• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sharpey
  • Start date Start date
Isn't it rather strange that a mouthpiece for mainland China's ultranationalist sentiment would be trumpeting the virtues of the F-35?

F-35 is Liaoning's worst nightmare, says Global Times

The US F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is capable of combating China's first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, reports Huanqiu, the website of China's nationalistic Global Times tabloid.

In a hypothetical aircraft carrier battle between China and the United States, the main fighter jets would include the United States' F-35C fifth-generation multirole fighter developed by Lockheed Martin and China's J-15 carrier-based jet developed by Shenyang Aircraft Corporation.

The F-35 is equipped with extremely powerful offensive capabilities for both land and sea combat, with a weapons load of eight tonnes and the capacity to carry four AIM20C and AIM-9X mid-range and short-range air-to-air missiles.

In an attack on the Liaoning the F-35 could carry joint strike missiles developed in Norway, which have a range of 290 kilometers. The J-15, on the other hand, could carry two YJ8-3 anti-missiles with a range of only 180 km.

In terms of radar technology, the US has the clear upper hand with its AN/APG-81 AESA radar developed by Northrop Grumman, which has a thousand transceivers with the ability to simultaneously search for 23 moving targets, including 19 targets in just 2.4 seconds, after which it would turn to tracking mode.

Even against China's J-20, the stealth, twin-engine fifth-generation fighter aircraft prototype being developed by Chengdu Aerospace Corporation, the F-35 would still be the first to detect its opponent due to its superior radar.


Want China Times: "F-35 the Worst Nightmare for Chinese Navy"
 
Bird_Gunner45 said:
If below is to be believed than the stealth part of needing this jet is over rated.......


New U.S. Stealth Jet Can’t Hide From Russian Radar

America’s gazillion-dollar Joint Strike Fighter is supposed to go virtually unseen when flying over enemy turf. But that’s not how things are working out.The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter—the jet that the Pentagon is counting on to be the stealthy future of its tactical aircraft—is having all sorts of shortcomings. But the most serious may be that the JSF is not, in fact, stealthy in the eyes of a growing number of Russian and Chinese radars. Nor is it particularly good at jamming enemy radar. Which means the Defense Department is committing hundreds of billions of dollars to a fighter that will need the help of specialized jamming aircraft that protect non-stealthy—“radar-shiny,” as some insiders call them—aircraft today.

More at link

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/28/new-u-s-stealth-jet-can-t-hide-from-russian-radar.html

The  P-14 Oborona (NATO Codename Tall King) radar that Sweetman refers to was first introduced in 1959 and if I remember correctly, a lot radars from that time period operated in the VHF band and are capable of detecting stealth aircraft. For example, the F-117 shot down during Operation Allied Force (bombing campaign against Serbia) was engaged and hit by a SA-3 Goa (IOC 1961).


For more info on Russian/Chinese anti-stealth radars, here is a link to a 2007 article in Air Power Australia that goes into more detail (plus lots of photos and charts) : http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-Low-Band-Radars.html#5N84AE_Oborona-14__Tall_King

From the APA article: Low band radars are not a panacea for the defeat of VLO (Very Low Observable) aircraft. Their angular accuracy has been until recently poor, and the required antenna size results in ungainly systems which are usually slow to deploy and stow, even if designed from the outset for mobility. The size and high power emissions of these radars, in types with limited mobility, makes them much easier to detect and destroy than typical mobile systems operating in the decimetric and centimetric bands, which can relocate rapidly after a missile shot.
 
Stealth is another form of camouflage.

CADPAT does not make one invisible to the naked eye any more than stealth technology makes an aircraft or ship invisible to radar. It's still a good thing to be wearing in a shooting situation though.
 
Report says cost of F-35 fleet could reach $126 billion

OTTAWA -- A new report by two think-tanks says the operating costs of Canada's proposed new stealth fighter could be considerably higher than what Harper government is acknowledging -- and perhaps even expecting.

The Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Rideau Institute estimate the current numbers for the F-35 could be off by between $12 billion and $81 billion, depending on a variety of factors and risks over 40 years.

An independent analysis of the program, conducted by the Public Works secretariat overseeing the plan to replace Canada's CF-18s, pegged the total lifetime cost of owning 65 stealth fighters at just over $44 billion over four decades.

Michael Byers, a University of British Columbia professor and defence expert, says his estimate would be on top of that.

Byers says he questions the math in the secretariat's report because it bases its long-term maintenance on data numbers from the existing fighters.

He says the F-35 is still under development, but it has already proven that its operating and maintenance costs are about 1.5 times higher than the CF-18s.

Byers says the figures are significant because the Harper government is close to deciding whether to stick with the troubled F-35 program or open up the CF-18 replacement to competition.

A National Defence estimate on the long-term operating costs of the F-35 will be among the pile of reports cabinet is expected to consider.

Byers says his numbers, which project the total cost could reach $126 billion, are based on figures coming out of the U.S. Government Accountability Office in Washington, which has tracked the program extensively.

He also says other structural costs, such as modifying the air force's tanker fleet to operate with the F-35, are not included in the secretariat's public estimates.

The research done by Byers also examines risks such as volatile fuel prices, inflation and a fluctuating exchange rate.

He says a one per cent increase in the rate of inflation would add $5 billion to the overall price tag.

The air force has already publicly suggested that in order to keep costs down, it will fly the F-35 less often than the CF-18s, cutting 4,000 flying hours per year out of its training plan and using simulators more often.

But parking the jets simply creates a false economy, Byers says.

The Harper government signalled in 2010 that it intended to buy the F-35, but a set of scathing reports -- including one by the auditor general -- accused both National Defence and Public Works of not doing their homework and deliberately low-balling the cost.

The program was put on hold in December 2012.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/report-says-cost-of-f-35-fleet-could-reach-126-billion-1.1797599#commentsForm-510519

The Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Rideau Institute?, oh they sound like they have a completely unbiased opinion about the Canadian military.
 
SupersonicMax said:
Stealth is not absolute.  Regardless of the design, you'll always be more or less visible in a radar band or another.

Understandable but the F35 sales pitch has a lot to do with it being a "stealth fighter". 

I wonder of the level of stealthiness that the F35 designers are claiming is being purposefully stretched.  For 135 million I would expect the plane to be so stealthy it could sneak up and pick pocket other planes, not get caught by a dinosaur from the 50s  ;D

 
Retired AF Guy:

Low band radars are not a panacea for the defeat of VLO (Very Low Observable [stealth]) aircraft...The size and high power emissions of these radars, in types with limited mobility, makes them much easier to detect and destroy than typical mobile systems operating in the decimetric and centimetric bands, which can relocate rapidly after a missile shot.

Perhaps reasons for USN's Growler love (it's not just Bill Sweetman, CNO Greenert fairly smitten):

US Navy to request [22] additional Boeing E/A-18G Growlers
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-to-request-additional-boeing-ea-18g-growlers-397099/

Navy wants more St. Louis-built Growlers
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/navy-wants-more-st-louis-built-growlers/article_fb24f931-27ec-5242-9958-b4c31cf3e572.html

Growler Advocates Outline Stealth Vulnerabilities
Is the Pentagon push for the stealthy F-35 overshadowing the need for more EW funding?

http://aviationweek.com/awin/growler-advocates-outline-stealth-vulnerabilities

Stealth Vs. Electronic Attack
http://news.usni.org/2014/04/21/stealth-vs-electronic-attack

New Growler construction may depend on upcoming Navy exercise
http://hrana.org/news/2014/04/new-growler-construction-may-depend-on-upcoming-navy-exercise/

Mark
Ottawa
 
ObedientiaZelum said:
Understandable but the F35 sales pitch has a lot to do with it being a "stealth fighter".

That's not so much the "sales" pitch as the media pitch, because such things as sensor fusion are beyond their capacities to comprehend.
 
Loachman said:
That's not so much the "sales" pitch as the media pitch, because such things as sensor fusion are beyond their capacities to comprehend.

Given the difficulties Lockheed Martin is having with software, sensor fusion may well be beyond their capacity to comprehend as well...
 
Jim Seggie said:
From what I can gather  its the size of the radar signature, along with tactics (ie flying the thing) that will enable a "stealth" aircraft to get much closer to a target than a conventional aircraft.....am I basically correct here?

A lot has to do with RCS (Radar cross section) and how RF is reflected (design, shape of surfaces, etc) and/or absorbed (material used to make/cover the surfaces). 

Bottom line, the less energy that goes back, the better.

http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Radar%20Cross%20Section.en.html
 
MilEME09 said:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/report-says-cost-of-f-35-fleet-could-reach-126-billion-1.1797599#commentsForm-510519

The Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Rideau Institute?, oh they sound like they have a completely unbiased opinion about the Canadian military.
Well,  here's a link to the report in full (32 page PDF) for those interested in getting it straight from the horse's mouth - here's the summary:
The Harper government anticipates a total project cost of $45.69 billion for a fleet of 65 F-35s, including an operating cost of $19.857 billion. However, those figures are based on the operating cost of CF-18s rather than the actual operating cost of F-35s. Information on the latter is readily available from the U.S. government. The actual operating cost of a fleet of F-35s would be $29.786 billion, leading to a total project cost of $55.619 billion.

The Harper government has also failed to acknowledge the considerable “cost risks and uncertainty” associated with a fleet of F-35s — risks that are amplified by the developmental character and the unusually high operating and sustainment costs of these particular aircraft. Once “cost risks and uncertainty” are taken into account, the total project cost of a fleet of F-35s could be as high as $126 billion.
 
An update with specifics of the RAAF units that will use the F-35:

Official RAAF link

Australia has committed to 72 F-35A aircraft – comprised of three operational squadrons - two at RAAF Base Williamtown and one at RAAF Base Tindal. In addition, a training squadron will be based at RAAF Base Williamtown.

The first F-35 aircraft will arrive in Australia in 2018 and the first squadron, Number 3 Squadron, will be operational in 2021.  All 72 aircraft are expected to be fully operational by 2023.

< Edited >
 
PAUL MANSON
The fighter jet ‘reset’: Is it nearly go time?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/somnia/article18706645/

Our former CDS once again tries to sell the F-35 to Canadians.
Some very interesting rebuttals in the Comments section.

 
An article by a USAF colonel very critical of the F-35 program has just appeared in the USAF’s own Air & Space Power Journal:

The Comanche and the Albatross
About Our Neck Was Hung
Col Michael W. Pietrucha, USAF
http://www.au.af.mil/au/afri/aspj/digital/pdf/articles/2014-may-jun/f-pietrucha.pdf?source=govd

By the way, Gen. (ret'd) Manson was only chairman of LockMart Canada:
http://www.rmc.ca/cam/wh-mh/whc-cmh/manson-pd-eng.php

Mark
Ottawa
 
Mark, thanks for the link to the article by Col Michael W. Pietrucha, USAF. Some great info and thinking to be found there.
But a similarity it shares with the Gen Manson article is the elephant in the room "politics."
 
[Janes]

All three F-35 variants pass test milestones

29 May 2014

Flying out of Edwards Air Force Base (AFB) in California, an F-35A flew a 1.9 hour mission with the first-ever load of Block 3i hardware and software. Block 3i is the next level of capability and is planned to support US Air Force's declaration of F-35A initial operating capability (IOC) in 2016.

For its trial, an F-35B operating over the Point Mugu Sea Test Range off California demonstrated its air-to-air capability when it launched two AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs). The US Marine Corps (USMC) is expected to be the first operator to declare IOC in 2015.

Finally, an F-35C performed a series of maximum sink-rate (21.4 feet per second) arrested landings at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland. This was to demonstrate the type's ability to operate in the harsh maritime environment of a pitching and rolling carrier deck. The US Navy plans to declare IOC in 2018.
 
This from Reuters:
Canada is poised to buy 65 Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets, sources familiar with the process told Reuters, marking a major renewal of Canada's fighter fleet and helping contain costs of the expensive defense program.

A detailed, 18-month review of Canada's fighter jet needs has concluded that the government should skip a new competition and proceed with the C$9 billion ($8.22 billion) purchase, three sources said.

The decision still must be finalized by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's cabinet and could trigger a fresh storm of criticism from opposition politicians over costs that derailed the purchase two years ago.

A spokesman for Harper's office said there was nothing to announce yet.

However, the sources said the recommendation is expected to lead to formal approval of the F-35 purchase. They said Harper and key cabinet members supported the decision ....
We'll see ....
 
Gen. Mike Hostage On The F-35; No Growlers Needed When War Starts
By COLIN CLARK on June 06, 2014 at 4:25 AM
Aerial refueling of F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters at Eglin AFB, Fla.

For years, the news about the most expensive conventional weapons system in US history, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, has been driven by its soaring costs, technical problems and schedule screw-ups. The government and Congress and the public rarely speak about what the F-35 will do, how effectively it could destroy an enemy’s air defenses, shoot down an enemy plane, or find and strike other high value targets.

I spoke with dozens of experts in the government, the defense industry and academia about likely scenarios for the F-35 and to flesh out some of its capabilities. This is the main piece we’re running this week about the F-35, based on my interview with Gen. Hostage and those other experts. The second piece deals with the cyber and electronic warfare capabilities of the F-35.

The issue of how effective the F-35 would be in a classic dogfight often arises. Gen. Hostage noted during our interview that the F-35 pilot who engages in a dogfight has either made a mistake or been very unlucky. Shooting down other planes using kinetics is only one role of the F-35. Perhaps air forces around the world are going to have to come up with a new honor other than ace to define those who fly the F-35. What should a pilot be awarded for outsmarting the best air defense systems in the world or injecting something like Stuxnet into the enemy’s command and control system? So much of what this aircraft will do has nothing to do with shooting down another pilot that we may need a new term.

The F-35′s cross section is much smaller than the F-22′s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war. In fact, Hostage says that it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can handle.

“The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets,” says Hostage, leaning forward. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.” But stealth — the ability to elude or greatly complicate an enemy’s ability to find and destroy an aircraft using a combination of design, tactics and technology — is not a magic pill, Hostage reminds us.

“The F-35 was fundamentally designed to go do that sort of thing [take out advanced IADS]. The problem is, with the lack of F-22s, I’m going to have to use F-35s in the air superiority role in the early phases as well, which is another reason why I need all 1,763. I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,” the general says. “Because it can’t turn and run away, it’s got to have support from other F-35s. So I’m going to need eight F-35s to go after a target that I might only need two Raptors to go after. But the F-35s can be equally or more effective against that site than the Raptor can because of the synergistic effects of the platform.”

The F-35, critics say, can be spotted by low frequency radar (as can almost any aircraft, no matter how stealthy) and isn’t as good at dogfighting as is the F-22. But Hostage says, as do other senior Air Force and Marine officers, that an F-35 pilot who engages in a dogfight has probably made a mistake or has already broken through those IADS lanes and is facing a second wave of enemy aircraft. The F-35, he says, has “at least” the maneuverability and thrust and weight of the F-16. The F-35 is to the F-22 as the F-16 is to the F-15. The latter aircraft are the kings of air to air combat. The F-35 and the F-16 are the mainstay of the air fleet, designed for both air-to-air and air-to-ground attacks.

In the end, what marks the F-35 as a dominant weapon is its combination of stealth, computing power, built-in targeting and databases, sensors that we hear can reach out more than 1,200 miles in some scenarios, with all of that fed to the pilot in his cockpit with automatically-generated target, weapons and route choices though his helmet.

“And instead of having to fuse three pieces of information and decide if that’s an adversary or not, the airplane is telling him, with an extremely high degree of confidence, what that adversary is and what they’re doing and what all your wingmen are doing,” Hostage explains. “It’s a stunning amount of information.”


Breaking Defense excerpt: General Hostage on F-35
 
This just in - academic looks at Starfighter single-engine & U.S. historical stats and says we need better than F-35's single engine for flying over the Arctic:
The federal government is being urged to reconsider its expected decision to buy a fleet of F-35 fighters. This time the argument isn’t about cost or procurement problems, however. It's about what's inside the plane.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a report by Michael Byers this morning in Ottawa.

Entitled "One Dead Pilot," the report argues that fighter aircraft with a single engine — as the F-35 has — are too dangerous and unreliable to be used by the Canadian military.

"This issue is especially important for Canada, which has the longest coastline in the world and vast Arctic territories," writes Byers.

Bird strikes

In the report, Byers compares the F-35 to the single-engine CF-104 Starfighter, which the Canadian air force used from the 1960s to 1987 and which was involved in 110 crashes in that time.

A quarter of those crashes were attributed to bird strikes and the fact there was no secondary engine to allow the plane to keep flying.

Byers is the Canada Research Chair in Global Politics and International Law and the University of British Columbia and also a former NDP candidate.

"Engine failures will still occur, and when they do so away from an airport, a second engine is the only thing that can prevent a crash," Byers concludes ....
More from the think tank's news release:
A new report on the single-engine F-35 has just been released by the Rideau Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

One Dead Pilot was written by University of British Columbia political science professor Michael Byers, who recently won the $50,000 Donner Prize for his book International Law and the Arctic.

The report responds to the Harper government's continued openness to the F-35 as a replacement for Canada's aging fleet of CF-18 fighter jets. With the exception of the F-35, all the aircraft currently under consideration have two engines.

As Professor Byers explains, this difference has significant safety implications, particularly for pilots operating over Canada's Arctic and vast maritime zones: "A decision to purchase a single-engine fighter would almost inevitably result in the needless loss of Canadian pilots."

Thirty-five years ago, the CF-18's twin engines were a decisive factor in its selection over the single-engine F-16.

Today, the Harper government maintains that improvements in the reliability of engines mean that single-engine aircraft are just as safe as twin-engine aircraft.

Professor Byers' report includes recent statistics from the U.S. Air Force Safety Center that disprove this assertion. The number of accidents leading to the loss of a pilot and/or aircraft remains significantly higher for single-engine fighter jets than for twin-engine fighter jets ....
If you want to read the report, you can download it here (1.38 MB, 34 pages).
 
Back
Top