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

[A Bar Brother]

Russians claim a lot of things, but it's quite clear T-50 is not optimized for stealth at this point. They have publicly stated where they think the RCS of their aircraft is and I can't disagree from that based on the current alignment of the aircraft. Even the frontal view is not that stealthy right now until they can fix up all the gaps and put in the radar blocking things (still don't know how well that works).

It took many years to go from Su-27 to Su-30 and then to Su-35. Even so, it's fundamentally the same aircraft. I don't see how you can go to the level of change you are using in your picture which would be a bigger change than China went through from 2001 to 2011. Change of engine will just make PAK-FA fully powered and probably have higher supersonic cruising speed and better manueverability.

Changing the engine does a lot of things. For one, the exhaust is no longer an emitter. Cavity resonance is cut off. As for the inlets, designs differ based on what they want. The Stage 1 PAKFA is definitely lacking in many respects, but the Flanker family are quite similar because the engines are all the same.

I don't know what kind of changes you are expecting, but deciding an aircraft is not stealthy by just looking at it is not how it works.

Bringing this back to F-35, it's not just a numbers aircraft. It has the most advanced suite of sensors that's more integrated with each other and surrounding environment than any previous fighter jet. On top of that, it's almost impossible to see when adding all the jammers that will be alongside of it.

I already provided an evaluation of a neutral air force, an I'm sure you have seen it before. They believe the Rafale and F-35 are similar. Just a difference of 2 points. The F-35 isn't ready while Rafale is fully operational. What does that tell you?

 

[A Bar Brother]

Claims of SPECTRA having active cancellation goes back close to a decade and given expiry of such a lengthy period one would reasonably expect some shred of evidence of its application and assessment of its effectiveness. You are making the claim that it is a feature available with SPECTRA and I am simply asking for substantiation that it works as claimed. I am happy to leave it as unsubstantiated because I am not the one making the claim - you are. The onus is on you to advance the matter from a claim to substantiation and I am happy to leave it as unsubstantiated. Your ball.

The claim that the F-35 will be the "most advanced" also goes back to more than a decade. I'm pointing out the same thing as you are, but should the measuring stick change when we talk about the F-35?

Think about it this way.

1. The IAF rejected the F-35 for the FGFA.

2. There is an insider claiming Rafale has better sensor fusion than the F-35.

3. Then I provided proof that the RNAF thinks the Rafale and F-35 are similar, a difference of just 2 points, they probably think what the French offered to match the F-35's stealth is enough of an equalizer.

4. Then you consider the fact that the Rafale is fully operational while the F-35 is still 7 years away from that. And the fact that Rafale has new avionics in development while the F-35 with the old avionics is still in development.

5. Then you also consider some other claims. For one, we know the ADA says that cockpit technologies become obsolete every 6 years (the F-35 has been in development for nearly 10 years now and will go on for 7 more years).

6. Then we also know that the IAF air chief said the FGFA is a generation ahead compared to the Rafale (while RNAF claims F-35 and Rafale are similar).

7. Then you add that to the fact that, from open source information from keypub and Russian sources, we know that the technologies on FGFA are still being worked on by the Americans too, like variable cycle engines, GaN modules and other known and unknown stealth technologies apart from the one present on the F-35.

Considering all of this, do you still believe the F-35 will be the best?

Points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are irrefutable facts. Points 2 and 6 are claims. But all of the claims match up with the facts on the ground.

In the light of all these aspects adding up, to me, when somebody comes up and say things like PAKFA is 15-20 years behind the F-35 or that the F-35 is the best of the best, it becomes laughable at best.

Active cancellation in my view is a form of jamming at a practical level as the aim is simply to degrade the pulse sufficiently to prevent track and for lock on.

You will have to look up on active noise cancellation. You are practically deaf when you wear really good headphones. The physics works, only that if you apply that to light sources, you are going to have to spend a lot more.

NGJ provides stand-off jamming and I am referring to collaborative mission sets between F-35/EA-18G where I think they would complement. I am not talking about stand-in jamming integration of NGJM into the F-35. The integration is expected to be difficult because the original Prowler had a 4 men crew which subsequently required 2 men in the Growler. A F-35 is crewed by one and is probably a bride too far in terms of expectation.

I don't know the reasons for why the NGJ has been deferred, all I know is it is expensive. Anyway, my point was it isn't an active cancellation tech. You need sensor fusion for active cancellation, or it won't work. NGJ isn't fused to the onboard avionics of any aircraft. It is standalone.

 

[tphuang]

Well, not exactly . F-35 will be vulnerable to low-frequency radars and it is inherently difficult to jam those with equipment on-board small-size fighter . It would be also vulnerable to detection by continuously improving IR sensors, especially because of very powerful and hot engine .

By the time F-35 becomes operational we would have dangerous kill chain, consisting of low-frequency radars making a cube shaped kill-box with sides of approximately 0.5-1km , and modern, long-range IR missiles with focal-plane arrays searching that box . Lot will depend on DIRCM on one side, and various ECCM built in missiles on the other side .

I'm not saying it's invulnerable, but you need to use the right tactics and battlefield. A lot depends on the setup of the environment. In order to make use of those low frequency radar, you have to draw F-35s to your battlefield and that's not guaranteed. And even with that, you could be facing EW aircraft that could render these radars useless.

Changing the engine does a lot of things. For one, the exhaust is no longer an emitter. Cavity resonance is cut off. As for the inlets, designs differ based on what they want. The Stage 1 PAKFA is definitely lacking in many respects, but the Flanker family are quite similar because the engines are all the same.

I don't know what kind of changes you are expecting, but deciding an aircraft is not stealthy by just looking at it is not how it works.

You can figure out a lot just by looking at it. For me and many others, it seems like Russia is building T-50 with different aerial tactics in mind. That of trying to mainly achieve stealth from frontal view and making it super fast so that it can get out afterward. But let's wait for a few months and see what the stage 2 will look like.

I already provided an evaluation of a neutral air force, an I'm sure you have seen it before. They believe the Rafale and F-35 are similar. Just a difference of 2 points. The F-35 isn't ready while Rafale is fully operational. What does that tell you?

Well, I've given you what Chinese air force thought. And more importantly, every country out there is lining up for F-35 and nobody wants Rafale, what does that tell you? In that country netherlands that you quoted, they also picked F-35.

 

[A Bar Brother]

You can figure out a lot just by looking at it. For me and many others, it seems like Russia is building T-50 with different aerial tactics in mind. That of trying to mainly achieve stealth from frontal view and making it super fast so that it can get out afterward. But let's wait for a few months and see what the stage 2 will look like.

If you are referring to the Stage-1 then even I accept that it has frontal-only stealth. Even the Russians agree to that. The Business Standard report also refers to the Stage-1 version, but we know that's not the standard version.

The reason why the Russians are even inducting the Stage-1 is because the aircraft, even though it is not a fully capable 5th gen aircraft, will still carry avionics that are on par with what's on the F-35 today (maybe better), and will have a very small frontal RCS, and have aerodynamics that surpasses practically all other jets. And it will reduce teething issues when Stage-2 is inducted. The aircraft will also provide the Russians a lot of operational experience early on, even before the Europeans start fielding the F-35, that's a good advantage to have.

We may see the Stage-2 sometime late next year, or so the rumors say. However even that won't be the final production version because the new engine is expected to be flight capable only after 2017, so the real production versions may be prototype 10 and beyond.

They say T-50-6-1/2 may have significant changes. I don't know what they mean by significant, but it won't mean a new airframe. Even the Su-35 has massive changes compared to the Su-27, even though you don't see drastic changes externally. The Su-35 comes with a new engine and misses airbrakes. Those are significant changes right there. Along with new avionics and radar. When it comes down to it, the Su-27 and Su-35 look the same, but the Su-35 could defeat the Su-27 in every single parameter, when you fly them against each other, to the point where the Su-27 wouldn't have a chance going up against the Su-35.

Well, I've given you what Chinese air force thought. And more importantly, every country out there is lining up for F-35 and nobody wants Rafale, what does that tell you? In that country netherlands that you quoted, they also picked F-35.

I don't believe what third party air forces have to say about certain technologies even before they are fielded.

The Swiss picked Gripen even though Rafale and Typhoon were superior. They wanted the cheaper aircraft. However the RNAF choice was political. At the time of the evaluation, they actually believed the F-35 will be cheaper than Gripen. If they believed Gripen was more expensive than the F-35, then Rafale never had a chance since the beginning.

IAF has always been the first to field a new aircraft, after which the export market opens up to that particular aircraft. Rafale's chance may still come. But everybody knows buying American is buying the best strategic partnership, not just another aircraft.

Anyway, all the countries that bought the F-35 have always bought American. That doesn't say a lot, just shows that the US has a lot more importers than most other countries. The real litmus test would come if the Indian Navy releases a tender and a competition happens between the Rafale-M and the F-35. The F-35 would be the underdog. If it comes on top in that situation, then that will say a lot about the aircraft. In all other competitions, the F-35 was the top dog, practically guaranteed to win.

Heck, if there are air forces running around saying the F-35 is cheaper than the Gripen, what sort of a competition was that in the first place? Even in such competitions, the Rafale was on par with the F-35. That says a lot about the Rafale.

 

[tphuang]

If you are referring to the Stage-1 then even I accept that it has frontal-only stealth. Even the Russians agree to that. The Business Standard report also refers to the Stage-1 version, but we know that's not the standard version.

The reason why the Russians are even inducting the Stage-1 is because the aircraft, even though it is not a fully capable 5th gen aircraft, will still carry avionics that are on par with what's on the F-35 today (maybe better), and will have a very small frontal RCS, and have aerodynamics that surpasses practically all other jets. And it will reduce teething issues when Stage-2 is inducted. The aircraft will also provide the Russians a lot of operational experience early on, even before the Europeans start fielding the F-35, that's a good advantage to have.
We may see the Stage-2 sometime late next year, or so the rumors say. However even that won't be the final production version because the new engine is expected to be flight capable only after 2017, so the real production versions may be prototype 10 and beyond.

They say T-50-6-1/2 may have significant changes. I don't know what they mean by significant, but it won't mean a new airframe. Even the Su-35 has massive changes compared to the Su-27, even though you don't see drastic changes externally. The Su-35 comes with a new engine and misses airbrakes. Those are significant changes right there. Along with new avionics and radar. When it comes down to it, the Su-27 and Su-35 look the same, but the Su-35 could defeat the Su-27 in every single parameter, when you fly them against each other, to the point where the Su-27 wouldn't have a chance going up against the Su-35.

PAK-FA have avionics on par with what's on F-35 today (maybe better) -> pretty aggressive view here considering how weak the Russian are in this area. Remember, they are buying electronics from China and have not had any AESA radar in service before PAK-FA.

As for upgrade in stage 2, your examples so far have all been avionics/engine related and nothing on the shaping of airframe itself. But again, we will see in a few months.

I don't believe what third party air forces have to say about certain technologies even before they are fielded.

The Swiss picked Gripen even though Rafale and Typhoon were superior. They wanted the cheaper aircraft. However the RNAF choice was political. At the time of the evaluation, they actually believed the F-35 will be cheaper than Gripen. If they believed Gripen was more expensive than the F-35, then Rafale never had a chance since the beginning.

IAF has always been the first to field a new aircraft, after which the export market opens up to that particular aircraft. Rafale's chance may still come. But everybody knows buying American is buying the best strategic partnership, not just another aircraft.

Anyway, all the countries that bought the F-35 have always bought American. That doesn't say a lot, just shows that the US has a lot more importers than most other countries. The real litmus test would come if the Indian Navy releases a tender and a competition happens between the Rafale-M and the F-35. The F-35 would be the underdog. If it comes on top in that situation, then that will say a lot about the aircraft. In all other competitions, the F-35 was the top dog, practically guaranteed to win.

Heck, if there are air forces running around saying the F-35 is cheaper than the Gripen, what sort of a competition was that in the first place? Even in such competitions, the Rafale was on par with the F-35. That says a lot about the Rafale.

The Koreans and Singapore air force both picked F-15s ahead of Rafale. And looks like they are going to pick F-35 after that. I don't think we need to use India as the golden standard for judging which aircraft is the best here.

 

[Skywatcher]

But the best of what Russia knows about stealth is on the T-50. As far as the Russians are concerned, they believe the FGFA matches or exceeds the F-22. Whether internet critics agree to that or not, that is not the point. I think the relevant article was already posted by thunderchief, where the chief designer of the PAKFA says his aircraft is more stealthy than the F-22. Whether it is the truth or propaganda, I don't know. All I know is both the Americans and Russians have made unverifiable claims. The only difference is while I take both with a pinch of salt, here even experienced members treat American claims as Gospel and Russian claims as rubbish.

If both the American and Russian claims are "unverifiable", then we go and look at their past performance, in which that case, the Americans get the benefit of doubt that the Russians do not.

 

[A Bar Brother]

PAK-FA have avionics on par with what's on F-35 today (maybe better) -> pretty aggressive view here considering how weak the Russian are in this area. Remember, they are buying electronics from China and have not had any AESA radar in service before PAK-FA.

I already told you that, buying components from China doesn't mean they can't make the same. It is a business and economic decision, not a technology decision. India does the same.

It is too early to talk about AESA. The Israelis have no fighter based AESA, but for some reason the Israelis are supposed to be among the best? The Russians are already making GaN based radars for longer bands. One was showcased in India.

As for upgrade in stage 2, your examples so far have all been avionics/engine related and nothing on the shaping of airframe itself. But again, we will see in a few months.

Why should the airframe be "more" shaped than what it is? Stealth goes far beyond shaping. Relying on shaping is the cheapest form of stealth and completely static. If you rely only on airframe shaping then you will have to dump your aircraft for too early due to obsolescence.

The Koreans and Singapore air force both picked F-15s ahead of Rafale. And looks like they are going to pick F-35 after that. I don't think we need to use India as the golden standard for judging which aircraft is the best here.

The F-15 was cheaper than Rafale. And the Rafale version during both the competitions was inferior to what it is today, with the RBE-2 PESA, old gen IRST based on MCT, simpler DDM and so on. The Rafale has evolved since then. It did not present a major upgrade over the F-15 in some parameters. And the Rafale was still under development and had some risk involved, especially to the Koreans. What made matters worse was neither country wanted something as advanced as the Rafale, since the result of the contests were obvious. The Rafale was indeed the most advanced aircraft in both Korea and Singapore.

As far as Korea was concerned,

"Dassault's combat aircraft Rafale was rated as "excellent" in all five categories, while its strongest rival, Boeing's F-15 fighter, reached the standard in only two categories.

The Boeing fighter received "excellent" in reliability and supportive combat capability, while Eurofighter, produced by a European consortium, won the top grades in the general function and reliability categories.

In the categories of weapons and electronic warfare capability, only Rafale earned the "excellent" grade, according to the officials.

Russia's Su-35 took fourth place with "ordinary" rates in all five categories.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

To date, the Rafale has lost export opportunities in Algeria (SU-30MKA – Rafale a long shot), Brazil (JAS-39E/F Gripen NG – Rafale the initial favorite), Greece (Eurofighter, then F-16), Morocco (F-16C/D – Rafale the favorite), The Netherlands (F-35A), Norway (F-35A), Oman (Eurofighter – Rafale a long shot), Saudi Arabia (Eurofighter), Singapore (F-15SG), South Korea (F-15K, Rafale won but politics reversed the pick), Switzerland (JAS-39E Gripen NG), and the UAE (F-16E/F, but could win next competition).

The Korean pick was clearly motivated by politics. That's the reason why Dassault did not take part in their latest FX competition. Look at what happened, the F-15 won, the Koreans canceled the tender, and bought F-35s directly instead.

Anyway, this is an article about the competition in Singapore.

Colonel François Moussez, a pilot who has flown 150 hours on the Rafale, said that two could do the work of six existing air superiority/defense and air-to-surface attack jets. "With the Rafale," he said, "we can do simultaneous multimission management: air-to-air, air-to- ground, reconnaissance at the same time."

Moussez said that in dogfight exercises, the Rafale had outflown F-15, F-16 and F-18 opponents, and in technical and performance evaluations "we have systematically won against the F-15 and the Eurofighter Typhoon."
Yet it lost to the F-15 in competitions to sell to South Korea and Singapore. Moussez said it was outflanked in the former case on political grounds and in the latter case on costs, noting that the dollar had depreciated 30 percent over the period of the Singapore competition.

In India, the two best aircraft were shortlisted and Rafale won. They even made the prices public, the Rafale costs $85.5 Million while Typhoon costs $124 Million, making it obvious which aircraft really won. So, yeah. India is the golden standard for such competitions.

In India, the forces' requirements take priority over petty politics and simple cost considerations. That's why Dassault's CEO said this:

“When one is in a country like India which is an open country and in which Americans do not have the same weight as countries that are their private hunting preserve, we have a chance. And this chance, we got it… The market for the Rafale, it is countries that do not want or can not buy or American countries who want to have a second source while buying American. Now all countries, except two, where we lost, were countries that did not fit this definition.”

 

[tphuang]

I already told you that, buying components from China doesn't mean they can't make the same. It is a business and economic decision, not a technology decision. India does the same.

It is too early to talk about AESA. The Israelis have no fighter based AESA, but for some reason the Israelis are supposed to be among the best? The Russians are already making GaN based radars for longer bands. One was showcased in India.

They hadn't shown the ability to be able to mass produce T/R modules cheaply, so yes economics is huge deal here. Even if they do get it under control by the time PAK-FA is ready, it will still just be the 1st generation. Besides, there are many other part to the electronics suite. Russia is just behind in this area. Even J-20 has a J-10B project serving as a testbed for the electronics in a 5th gen aircraft. Russians don't have anything modern in this area and now they are completely sanctioned by the West. Yes, Russians are showcasing GaN based radar. They do a really good job of showcasing models that are years away from being able to achieve efficient mass production. Why do you need to fall for it?

Why should the airframe be "more" shaped than what it is? Stealth goes far beyond shaping. Relying on shaping is the cheapest form of stealth and completely static. If you rely only on airframe shaping then you will have to dump your aircraft for too early due to obsolescence.

Shape, size and material are the 3 most important part of achieving a stealth design. Size isn't going to change clearly. Better material generally cost more up front and in terms of maintenance. You can't apply RAM everywhere, because that will make the aircraft too heavy. You can only achieve so much signature reduction without changes to the shaping of aircraft. Flankers can't achieve stealth no matter what you to do it. That's why US would not buy Silent Eagle, because even with some changes, F-15 isn't going to become a stealth design.

The F-15 was cheaper than Rafale. And the Rafale version during both the competitions was inferior to what it is today, with the RBE-2 PESA, old gen IRST based on MCT, simpler DDM and so on. The Rafale has evolved since then. It did not present a major upgrade over the F-15 in some parameters. And the Rafale was still under development and had some risk involved, especially to the Koreans. What made matters worse was neither country wanted something as advanced as the Rafale, since the result of the contests were obvious. The Rafale was indeed the most advanced aircraft in both Korea and Singapore.

As far as Korea was concerned,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The Korean pick was clearly motivated by politics. That's the reason why Dassault did not take part in their latest FX competition. Look at what happened, the F-15 won, the Koreans canceled the tender, and bought F-35s directly instead.

Anyway, this is an article about the competition in Singapore.


In India, the two best aircraft were shortlisted and Rafale won. They even made the prices public, the Rafale costs $85.5 Million while Typhoon costs $124 Million, making it obvious which aircraft really won. So, yeah. India is the golden standard for such competitions.

In India, the forces' requirements take priority over petty politics and simple cost considerations. That's why Dassault's CEO said this:

Of course, Dassualt will say that when it wins and complains when it looses. Do you expect their CEO to say anything otherwise? F-35 wins out everywhere because it is the best fighter jet available in the market. Even though countries have to wait for production slot, they are doing that for a true 5th generation design rather than paying for readily available 4th gen EuroCanards.

btw, let's try to tied back long posts to F-35 rather than venture off to Su-27s and Mig-29s

 

[A Bar Brother]

If both the American and Russian claims are "unverifiable", then we go and look at their past performance, in which that case, the Americans get the benefit of doubt that the Russians do not.

The Americans don't get the benefit of doubt when the F-35's development cycle was pushed to 16 years instead of 9 years and with a 70% cost increase. Point me a Russian fighter program that was delayed with costs escalated to that level.

 

[Brumby]

The claim that the F-35 will be the "most advanced" also goes back to more than a decade. I'm pointing out the same thing as you are, but should the measuring stick change when we talk about the F-35?

Think about it this way.

1. The IAF rejected the F-35 for the FGFA.

2. There is an insider claiming Rafale has better sensor fusion than the F-35.

3. Then I provided proof that the RNAF thinks the Rafale and F-35 are similar, a difference of just 2 points, they probably think what the French offered to match the F-35's stealth is enough of an equalizer.

4. Then you consider the fact that the Rafale is fully operational while the F-35 is still 7 years away from that. And the fact that Rafale has new avionics in development while the F-35 with the old avionics is still in development.

5. Then you also consider some other claims. For one, we know the ADA says that cockpit technologies become obsolete every 6 years (the F-35 has been in development for nearly 10 years now and will go on for 7 more years).

6. Then we also know that the IAF air chief said the FGFA is a generation ahead compared to the Rafale (while RNAF claims F-35 and Rafale are similar).

7. Then you add that to the fact that, from open source information from keypub and Russian sources, we know that the technologies on FGFA are still being worked on by the Americans too, like variable cycle engines, GaN modules and other known and unknown stealth technologies apart from the one present on the F-35.

Considering all of this, do you still believe the F-35 will be the best?

Points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 are irrefutable facts. Points 2 and 6 are claims. But all of the claims match up with the facts on the ground.

In the light of all these aspects adding up, to me, when somebody comes up and say things like PAKFA is 15-20 years behind the F-35 or that the F-35 is the best of the best, it becomes laughable at best.

You will have to look up on active noise cancellation. You are practically deaf when you wear really good headphones. The physics works, only that if you apply that to light sources, you are going to have to spend a lot more.

Personally I have no interest in engaging in a "vs." comparison because there is no objective measurement to draw any sensible conclusion and plus the period between objects is not in sync and so the exercise is off base to begin with.

As I have stated before, active cancellation is promising because the physics on paper is sound but any practical solution in light of modern radar like AESA with LPI features require solution to a number of significant hurdles. I have seen others arguing (not on this forum) of suggesting valve technology; bragg cells; riding the lobes; leveraging the asymmetric nature of target vs. receiver; and exploiting the back end of the pulse width to create sufficient white noise as a means to overcome modern radar. Frankly the issues and technology is way above my pay grade and too complex collectively to conclude whether the challenges can be met. My view is very simple. Until there is a working solution it is only good in laboratory conditions. Show me the evidence that prove it has advanced beyond mere claim.