting these new Russian radars? None whatsoever?

Hi Black Owl, I want to say that you gave a really good answers, on why the F-35 would not be good for Australia, those were really thought out reasons. It made me think of the difference in Defense needs, that Europe & South American countries have, most South American countries have vast territories, which is the opposite with the European countries, that make the jet fighter & sell them. About your list of who would be backing out out of the JSF program, I have to say, that if the Dutch, Canada, the UK, Italy & Australia back out of the F-35 program, they can in the near future kiss goodbye joint operations with NATO, which a lot of these countries want & value. Specially if the JSF program goes through, almost everybody in NATO will be using the same platform & would have fleet commonality & those who don’t would be left out & that’s something these countries would not want.
Besides the 5th generation or stealthy fighter revolution is coming & these countries want to have that capibilty, it’s going to be a neccesity, not a want, in the high level threat enviroments of the future to have this advantage, I mean these countries that you mention can back out & opt for the Gripen E/F or the Super Hornet Block III, the Rafale M, but the future is not with these aircraft, they can go for these proven fighters, but how long would their advantage last, when 2017 or 2019 arrives, that threat world would be different, so investing in a stealthy platform would be the way of the future, it would mean growth instead of stagnation, it would mean survival instead of sure destruction, so I can see how these countries can stay with the F-35, for the sake of their future. Now I my self don’t like the F-35 platform & hope that the US gov’t will scrap it for a more capable fighter, though sadly, it looks like the US government is going to go thru with it, it looks like they are stubbornly committed to it, oh well.….., but these countries that you mentioned really don’t have a option, it’s really the F-35 or the PAK FA & one grants you access to NATO & to NATO operations andthe other doesn’t so, you can imagine what they are going to do.….….

One more thing & more specifically, about the list of countries that would back out of the JSF program, I could be wrong about this, but I just don’t see the Royal Navy using a French fighter or the Gripen NG, which is less capable than the Eurofighter, it would make sense for them to have the Typhoon, the F-35 which they are already commited to & the Gripen NG, it would be cheaper for them to adjust the Eurofighter to a naval version & through upgrades to make the Typhoon more of a better air to ground fighter, I just don’t see the Royal Navy with 3 fighters. I don’t see Italy using the Rafale also or the less capable Gripen NG, they are already committed to the Eurofighter & the F-35 and I don’t think they will persue the Harrier III, how old is that platform, how long will it last in service???, I just wish Dassault would come out & start working on a 5th generation design, so that all these countries could have an option besides the F-35, it would really help if Dassault would do this.….…

the t-50 pictures i see do seem to have a flatter, more f-22 like belly without the rounded sculptings of current f-35. as for the LOAN nozzles, google searches were unable to turn up any more for me than LM hype. please explain to me how true all-aspect stealth designs like the b-2, f-22 and f-117 have such different engine shapes than the f-35, which looks much more like a legacy fighter. don’t get me wrong, my personal opinion is that the f-35 is an improvement on MOST legacy fighters. i just don’t think 1) it is as stealthy as the f-22 or 2) that rear-aspect stealth is present to ANY significant degree

William C.

This is why you need to be extremely careful what LM tell you, is because their statements are all thana marketing when they state their reasons the F-35 is a true 5th Generation Fighter, affordable, easy to maintain etc etc.

Since the F-35 project has started back in the mid-1990’s, I’ve been observing this program at around 15 years now and its not great news when I saw its costs starting to climb bit by bit and even now it’s still climbing making the aircraft unaffordable, causing more technical failures and the Russians had started upgrading their Sukhoi Flankers and developing their own 5th Generation planes that will certainly counter the F-35.

William C.

The bad news is the F-35 will be obsolete when the aircraft arrives in 2018 or later, the US as well the allies are armed with this aircraft will make their air power totally ineffective in the next 30 to 40 years. This is why LM has made you got facinated to join their failed JSF program which is why you’re conned with their statements. You may not like the way I’m explaining to you, I’m sorry to say but this is true William. If it was up to me I’ll completely back away and run away from LM and F-35 program.

William C.

“Aircraft don’t usually fly everywhere in full afterburner”. And the exhaust of the Flanker, F-15, F-22, etc. is also pretty damn hot”.

Unfortunately the exhaust of the F-35 is pretty damn hot to me, this is a unique feature of the F-35. If the aircraft was cruising for e.g. at supersonic engagements the Sukhois will be able to destroy the F-35 using the heat seeking BVR AA-12 Adder AAMs

William C.

“The F-22 is somewhat stealthier, but it doesn’t have the ground-attack capabilities”.

Yes the F-22 does have ground-attack capabilities. The program itself will continue to attract spending on maintenance, spares, and upgrades. The F-22A began as a single-step program, with no need for significant future modernization. Reality intervened, and the current total estimated cost of F-22A modernization is now $9.7 billion for Increments 2, 3.1, and 3.2B. Right now the Air Force operates mostly Block-10 and Block-20 aircraft. The Block 10s are used for training at Tyndall AFB. The Block 20s, produced from 2007 on, use “Increment 2” hardware and software. That lets them launch GPS-guided JDAM bombs at supersonic speeds, and improves performance with the AIM-120C AMRAAM air-air missile. Increment 2 also helped fix some previous operations and maintenance issues.

William C.

Under the Common Configuration program, the F-22A Block 10s are being retrofitted to Block 20/ Increment 2 status, but retain the original core processor. They could be used operationally, but present plans call for them to be used as training and demonstration platforms.

Existing Block 20 jets will get upgrades to the F-22A Block 30 configuration, and can then receive additional Increment 3 upgrades. By 2016, the Air Force should have 34 Block-20 Raptors, 63 F-22A Block-30s, and 87 F-22A Block-35 aircraft. Only the Block 35 jets will be capable of using Increment 3.2 capabilities, unless the F-22’s avionics receive an open architecture makeover that brings down upgrade costs.

William C.

Read more on http://​www​.defenseindustrydaily​.com. on Increment upgrades for the F-22.

Just look at the engine nacelles of the T-50.

Regarding LOAN, it featured geometrical shaping, an advanced cooling system, and special coatings on internal and external structures to add some degree of stealth. It likely isn’t as stealthy as the 2D engine nozzles of the F-22, but on the plus side it is less costly and easier to maintain.

Other than the engine nozzle, the rear aspect isn’t all that different from that of the F-22.

William C. “Chances are that the Navy lost less A-7s to engine failure than F-14s. Not only that, but you’re looking at 40 years of engine development since the last single-engined fighters the Navy operated. And USAF F-16s aren’t exactly falling out of the sky either.”

Although modern engines are very reliable (which they are), the loss of the engine over water guarantees the loss of the F-35, and also requires that the Navy commit search and rescue assets to support any operational deployment of F-35s or any single engined fighter.

Yes the F-14s engine had been a failureback than, but until in the late 1980’s the F-14’s were equipped with the F110-GE-400 engines.

Obsolete? So are you going to propose developments of the F/A-18, F-15, or Gripen as a solution as others have? No it won’t be obsolete and it will be just fine when working in conjunction with other assets (AWACs, EW aircraft, stand-off weapons, decoys, UCAVs, etc.) which is how we operate.

However we should indeed have new aircraft to be the “hi” part of the hi-lo mix. This is what the F-22 was supposed to be for the USAF.

The F-22 does indeed have some limited ground attack capabilities, but these are limited to JDAMs and SBDs and there are some issues with F-22s and other assets sharing the targeting data for these.

The F-35 can carry many more types of munitions internally and externally (JSOW, JSSAM, Paveway GBUs, CBUs, Brimstone, JSM, etc.) and has EOTS which among other things can provide on-board laser designation.

William C. The F-35 does indeed carry ground attack munitions, but still doesn’t carry many more types internally, it also can’t carry a AGM-88 HARM. When carried externally (JSOW, JASSM, Paveway GBUs, CBUs, Brimstone, JSM, etc.) it’ll sacrifice its stealth.The EOTS which among other things can provide on-board laser designation which is only optimised for ground attack.

William C.

Pretty pittiful and useless weapons loadthe aircraft has. Put it simply. Buying the F-35 is a really dumb idea. Because it’ll be inadequate to deal with the changed threat environment, and if you have the F-35s that just aren’t capable of dealing with the high threat zones, it just doesn’t do you any good of going ahead with the failed program and sink the money. Because the F-35 will be increasingly expensive aircraft that will fail the air defence program and there’s absolutely no point of sticking with the F-35 because some hostile nations could well be purchasing The Nebo M Mobile “Counter Stealth” Radar, advanced S-400 and S-500 SAM systems.

William C.

“This is what the F-22 was supposed to be for the USAF”. Yes the F-22 is designed to take on high threat environment that the F-35 and other legacy fighters can’t do.

Yes the JSF will be obsolete. No it won’t be just fine when working in conjunction with other assets (AWACS, EW aircraft, stand-off weapons, decoys, UCAVs, etc.) which is not how you guys operate. As you know the JSF will be inferior against the Sukhoi Flanker family, upcoming PAK-FA, J-20 and perhaps the J-60, and the description that you read about the 55Zh6M Nebo M “Counter Stealth Radar”.

William C.

I would like to propose more developments of the advanced F-15s as a solution. I still find the F-15 still the best fighter in the world, despite the airframe being designed in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, it’s still capable, joy to fly and easy to maintain.

William C.

According to Richard Banholzer, Boeing’s Director of Business Development for the Air Force Fighters and Weapons, was a former USAF F-15A, F-15C and F-15E pilot and test pilot, with 2,000 hours on the F-4 Phantom II and 1,900 hours on F-15s. He claims the F-15 still has a vital role to play (which I agree). The F-22 Raptor, with their greater stealth, Raptors might be the aircraft of choice to penetrate particularly high-threat zones. However, on the “friendly” side or low to medium threat zones of the forward edge of the battle area — for cruise missile defence, defending high value assets and if the rules of engagement dictate close-in-engagement — the F-15 may be a better choice. So a mixed force of Eagles and Raptors would present a potent combination of flexibility and capability which is a perfect idea to complement with each other.

I’m not sure if you’re aware William, Boeing Co. has extended the F-15 production line well into the 2020’s to attract and satisfy new and existing customers.

William C.

If you’re asking me What variant of the F-15 should going to propose the development?

A single-seat F-15F+ variant (based on the two-seat F-15E) in a similar way the Sukhoi Co. developed the Su-35S Super Flanker-E.

With new updates for the Eagle such as.

1. APG-82 AESA fire control radar.

2. 2D or 3D thrust vectoring F100-PW-232 or F110-GE-132 engines with supercruising mode as a consideration.

3. DEWS (Digital Electronic Warfare System) or defensible EWSP jammers.

4. NG (Next Generation) 3-D touch screen cockpit display.

5. Digital fly-by-wire flight control system.

6. IRST sensor pod (either located next to the windshield or below the port air intake) and CFB (Conformal Weapons Bays) etc.

William C.

Also restart the F-22 production line as well.

William C.

I’m not against the F-22. The Raptor is also my favourite and finest aircraft ever built, the aircraft is superior and very capable. Many of its electronic systems are identical or superior to the JSF including electronic warfare and networking data links, the F-22 has two engines (for improved survivability and overwater flights), F-22A’s APG-77 radar is much more powerful, providing twice the detection footprint of the JSF’s APG-81 radar. While the F-22A’s APG-77 radar provides excellent bombing capability, it remains the most capable air-to-air radar ever built thereby more electrical power and electronic cooling capacity, greater radar aperture, more thrust to weight, less supersonic drag, more manoeuvrability, super-cruise (which enhances both engagements of, and escape from, known threats and saves a lot fuel), superior stealth technology and a similar ability to carry and release precision munitions.

William C.

The other folks like Lance and some other guests say the samething about propose the developments of advanced F-15s, Typhoons, Rafales, Gripens and restart the F-22 production line as well. So if you have both William mixed of 4++ and 5th Generation Fighters right? You’ll present a potent combination of flexibility and capability which is a perfect idea to complement with each other.

jnew is in the right ballpark. Size does equal distance but take it one step further if you will. For the bad guys to get back more distance (more time to aquire — track — shoot) they would need to boost there power output. The increased power output of their radars would make them more visible and thus easier to defeat.

Good point. It’s strange that while reading the news in europe, I learn that ALL the countries are waiting for the promised technological transfer. Not to mention the economics benefits that are expected to came from that contract, for which the minimum participation . Both of them and the f-35 –just like the hindenburg– seems to have been inflated with hydrogen.

My bet is that the eurofighter will have a much more powerful AESA radar, somewhere between the T-50 and the f-22. Their radar is expected in 2015. When is the f-35 due?

Most of all, how long will that radar remain the best-of-it’s-class? 5 years?

»Besides the 5th generation or stealthy fighter revolution is coming & these countries want to have that capibilty, it’s going to be a neccesity, not a want, in the high level threat enviroments of the future to have this advantage.….…

Just like your own word admitted (i.e. would), the future is uncertain, and so is the exact capability of the future enemy. I said it and I will repeat, these planes will need upgrade all the time. So these countries may very well end up spending 2x the price and more than 2x the maintenance cost of a “that-is-the-future” plane that will have a decisive advantage for what, 10 years at most, while they are thinking to spread the cost on 50 years because it’s so expensive.

And the most important, that stealth capability is not just hideously expensive to acquire and maintain, it have a major impact on its capability. Less payload, less range, more maintenance (for which you need to send your aircraft outside of your country because you don’t need to know how to maintain your OWN plane) and what other surprise to come? Short lived, ultra-expensive engine? Frame that will last more than 4000 hours only if you never use the hard point and don’t put more than 2,000lbs of payload? The promise of saving fuel is guaranteed to be offset by its limited capability, which will mean that you will need to came back more often.

And as ‘Guest’ said in reply to ‘the great jessmo’,
“as for the electronics and software and computer stuff, i’m tired of hearing about them — those are the easiest things to retrofit into older aircraft, and in fact we already have older airframes with data fusion capabilities, helmet queuing systems and modern radars. ”

Yes the f-35 will have some capability of its own, but all the cost shall be taken in consideration to determine how useful and necessary such capability would be.

Denied by nato itself

for an unknown reason I can’t post neither the text, nor the link, I keep geeting ‘your message have been deleted by the administrator’.

Put bit(dot) ly(slash)
NE5wBX

Nice box Michael :-). I build those style boxes all the time, yesterday I just finished a 32/GB DDR3 Ram, Core I7 3770K Quad core 3.5Ghz, on an Ausu MB P8Z77-V-Pro, with 2 EVGA GeForce GTX 480 (Fermi) (480 GPU’s ) to run 4, 28 in. Monitors, with a 120 GB SSD ( Main OS drive ) and 4 Seagate 3 TB SATA 3 ( 6 GB’s per second ) drives & a 4 Port Nic card. To run 4 different OS’s. 1. Windows 7 32 bit, 2. Windows 7 64 bit, 3.Windows XP 32 bit, and 4. Mac OS Leopard. This box runs 4 independent OS’s each on their own HD & Nic Card Access & Monitor for display. Running VMware. I have to finish another one today so by Monday both will be in operation. If you like this you would love my workstations at work and at home. They are Multiprocessor boxes running twice the Ram.

Also Michael: I’m going to assume that you understand enough to know that, your AWACS acting as “data-link” providers can be Spoofed, which in turn, then the fighter aircraft would then be vulnerable to ” Requesting Data & Receiving Data” that is either Harmful of the Mission, or the the Aircraft it self. Like shutting down it’s whole OS, just to name a one of the many possibilities. I could go on, but the technology that has come out in the last few years makes that a Real Possibility.

My knowledge in signal, antenna and protocols is not very deep to be honest, here is how I see it. IMO that’s exactly why an aeronautic company should not compare smartphone apps programming with their products. Spoofing a well designed network is near to impossible. Any military network will rely on cryptography, obfuscation, and will be designed to be resistant to attack; including simple thing like relying on unidirectional antenna. I say good luck to decrypt a channel that use a dynamic encryption key. A good example is to compare wi-fi with 3g. Anybody can intercept wi-fi, there is an app on the android market named ‘packet sniffer’ that can intercept wifi and bluetooth. Then attacker of any level can rely on a very rich software ecosystem, and count on very powerful gpu to break the cryptographic key. 3g on its part, have been designed to be secure as it was intended from day one to be use for cellular communication. AFAIK these modules handling 3g communication are acting like a black box, there is no way to easily capture 3g communication without relying on very expensive equipment, and I am not aware of any 3g-crack-ng software suite for fu****g everything up, but it could be done with some ingenuity (i.e. how Kevin Mitnick have jammed encrypted fbi radio communication system, forcing them to talk in the clear). Interestingly, security researcher have already demontrated that it was possible to intercept communication and act as a man-in-the-middle by simply emitting a gsm (way more hackable, and cheap to do) signal and all the phone in the room switched to that signal automatically. To my knowledge, the 3g protocol is considered safe, but the implementation have not been done correctly, and I won’t be surprised to hear that company took some shortcut when come to cryptography.

The problem of spoofing is not limited to electronic communication; fortunately there is lot of hardening available, comparing to spoofing written order, or a smoke signal. Since it’s a military network which both end is managed and accessible to the same group of individuals, it remove many attack vector present to more open network, like the internet. Good cryptanalyst (or good software) can compromise certificates and RSA key and once it’s done, a man-in-the-middle attack can occur at any time, without any sign. A symmetric key algorithm (i.e. AES or better) can be used since the key can be directly uploaded by man, removing the problem to rely solely on certificate for authentification and on asymmetric key system like RSA or DSA.

With a secure implementation, the real concern is not spoofing, but signal jamming; the classical electronic warfare. Countermeasure have to be developed against it. It would include simple strategies like increasing the signal strength and reducing bandwidth in the advent of unreliable communication, and perhaps to embed some redundancy. It was for that reason that the AWACS would host the very high bandwidth data-link, instead of being directly to the fighter jet as its physical location is harder to attack that the fighter jet, which would be right over hostile territory with a slower but more hardened data link. And since it’s an AWACS and not a satellite, operator are inside at all time, and it may or may not need to rely on satellite to transmit its data, that have just make the channel much harder to tamper. At least it’s what I hope.

jamming is not the only concern with even a secure implementation — also using outgoing EM signals to track the position of aircraft (similar to HARM/wild weasel/iron hand, but for anti-aircraft). in this case, actually a lower-energy “squirt” kind of communication is better — which brings up a fundamental conflict between this approach and the attempt to increase overall energy to overcome jamming as you mentioned. this is similar to the conflict between active and passive radar — when you send out a signal to detect another aircraft, your ping can always be detected at a longer distance than it can see other aircraft (consider that to see another aircraft, the signal has to be strong enough to bounce back). however, if everybody relied only on passive (listening) radar, nobody would detect anyone. as with many engineering problems, there is no single “right” answer but rather a matter of tradeoffs IMO

Bill Crook is refering to a nozzle program that was canceled due to F-22/-35 cost overruns. Now it is going to rescue the F-35 from it’s deficiencies.

Now Bll knows this he just chose to lie to make Lockheed look better.

The British got thier first UK in the sense that they recieved a small plaque that said they were the proud owner of a JSF.

Its not like they have an actual aircraft they can fly to the UK or use for training. Nor can it fire any missile or drop any bomb. Instead the “British” has a future of years of fixes and rework ahead of it.

It’s sad to watch a once proud Royal Airforce being paraded around by the nose like a tame donkey.

Again, a more appropriate comparison would be the F-22 to the T-50 and Su-35. Im not denying that the PAK FA is a better air to air fighter than the F-35, but what about the PAK-FA compared to the F22? Im an Army guy, so a good way to put it might be you wouldnt compare a Bradley to a T-80 would you? The T-80 has more fire power and protection. Can a Bradley kill a T-80, absolutely, does that mean you want to put them to into a position where they have to go up against T-80? HELL NO! That is the job of the Abrams.

Praetorian, if you are to believe some of the AF pilots who have flown the F-35 that say it is on par with the F-16 maneuver and acceleration wise, where does the F-35 fall on your list of best dogfighter?

Read up on how a kill chain works…

So you know the F-35s RCS figures? You have a clearance?
Stop pretending your anymore knowledgeable than any of us. we are ALL speculating.
The only thing that we can be sure of is that Lockheed has a proven track record of top notch stealth stealth aircraft. How can we have an intelligent discussion if anything positive is dismissed as marketing? Your argument basically tell me that 10 nations, 10 air-forces, 2–3 non program buyers, and the 2–3 most powerful air-forces on earth have all conspired to be morons, AND YOU know more than them all.

Between the MAKS flameout and the cracked tail structures it would be surprising to see an operational T-50 before 2025. The J-20 is a technology demonstrator, not even a prototype. Neither will have magic sensors. The F-35s numbers and six air to air missiles including AMRAAM and meteor will make short work of any SU-35s it is likely to face.

I wonder if the US Navy got a “Sneak Peak ” at the “New Cassidian Passive Radar ” the Detects STEALTH Aircraft, and that is why they are rethinking the F-35C?
http://​www​.defencetalk​.com/​c​a​s​s​i​d​i​a​n​s​-​p​a​s​s​i​v​e​-​rad

Still to early to tell for me, with only 30 jets fleet wide for the F-35. Lets spin the question, What would be harder for a Su-35 or PAK to kill a F-35 or a F/A-18A+ or F/A-18C that the F-35C is replacing? Both have about a 7 — 7.5 G rating. At thre ” merge ” the Su-35 will be able to out turn either aircraft, but since thats only a small part of air to air combat will the F-35’s sensor fusion & stealth help it win the day? Well I dont know, I can only speculate. Do I think the F-35 is better then the F/A-18C… Yes
I do. Do I like the cost.… no I do not. Black Owl and others have some good points & arguments about more Super Hornets, but still to early to tell for me.

let me know when russia, china and euro-uav give up VLO plans

I’ll see your Cassidian and raise you a JORN

LM had a cassidian type 13 years ago
Silent Sentry™
servv89pn0aj.sn.sourcedns.com/~gbpprorg/mil/radar/sentry.pdf

some may oppose VLO because it increases maintenance costs while SAM/AWACS systems always catch up, but with lower cost. i think it all depends on whether a military wants to be a defensive or offensive force — if all you care about is defense, AWACS/SAMs are generally the most cost-effective, but if you want to be an offensive force, you need stealth fighters (sure, they might be detected by future-generation SAMs, but you have to keep pushing the arms race to stay ahead). however, in regard to the f-35 specifically, 1) it is debatable whether it is truly VLO or just LO (the USAF has gone back and forth on the classification, and there is no question that it is more observable than true VLO like f-22 or b-2), 2) just because it is stealthy doesn’t make it useful — the f-35 is about the same unit cost as the f-22 (in contradiction to what the program was supposed to achieve) but is slower, less stealthy, less maneuverable, and less heavily armed. my point is that just because stealth is desirable doesn’t mean the f-35 is a good design.

perhaps the f-35C is better than the super hornet, but that doesn’t mean that the f-35C will be better than the t-50 or j-20. that is the ultimate question — if the f-35C is better than the super hornet but not better than the t-50 or j-20, what is the point of purchasing it? what nations armed with super hornets are we likely to face as enemies, as opposed to t-50s or j-20s? (which russia and china are likely to export, given their histories of such things) personally, i think the f-35A and B are viable (though the A may have to be procured in lower numbers than are projected today, and costs need to come down for both variants), but the C is not — the carriers need better anti-air capability than the f-35 offers. just IMO

well, you were the first to claim expertise on the f-35 RCS. also, some nations are favoring the f-35 because of pressure from the US or because their cold war-era planes are falling apart and the f-35 is the only option being offered. and even among these nations, orders have been consistently curtailed or pushed back due to the f-35’s constant delays, cost increases and reductions in capability. the specification was issued in 1996 (!), we were supposed to be in IOC by 2010 (!), now it’s what, 2018-unknown? but if you just want to drink the kool-aid and assume that the defense lobbyists and their cronies in gov’t know best, go right on ahead — just like the advanced warfighter project, avenger and LCS have been supposed to increase american security

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.