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

[A Bar Brother]

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?

I suppose we have to wait for the Super MKI upgrade if we are to solve the mass production issue.

And I don't see how the sanctions affect Russia. They buy electronics from China, as you yourself stated. And most likely nothing for the PAKFA is actually imported.

And being 1st generation doesn't mean inferior. If that was the case, then the Japanese are numero uno when it comes to fighter AESA. The APG-80 is capable of tracking 20 targets even though it has 1000+ modules. The RBE-2 PESA tracks 48 targets and was designed around the same time as the APG-80, even though it is smaller. The software is obviously better. The 1st generation RBE-2AA could probably do twice as much as the RBE-2 PESA, far better than the 1st gen American AESA.

They may be behind, they may be ahead, I don't know the truth. But I generally always see sweeping statements without proof. And when asked to explain themselves, they won't be able to.

The Russians cannot make T/R modules. But when they show prototypes, it turns into, they cannot mass produce. All this while conveniently forgetting that the IAF rejected the F-35 for the FGFA. If the PAKFA was indeed 15-20 years older than the F-35, then can someone please explain why in all their wisdom did the IAF reject the F-35? I can't explain it, but I don't make sweeping statements about the Russians or the Americans regardless. And I gave very exact reasons on why I think the F-35 is less than what it is shown to be, and nobody has contended with what I have posted.

I'm very certain the IAF is aware of how much the Russians can deliver, even more so than PLAAF does. If the IAF was shown information on F-35, and the Russians did the same on PAKFA, but they still chose the FGFA, then it is certain they know something every other person on the planet does not.

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.

Shape, size and material deal with passive stealth technologies. And they are static. Yeah, you can change materials a bit, but that's limited to how good the shaping is. You don't need shape, size or materials when you go active.

I don't know why we are talking about the Flankers and Silent Eagle. They are far away from being stealth as far as passive technologies are concerned.

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.

Please list out all the countries that purchased the F-35 that have also purchased a non-American 4th gen or higher fighter that they did not develop on their own.

 

[A Bar Brother]

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.

You mean to say the RNAF evaluation where they placed Rafale at the same level as the F-35 is not in sync? How are you able to say an air force technical evaluation is not objective?

Air Marshal Brown says something ludicrous, but people will believe it. He most likely has no idea what the Rafale is capable of, let alone PAKFA or J-20. But an air force releases technical evaluation details after conducting flight tests, and that becomes unobjective and off-sync?

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.

Unlike technologies like Bragg cells, active cancellation is far ahead in terms of practicality.

 

[Brumby]

You mean to say the RNAF evaluation where they placed Rafale at the same level as the F-35 is not in sync? How are you able to say an air force technical evaluation is not objective?

Air Marshal Brown says something ludicrous, but people will believe it. He most likely has no idea what the Rafale is capable of, let alone PAKFA or J-20. But an air force releases technical evaluation details after conducting flight tests, and that becomes unobjective and off-sync?

The first item that you use in your reasoning was and I quote "IAF rejected the F-35 for the FGFA". In terms of timelines, they sit at different phases of the development cycles and any attempt to compare is in my view out of sync and an exercise in redundancy. In any case, this comparative discussion is a distraction and is not of interest to me but I am responding merely to address the meaning of being out of sync. If you wish to engage in some senseless conversation you will have to find someone else for the pleasure.

Unlike technologies like Bragg cells, active cancellation is far ahead in terms of practicality.

The issue of practicality is not conceptual but of substance. As they say "show me the money".

 

[Skywatcher]

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.

So you want to pit a proven track record of developing the F-22 (Lockheed Martin in the early 2000s), vs Russian vaporwear (your precious FGFA) promises?

 

[A Bar Brother]

The first item that you use in your reasoning was and I quote "IAF rejected the F-35 for the FGFA".

The rejection was most likely in 2007 or 2008. IAF signed an agreement to negotiate with the Russians in 2007. LM has been presenting the F-35 to both the IN and the IAF since 2005. At the time of these discussions both FGFA and F-35 were in effect paper planes.

The issue of practicality is not conceptual but of substance. As they say "show me the money".

This is exactly what you should be asking LM and the Pentagon about the F-35 when they claim it is the most advanced.

Anyway, as far as claims are concerned.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Since the late 1990s, Spectra’s designers have dropped hints that the system can perform “active cancellation”—receiving a radar signal and mimicking the aircraft’s echo exactly one-half wavelength out of phase so the radar sees nothing. Carrara again implies that such a capability is in use: “There are other strategies, such as generating signals that will encompass or be higher than the echo from the aircraft, so that the radar threat will receive a signal that will mask the echo from the aircraft,” Carrara says. “Instead of creating a false echo and drawing the radar to the wrong place, the idea is to produce a signal that will mask the echo of the aircraft, so the radar will be unable to detect the aircraft Spectra is protecting.”

French pilots claimed the same when they said the MKI pilots were defeated with Spectra during exercises in India. They claimed negation, not jamming.

If you claim that active cancellation is still under tests, then the entirety of the F-35 is still under tests. One doesn't get any better than the other. In case Rafale is already using active cancellation, that makes the F-35 type stealth obsolete yesterday, let alone be the most advanced tomorrow. So either way, the F-35 is the "most advanced" only on paper as of today.

I know only a few facts here, facts that cannot be refuted as of now. I know for a fact that the RNAF believes Rafale and F-35 are similar. I know for a fact that the IAF tested and evaluated all the capabilities of the Rafale as of 2010, including knowing its roadmap beyond 2020. I know for a fact that the IAF submitted the FGFA Air Staff Requirements after 2010 and continued making changes since then. And I know for a fact that the Indian Air Chief said the FGFA is a generation ahead compared to the Rafale.

Everything else we have been discussing are just empty claims, both from the Russians and the Americans.

 

[A Bar Brother]

So you want to pit a proven track record of developing the F-22 (Lockheed Martin in the early 2000s), vs Russian vaporwear (your precious FGFA) promises?

A successful program in the past does not guarantee success in the future as already demonstrated. Passive stealth is reaching obsolescence fairly quickly further compounded due to the delays with the F-35. Benefit of doubt can be provided only if the US decides to export technologies that are classified as non-export grade for the F-35.

However I do agree that the Russians have some ways to go before they show something worthwhile. But not to the point one simply dismisses them for no reason.

 

[Brumby]

The rejection was most likely in 2007 or 2008. IAF signed an agreement to negotiate with the Russians in 2007. LM has been presenting the F-35 to both the IN and the IAF since 2005. At the time of these discussions both FGFA and F-35 were in effect paper planes.

This is an example where in my view seriously raised the issue of whether you are demonstrating intellectual honesty or engaging in good faith in a conversation where clearly the facts are against the premise of your assertion.

If your base year is 2005/2006, we know that the F-35 first flew on 15/12/2006 and the FGFA as of now (after 8 years) is still on paper. If both of them were identical (in sync) in their respective development cycle in 2005/2006 as per your assertion, then we either have the US being extremely competent in getting out the plane or the Russians are operating on vapourware.

If you claim that active cancellation is still under tests, then the entirety of the F-35 is still under tests.

I honestly don't have a clue where the French is on active cancellation. You are saying it is operational and so I am simply asking for some form of evidence to support that claim. Why is this such a complicated matter to come to a common ground even after probably several iterations? If there isn't one independent source that can provide some form of evidence it isn't the end of the world. It is not a personal attack on you.

One doesn't get any better than the other. In case Rafale is already using active cancellation, that makes the F-35 type stealth obsolete yesterday, let alone be the most advanced tomorrow. So either way, the F-35 is the "most advanced" only on paper as of today.

Firstly, I have not make any claims that the F-35 is the most advance. If some one else is making that claim then you have to take up that issue with them. I have no intention of defending some one else's point of view.

Secondly, active cancellation does not make passive stealth obsolete because they are not mutually exclusive events. Stealth whether it is active or passive are means to an end. Your reasoning is simply unsound.

 

[A Bar Brother]

This is an example where in my view seriously raised the issue of whether you are demonstrating intellectual honesty or engaging in good faith in a conversation where clearly the facts are against the premise of your assertion.

If your base year is 2005/2006, we know that the F-35 first flew on 15/12/2006 and the FGFA as of now (after 8 years) is still on paper. If both of them were identical (in sync) in their respective development cycle in 2005/2006 as per your assertion, then we either have the US being extremely competent in getting out the plane or the Russians are operating on vapourware.

The FGFA is simply a variant of the PAKFA. In 2005, both F-35 and PAKFA were in various stages of development. So, the argument is valid. PAKFA isn't an entirely different aircraft. And I don't see why this is an issue because I doubt the IAF rejected the F-35 simply because they were manufacturing a prototype. As you see, that didn't affect the IAF's decision to go for FGFA anyway even though PAKFA was under construction.

In case the IAF chose the F-35, they would have asked for an IAF specific version that is similar to what the Israelis are doing. IAF wouldn't shy away from spending far more than the Israelis will have on their version.

I honestly don't have a clue where the French is on active cancellation. You are saying it is operational and so I am simply asking for some form of evidence to support that claim. Why is this such a complicated matter to come to a common ground even after probably several iterations? If there isn't one independent source that can provide some form of evidence it isn't the end of the world. It is not a personal attack on you.

I never said it was operational. All I made are claims, since that is all that is available, the same as the F-35's claims. All I know is the RNAF gave a score that put it on the same level as the F-35. It is possible the score is similar because Dassault offered some kind of alternative to counter the F-35's stealth. As you can see, no other aircraft came close to either the Rafale or the F-35 in the graph. The closest was the Typhoon, and there was a difference of 100+ points.

And being sensitive technology, I don't see why the French would give away information in open source. As far as evidence is concerned, we may have to wait until the F-35 is fully operational before we know more.

Firstly, I have not make any claims that the F-35 is the most advance. If some one else is making that claim then you have to take up that issue with them. I have no intention of defending some one else's point of view.

Yes, I do have problems with the ones making the claims. That's LM and Pentagon. They are the ones claiming stuff that isn't necessarily true. Evidence points to the contrary.

Secondly, active cancellation does not make passive stealth obsolete because they are not mutually exclusive events. Stealth whether it is active or passive are means to an end. Your reasoning is simply unsound.

It depends. If you put active cancellation technology on the F-15, it won't be as efficient as if you put it on the F-35. But if you don't have active cancellation technology at all, then the F-35 is LO/VLO only in the X band while an aircraft with active cancellation is LO/VLO in all bands irrespective of the level of passive treatment on it. So, even a B-52 can become LO/VLO in all bands, right from L band to the Ka band. So you are VLO to satellites, long wave radars, short wave radars, AEW&CS etc. Even to mmw seekers of future air to air missiles.

And eventually, F-35 level stealth is only going to become obsolete when newer detection techniques are invented using the same radar. An active cancellation system can be upgraded.

 

[Brumby]

Yes, I do have problems with the ones making the claims. That's LM and Pentagon. They are the ones claiming stuff that isn't necessarily true. Evidence points to the contrary.

LOL. You are taking offence because a company like LM in their marketing literature makes certain claims. You seriously need to lighten up. It is good for your BP.

 

[A Bar Brother]

LOL. You are taking offence because a company like LM in their marketing literature makes certain claims. You seriously need to lighten up. It is good for your BP.

You do realize you are the first member here who is saying the exact same thing as I am. Everybody else was supporting LM's claim that the F-35 was the most advanced, including TP and AFB.