I got this forwarded to my by my buddy Bruce (thanks guy...this is just the ticket!)
via Wikipedia...
A talking point in debate or discourse is a succinct statement designed to persuasively support one side taken on an issue.[1][2][3][4] Such statements can either be free standing or created as retorts to the opposition's talking points and are frequently used in public relations, particularly in areas heavy in debate such as politics...I'm thrilled to know that HQ's Marine Corps actually responded to the critics of this program. 'Bout time!
USMC STOVL
Excellent piece - was looking for something 'official' like this for a while now.
ReplyDeleteRe-loaded, and movin' out! :)
we've been waiting ages for this.
ReplyDeleteit past time.
regardless of what one thinks about the Libya situation, you got to think what having many Bravo models would do to the tactical options available?
ReplyDeleteHaving F-35s in general would help enforce a no-fly zone. However given their lack of all-aspects stealth, significant SEAD/DEAD would still be required. Of course some stealth is better than none.
ReplyDeleteThe Libyan military should be a pushover for the USN and USAF, stealth or not. STOVL or not.
I don't see how having some Bravos, specifically, would significantly change things.
@B.Smitty: Do you know what you're saying when you say "their lack of all-aspects stealth"? Could you be specific?
ReplyDeleteI guess I shouldn't say "lack of". Just that there are questions about the level of VLO from non-front-quarter aspects.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01-Annex.html#mozTocId787784
Yes, it's Carlo's work, but I have yet to hear a convincing refutation. The best argument seems to be along the lines of "well he hasn't done any actual measurements in a controlled environment, so he really can't know for sure".
"well he hasn't done any actual measurements in a controlled environment, so he really can't know for sure"
ReplyDeleteI'd say that's a pretty damn good arguement.
I'd say it's a cop-out argument. The measurements have been made, but they are classified, of course. For all we know, they could be worse than what Carlo's model predicts.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just Carlo,
"The F-35’s all-aspect signature is much bigger than the F-22’s in key bands and against certain threats."
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/December%202008/1208edit.aspx
sorry but the argument against APA is stronger than that. to say that they haven't done any modeling is damning as hell.
ReplyDeletehow can you talk about the stealth of an airplane if you haven't done the basic work. to add insult to injury he goes on and compares the F-35 to other airplanes and many consider his determinations to be fact....far from it.
They have done modelling.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01-Annex.html#mozTocId787784
They just haven't taken direct measurements of the aircraft. So the actual RCS could be somewhat worse or better in certain aspects. But will that fundamentally change the conclusions? Carlo doesn't think so.
I'm not a radar engineer, but he seems to have done the most comprehensive UNCLASS modelling and analysis to date.
His determinations are far from fact. Like I said earlier, they just raise questions. Questions that have not been directly refuted.
Maybe there are classified documents that convincingly trash his analysis. However, maybe they actually support his conclusions. We just don't know.
"They just haven't taken direct measurements of the aircraft"
ReplyDeleteNot so minor a detail there BSmit. And if Dr Kopp was the font of so much RF signature knowledge you'd think there would be miles of folks flocking to his doorstep for a sprinkle or two of said knowledge.
"We just don't know." That pretty much sums it up for all us -- including Dr Kopp and Mr. Goon. Claims to the contrary by those without the necessary clearances are without factual basis, and those who do know can't say anything about it.
We just don't know for sure, yes. But Dr. Kopp has taken an educated guess based on fairly detailed modelling.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I find that a lot more credible than marketing briefs claiming "all-aspects stealth", without defining what it means.
"I'd say it's a cop-out argument. The measurements have been made, but they are classified, of course."
ReplyDeleteYes, they've been made, but not by Carlo.
Can you point to specific reasons why his modelling and analysis are faulty?
ReplyDeletewhy are you so quick to embrace his point of view when he even says that its based on 'nothing'!
ReplyDeletehe's simply looking at airplanes and making determinations. that's insane. even more insane is to take his determinations and use those as arguments for or against a particular weapon system.
@B.Smitty: For starters he has no experience analyzing stealth aircraft radar cross sections. (I mean for real, not make believe.) Secondly he has no idea what the properties of the RAM/RAS are. Those two alone make any pronouncement of his pretty much laughable.
ReplyDeleteHe modeled the lower fuselage and inlet based on photographs. There certainly is a margin for error.
ReplyDeleteHe states his analysis is probably optimistic because it doesn't take into account the RCS contributions of features not included in the model.
Now it's possible that he made some gross errors in his model. Hard to say. However other sources have said the F-35 does not approach the all-aspects stealth of the F-22. So maybe he's not that far off.
that's hardly a compelling statement.
ReplyDeletehow are you going to determine all aspect stealth? at a glance? which is stealthier then...a B-2 or an F-22?
how does the new Boeing Stealth Eagle match up against the new Russian fighter in the stealth category?
we don't know and APA doesn't.
i love ya guy but you're just spouting APA talking points which aren't based in facts.
the only reason why the APA hasn't been laughed off the stage is because negativity sells.
The problem with Carlo is that he is an electrical engineer. His technical expertise is in the fields of computing (hardware) and portable communications. He isn't a 'radar guy' and he most certainly isn't a materials expert of any kind whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteAt his very best, he can provide a basic undertandig if the technologies involved.
As to the worth of his modelling, well as I understand things, he is unfamiliar with the precise dimensions and shape of the aircraft, he is almost entirely unfamiliar with the materials of the aircraft and he is completely unfamiliar with the internal structures of the aircraft.
I guess peole can make up their own minds on the accuracy or lack their of, of his modelling if they take that into account, but I'll share this with the forum. There are manufacturers invoved in the construction of LO materials and platforms who completely disagree with Kopp's conclusions. This company is one of them and here's one of their patents, which shows why...
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2010/0271253.html