“The rapid expansion of computing power also ushers in new sensors and methods that will make stealth and its advantages increasingly difficult to maintain above and below the water.”........Admiral Greenert.This sums up the whole argument when it comes to the F-35.
If its stealth will soon be rendered irrelevant then what kind of plane do we have? If its stealth is nullified do we have an airplane that equals the F-16, F-18 or Harrier?
Maybe the Harrier.
But is the cost of maintaining it worth the added cost?
I say no.
Make the planes that have been built, gate guards, museum pieces and experimental aircraft. But its past time to bin the entire program and start over. We did it with the EFV. We can do it with this plane.
That is what I have been saying, my understanding is that the ASEA Radars will continue to improve as the fabrication process improves inline with computers. Not to mention that the effectiveness of the radar is proportional to its size meaning that the larger plane radars on slightly less stealthy(debatable) planes counters (or at least mitigates) any stealth advantage on the F35. What I think will be significant in the future will be improvements in the radar, it's electronic warfare capacities and data links between planes. I believe this will be the way in which airforces gain superioirity in situational awareness not 'stealth' (which doesnt mean invisable).
ReplyDeleteSee why I like Admiral Greenert now? He does his fighting sneakily, but if you read between the lines it seems he really doesn't want the F-35.
ReplyDeleteIt's the fundamental flaw of stealthy designs like the F-35. Its LO is baked into the hardware. 20 years from now, the JSF can't be made significantly stealthier, no matter what the technology of the time may provide.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, detection technology well improve exponentially as computer processing power increases. The F-35 will end up looking like a very expensive typewriter in a world dominated by iPads.
As one reader commented elsewhere: "You can bet your bippy that in the sensor/stealth race that sensors are where the smart money is going. Upgrade a 4++ fighter with a new AESA/EW suite for pennies on the dollar compared to a 5th gen fighter? Money well spent."
DeleteIt's already happening. Newer versions of the Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, and even the Russian jets are all sporting AESA radars, IRST, data-links, and more robust EW systems.
DeleteThey're also concentrating on better missiles. Stuff like the MBDA Meteor (BVR) and the IRIS-T (WVR) make current versions of the AMRAAM and Sidewinder look pretty weaksauce.
There are two types of people that are almost always completely wrong with any comments related to stealth technologies: those who think it makes things invisible and those who think it makes no difference or is worthless. Both are completely wrong. And will continue to be completely wrong.
DeleteStealth simply reduces the range/probability of detection. Simple as that. And it is always going to be important for military hardware as it has been for 10s of centuries.
And equally incorrect are people that believe that detection technologies with overcome everything else, for they forget that anti-detection technology run on the same technology curve as the detection technology but always has a bit of a lead.
What's important in A2A aircraft is first look, first shoot, first kill.
First look is aided by detection technologies and stealth and counteracted by stealth and anti-detection technologies(EW).
First shoot is aided by detection technologies, situational awareness technologies, stealth, and anti-EW technologies and counteracted by EW, stealth, SA, etc.
First kill is aided by missile and seeker technologies, detection technologies, anti-EW technologies, and stealth and counteracted by stealth, EW, decoy technologies.
Its a never ending spiral. The reality is that missile/seeker technologies is approaching or as approached the point where airplane kinematics are pretty much immaterial. A pilot and his plane simply aren't going to out accelerate or out maneuver a top end missile. The only real hope is that you are at the missiles extended range and can out run it.
dude you're contradicting yourself. first. we're saying that the penduleum has swung in the direction of making stealth as its currently practiced, the shaping of airframes...as dead as disco. plasma stealth or whatever they're working on will swing it back but now i'm betting on computing power, air-ground and sea based x band radar and bigger AESA/IR getting the drop on anything flying. that means that shaped stealth like the J-20, PAK-FA, F-22, B-2 and F-35 is dead.
Deletethe world is gonna belong to E-3's with Xband radars, and long range IR firing big air to air missiles.
additionally if the F-35 is gonna survive it'll fire those missiles first which means at the longest range possible.
long story short.
i'm not buying what you're selling.
Solomon, I'm saying nothing of the sort. Stealth technologies were never as good as some believe and never as bad as other believe. Reflection reduction stealth technologies are just as valuable as they ever we, the confer the same reduction in detection distances as they always have. A bigger/better AESA just means that everything is detected from farther away. That doesn't change the detection distance/probabilities enjoyed by reflection reduction stealth technologies have over planes with no or worse reflection reduction stealth technologies. So stealth still gives advantages, the the effectiveness of those advantages remains unchanged compared to those without. Its pretty basic EM and math, really.
DeleteIf current radars detect say an F35 at 25 miles and a non-F35 at 75 miles, with twice the detection capability will detect an F35 at 50 miles and a non-F35 at ~150 miles. The stealth still has an advantage over non-stealth. The only point at which the stealth has no advantage is when the weapons system range of the stealth aircraft does not out range the range of detection, but in that case, neither stealth nor non-stealth are going to be able to do an effective strike mission, and in the case of Air to Air neither are going to have a first look advantage. But were no where near that point even in a warfront lacking in EW systems. With EW systems, the detection ranges for both shrink substantially.
And as the processing gets more powerful, we cross the threshold where inverse wave cancellation techniques become practical at which point better radars hit serious problems. As far as IRST, there are many ways to nullify and spoof IRST, and once again as processing power increases, inverse wave technologies becomes increasingly viable.
Don't get me wrong, I think the F35 should of been cancelled long ago and better yet, never awarded to a company that cannot either keep costs in line during prototype or even account for costs during prototype.
DeleteBut the stealth aspect of the F35 is a rather minimal one at this point that is adding little to no cost with the F35. In fact, the F35 is the first stealth plane that's solved many of the stealth gotchas via better technology (integrated RAM vs spray on, etc). A lot of the costs and detriment for the F35 derive from things like using a common airframe which presents little to no actual cost savings and the massive amounts of new systems and software being custom designed for the plane.
If they were doing it right, they would have seperate airframes for each of the planes, a common engine infrastructure, common materials, cockpits, shared systems and software except for unique flight kinematics (aka FBW) for each frame.
Admiral Greenert, last Spring:
ReplyDelete“Speaking for the Navy I need the fifth-generation fighter, and that [F-35] provides it, so we’re all in — but it has to perform. It has problems; it is making progress. I do not at this point believe that it is time to look for an exit ramp, if you will, for the Navy for the F-35C. . . I as a service chief would like to have more authority and more accountability in acquisitions.”
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/04/08/gen-amos-adm-greenert-f-35-essential-but-procurement-consti/
Along with more authority, Greenert should seek more transparency. The F-35's stealth capability, like its cost, is classified, and operational tests won't commence for at least three years (and results may be classified). Lockheed Martin won't confirm or deny alleged stealth flaws, saying the information is classified. And of course the Joint Program Office is no help -- they don't even do quality assurance. We just don't know how stealthy the F-35 is against upgraded radar systems.
So we should cut Greenert (and Amos) a little slack because they don't know any more about the F-35 stealth (and cost) then we do. Just a little?
Bill Sweetman, AvWeek:
ReplyDelete...It would be reassuring to know that the stealth technology upon which the Pentagon plans to base air dominance for the next few decades has been thoroughly, recently and aggressively Red-Teamed against multiband AESAs and passive systems. If it has, nothing has been said about it.
There may be a universe where it is smart to give your adversaries (or their armorer) 25 years’ notice of exactly how you plan to render their defenses obsolete. We just don’t live there.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_09_13_2013_p0-616430.xml
Past (sunk) and future costs, top 15 DOD acquisition programs.
ReplyDeletegraph
http://timemilitary.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/cht-46b.png?w=753
Just to emphasize a point: We're getting next to nothing out of the F-35 operational tests. There were many problems highlighted in the 2012 DOT&E test report, and one would think that the project office might say "we corrected the XYZ and now the F-35 can do ABC," But no. All we get is "the planes have flown for 10,000 hours." Big whoop.
ReplyDeleteExample: I looked at the news releases from Edwards, site of most of the op tests. Last May they were engaged in night flights.
EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif., May 23, 2013 -- The F-35 Integrated Test Force (ITF) is wrapping up a series of night flights, which are testing the aircraft's capability when flying in instrument meteorological conditions. (IMC) "Progress towards IMC certification has been ongoing for a few years. . .We're just finishing up those flights. . .There are certain weather conditions we haven't tested yet, so we can't fly there yet. .etc etc
Any more reports on IMC since May? It's been ongoing for a few years, is it completed? Any info? Any news releases AT ALL form Edwards since May? Nope -- just like all the rest. Just like the cost. Nothing. So they drag everyone along on pipe dreams and promises, and no hard data. There's a reason for that, right?
Sorry -- I should have said development tests not operational ones. The latter don't start for three years.
DeleteThere is a reason for that Don. Your sense of entitlement doesn't dictate Lockheed Martin's actions. Their client does.
ReplyDeleteWhatever you think of L-M as a company, they ARE a company. No better and certainly no worse than many others. If you have a problem with the information being released about the F-35, feel free to speak to the American Government about it. They are the ones who decide what is FOUO and what isn't...
JS--
Delete1. Damn right I have a "sense of entitlement" -- everybody should have one regarding the most expensive boondoggle in military acquisition history. Instead of getting any test data regarding the miserable test results of the in-production F-35 we get pablum like it flew 10,000 hours. If military success is ever judged by flying hours this plane will be a winner.
2. II don't know where you got the L-M crapola in your comment -- I never mentioned Lockheed. Read it again -- I said project office and Edwards.
thanks Don. i get tired of the apologist. i was a HUGE supporter of this program until it became obvious even to STUBBORN me that the LM corporation was just raping the taxpayer and taking advantage of a STUPID and lustful pentagon.
DeleteWhen using social media, we ought to keep in mind that it is open to everyone, including those with a primary interest in countering criticism of programs vital to them. (And what could be more vital then the hundreds-of-billions F-35 Lockheed-Martin welfare program.)
ReplyDeleteIt's been called "Battle for the Narrative" in a Pentagon report. one finding: "The US was slow to recognize the importance of information and the battle for the narrative in achieving objectives at all levels; it was often ineffective in applying and aligning the narrative to goals and desired end states."
The Pentagon has moved on it. One example (of many) -- In March 2011 The Guardian reported that the company Ntrepid had won a $2.76 million contract for "online persona management" (commonly known as "sockpuppetry") operations from the U.S. military. The contract is for the creation of "fake online personas to influence net conversations and spread US propaganda."
What's the average effectivity of the long range missiles? 50%?
ReplyDeleteFor A/A The F-35 relays only on it's stealth clean condition and long range active radar missiles.
Those missiles are possible to jam and avoid, specially if a Growler or Grolersky is in the area.
The F-35 don't have the capacity to carry internally Aim-9X and even if they do they will have to launch them at a distance where other airplanes could detect them with E/O or I/R sensors.
The F-35 is a bomber for day one, not a great maneuverable A/A fighter.
That's why I like the SH even in it's current configuration. With the growler Is a real stealth multirrol for day one of conflict and a very survibable super maneauverable dogfighter.
The F-35s wont have any chance against a Growler and the SHs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4m4li6wwNw&feature=youtube_gdata_player
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/02/growler-power-ea-18g-boasts-f/
ReplyDeletehttp://img83.imageshack.us/img83/8453/f18fgunf22020lz.jpg