F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

[Jeff Head]

...to see the smaller signature and discern that it's not a bird and it's not superman so it must be a plane.

As to how well theory translates to reality? well now that both have there own stealth programs they must be at least testing it.

It has always been a pretty solid bet that an intermittent bird-sized return traveling at Mach 1.2...or even 400 knots is not a bird.

They have always known this.

Problem has always been that such an image is not solid...it is intermittent...and it has been very tough to lock onto for any targeting.

 

[Brumby]

Ok I have a question for the nay-sayers about stealth and the F-35. Russia and China both say they can see stealth aircraft now or soon with their radars on whatever spectrum bands. But wouldn't the U.S, being the only country with two 5th gen stealth aircraft (And F-117), know that what they tout as Stealth seeing radar is false? And also wouldn't the U.S be the only country to be able develop a radar that can see stealth? Because they can use their operational aircraft against it?

An effective counter measure is not just having a radar to see but to track and ultimately provide a firing solution. Stealth is basically physics of shaping and materials science with RAM. The view generally out there on the F-35 is that it's shaping is not all aspect and is optimised for X-band unlike the F-22. Its belly supposedly has 10 times more signature than the front. However its RAM is technically more advance as it is baked into its carbon-fiber composite body and into it's edges in an effort to soak up inbound radar.

The technology threat to stealth is in Moore's law and the emerging availability of improving sensors in the form of airborne L-band AESA and IRST and the battle tactics of kill box zone. The downing of the F-117 was a crude concept of an early version of a kill box in application. In theory, broad spectrum radar will provide a box zone with counter air assets vectored in at above and below the F-35 (where its stealth is supposedly weak) and using airborne sensors within range for the kill.

 

[Air Force Brat]

An effective counter measure is not just having a radar to see but to track and ultimately provide a firing solution. Stealth is basically physics of shaping and materials science with RAM. The view generally out there on the F-35 is that it's shaping is not all aspect and is optimised for X-band unlike the F-22. Its belly supposedly has 10 times more signature than the front. However its RAM is technically more advance as it is baked into its carbon-fiber composite body and into it's edges in an effort to soak up inbound radar.

The technology threat to stealth is in Moore's law and the emerging availability of improving sensors in the form of airborne L-band AESA and IRST and the battle tactics of kill box zone. The downing of the F-117 was a crude concept of an early version of a kill box in application. In theory, broad spectrum radar will provide a box zone with counter air assets vectored in at above and below the F-35 (where its stealth is supposedly weak) and using airborne sensors within range for the kill.

Although General Hostage recently remarked that the ThunderHoggeII is actually stealthier than the Raptor??? a big question mark now, the first anyone had ever suggested that, and yet, because he is who he is, a statement that simply "cannot be discounted"? it is just mind boggling??

 

[Brumby]

Although General Hostage recently remarked that the ThunderHoggeII is actually stealthier than the Raptor??? a big question mark now, the first anyone had ever suggested that, and yet, because he is who he is, a statement that simply "cannot be discounted"? it is just mind boggling??

Hostage's comments certainly has thrown a spanner provided his comments were accurately reflected. However this doesn't change the direction of the issue raised by Bernard i.e. is stealth loosing its efficacy to emerging sensor technology?

 

[Air Force Brat]

Hostage's comments certainly has thrown a spanner provided his comments were accurately reflected. However this doesn't change the direction of the issue raised by Bernard i.e. is stealth loosing its efficacy to emerging sensor technology?

If stealth were in fact loosing their efficacy, then you would not have the Russians and the Chinese, Japanese, South Koreans, Israel, Australians, Norway, Denmark, UK, Italy, Turkey, not to mention the US and others spending wads and wads of greenbacks trying to stay ahead of the other guys, so while lots of folks say this or say that, the money is going into very stealthy low emissions, deep penetration aircraft, so follow the money, and talk as they say is cheap....

Everyone is working to counter the other fellows stealthy aircraft, and they are spending a lot of money to be able to do it right???? if it were a done deal and stealth was no sweat to pick up and shoot, that money would evaporate---"overnight", so the truth is that the F-22, B-2, F-35 at least are very scary to the bad guys, that's why we keep building them, and they will work, the poor little "wobbling gobblin" proved that, with only on bad guy shoot down in all those operations, and frankly it was a lucky shot, given that the aircraft operated the same little route each night until the shootdown???

 

[Brumby]

If stealth were in fact loosing their efficacy, then you would not have the Russians and the Chinese, Japanese, South Koreans, Israel, Australians, Norway, Denmark, UK, Italy, Turkey, not to mention the US and others spending wads and wads of greenbacks trying to stay ahead of the other guys, so while lots of folks say this or say that, the money is going into very stealthy low emissions, deep penetration aircraft, so follow the money, and talk as they say is cheap....???

It is not my intend to drag the conversation but merely to clarify where I was going with it as I think I am being misunderstood because of usage of the word "loosing" as it conveyed a narrower meaning then was my intention. On reflection, I would substitute with the word "diminishing" because my aim is simply to express the notion of a narrowing window in capability offered by stealth due to emerging improvements in sensor technology. There is obviously a place for stealth regardless but its ongoing effectiveness will be subject to the ongoing development in counter measures - as will always be in any dynamic environment. As to the follow the money reasoning, this can be applied counter intuitively by the spending on jammers by the USN even though the F-35 is marketed as making such platforms redundant. We have effectively two money trials.

Everyone is working to counter the other fellows stealthy aircraft, and they are spending a lot of money to be able to do it right???? if it were a done deal and stealth was no sweat to pick up and shoot, that money would evaporate---"overnight", so the truth is that the F-22, B-2, F-35 at least are very scary to the bad guys, that's why we keep building them, and they will work, the poor little "wobbling gobblin" proved that, with only on bad guy shoot down in all those operations, and frankly it was a lucky shot, given that the aircraft operated the same little route each night until the shootdown???

Stealth is not a done deal and neither are the counter measures especially in any conflict. There is no suggestion to convey such meaning beyond the intend to simplify a concept. The supposedly kill box zone could simply be populated by digitised F-35 by using ECM and spoofing.

The F117 incident was due to sloppy mission planning; a bit of luck; and exploitation of stealth weakness in certain bands and in my view continues to be the focus of counter measures.

 

[Jura The idiot]

training of Australians starts

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Air Force Brat]

training of Australians starts

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Actually for the record at least one Australian Officer has flown with an active duty unit in the F-22, which will help him adapt training and tactics to the F-35, I believe he is also checked out in the F-35, and there are several others as well who have taken the lead in preparing to implement and integrate their training program. These are the formal events now, but they have been long in preparing for this day!

 

[aksha]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[A Bar Brother]

If stealth were in fact loosing their efficacy, then you would not have the Russians and the Chinese, Japanese, South Koreans, Israel, Australians, Norway, Denmark, UK, Italy, Turkey, not to mention the US and others spending wads and wads of greenbacks trying to stay ahead of the other guys, so while lots of folks say this or say that, the money is going into very stealthy low emissions, deep penetration aircraft, so follow the money, and talk as they say is cheap....

Everyone is working to counter the other fellows stealthy aircraft, and they are spending a lot of money to be able to do it right???? if it were a done deal and stealth was no sweat to pick up and shoot, that money would evaporate---"overnight", so the truth is that the F-22, B-2, F-35 at least are very scary to the bad guys, that's why we keep building them, and they will work, the poor little "wobbling gobblin" proved that, with only on bad guy shoot down in all those operations, and frankly it was a lucky shot, given that the aircraft operated the same little route each night until the shootdown???

I don't think any naysayer of stealth (who knows what he is talking about) has dismissed stealth. What they have dismissed is the over reliance on just one aspect of stealth and that's shaping (and other passive techniques) that the US promotes. There are other ways to achieve stealth and the US has not made those other methods available to others, considering they are still developing it. Shaping worked in the past, but it is simply not enough anymore, as the Israelis have pointed out. The Israelis argued that the F-35 level stealth will be compromised in the next 5 years, hence why they want their own EW systems on their version.

There are only two real reasons the naysayers have against the F-35. One is the cost and time overruns. Second is the fact that LM and Pentagon are promoting a strike aircraft as an air superiority aircraft just to make sales. While the first one can't be helped, the naysayers argue that the second is not justified. Basically, the US is not saying the whole truth to sell the F-35, and even the military believes that without the F-22 the F-35 is irrelevant.

The F-117 issue was a one-off thing, and the Serbians couldn't do the same consistently to regular 4th gen aircraft anyway.