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

[Brumby]

I was referring to China's overall technological program that the media thinks is always behind the US in everyway. Like I said it's all about the program. China has the money and the many scientists and engineers to put even the best of people at DARPA to shame and those two programs alone that I've just mentioned are proof.

.... except what you are saying is irrelevant to what is being discussed. Your issue is specific to a comment by the head of Skunk works that Chinese copy cat versions are inferior in performance to the US. In fact you are making a straw man argument in an attempt to demerit those comments. AFB had made a number of attempts to put it in perspective

Its not about whether X is ahead of Y in this area, but Y is ahead of X over here, it is about Fifth Generation Fighter aircraft "beauty" being more than "skin deep". For him to declare our supremacy over the other Fifth Generation aircraft, is not the words of some ad exec or fanboy, as many here would love to believe, it is the "Word" of one of the foremost "experts" in the field of A2A/A2G stealthy aircraft.

I will now attempt to put more meat into such a defence. That statement by Mr. Weiss is made by a person who has knowledge to relevant leading edge technologies and presumably access to classified information on Chinese programs. In other words, they are made by an expert who comes to such a conclusion likely based on some informed assessment of comparative state of development between the US and China. It is not some fan boi rambling without basis. Mr. Weiss touched on three specific technologies; engines, sensors and avionics specific to fifth gen airplanes. It is not about ASBM technology.

Firstly, the issues about aircraft engines and state of Chinese development is well documented and due to its physical nature, the relative state is rather transparent. Secondly on the issue of sensors, there are separate components of it in AESA radar; IR imaging technologies and EW capabilities. On the subject of AESA, the relevant technological state should be noted :
(i) The US is well into the 3rd/4th generation of AESA development compared to Chinese development which is just starting. Although it can be argued that the Chinese starting state is not equivalent to the US starting state because the Chinese is benefiting from a more progressed starting state but nevertheless generational gap cannot be quickly bridged by simply throwing money into the pit as time and experience in technological application are just as relevant.
(ii)There are a number of technological milestones as an indication of state of development, including :
(a)packaging technology as measured by number of T/R per sq. meters.
(b)the quality of T/R produced is a function of advancement in miniaturization, cooling management and overall I/C state
(c)power management efficiency which varies between 5 to 20 w per module depending on state of development
(d)state of module separation to manage mutual coupling, FOV and cooling issues
We might be ignorant of these matters but people in the industry and Mr. Weiss knows the state of Chinese advancement in these areas which collectively are the building blocks for the AESA radar. Basically if you are behind in these areas do not expect to be on par in terms of performance. This is not withstanding the software needed to run it and the quality in performance is a function of time and experience in using AESA which the Chinese lacks.
(iii)Moving on in the area of IR imaging, the US is way ahead in the field being also several generation ahead. In this type of sensor, there is non cooling, cooling, non imaging, imaging, scanning and staring arrays. Each of them represent state of technological development. It is generally regarded, two generations separates the US from the Chinese. They are not simply claims but again people in the industry knows where each is at and so does Mr. Weiss.
Thirdly regarding avionics, there are at least one component worth mentioning i.e. data buses

Data buses are important because they are the data pipes that moves data around the airplane and anything to do with imaging and sensors require a big data pipe. I don't know what is build into the J-20 but we know that the J-10 A and B still using ARINC data buses which is frankly several generations old. It is like trying to conduct video conferencing using dial up modern. You probably can claim video conferencing capability but the performance will be a mere shadow in substance.

Finally, the issue is not just about the different components of avionics and sensors but the fusion of it. This is the hardest part and which is the heart of the fifth generation capability. What the US is attempting to do is to deliver level 4 sensor fusion which I would venture to say that the majority of enthusiast might not even have a clue what that is. It is those million lines of codes that drives the software to perform something. It is not meaningless. Mr. Weiss knows what he is talking about.

 

[Air Force Brat]

.... except what you are saying is irrelevant to what is being discussed. Your issue is specific to a comment by the head of Skunk works that Chinese copy cat versions are inferior in performance to the US. In fact you are making a straw man argument in an attempt to demerit those comments. AFB had made a number of attempts to put it in perspective



I will now attempt to put more meat into such a defence. That statement by Mr. Weiss is made by a person who has knowledge to relevant leading edge technologies and presumably access to classified information on Chinese programs. In other words, they are made by an expert who comes to such a conclusion likely based on some informed assessment of comparative state of development between the US and China. It is not some fan boi rambling without basis. Mr. Weiss touched on three specific technologies; engines, sensors and avionics specific to fifth gen airplanes. It is not about ASBM technology.

Firstly, the issues about aircraft engines and state of Chinese development is well documented and due to its physical nature, the relative state is rather transparent. Secondly on the issue of sensors, there are separate components of it in AESA radar; IR imaging technologies and EW capabilities. On the subject of AESA, the relevant technological state should be noted :
(i) The US is well into the 3rd/4th generation of AESA development compared to Chinese development which is just starting. Although it can be argued that the Chinese starting state is not equivalent to the US starting state because the Chinese is benefiting from a more progressed starting state but nevertheless generational gap cannot be quickly bridged by simply throwing money into the pit as time and experience in technological application are just as relevant.
(ii)There are a number of technological milestones as an indication of state of development, including :
(a)packaging technology as measured by number of T/R per sq. meters.
(b)the quality of T/R produced is a function of advancement in miniaturization, cooling management and overall I/C state
(c)power management efficiency which varies between 5 to 20 w per module depending on state of development
(d)state of module separation to manage mutual coupling, FOV and cooling issues
We might be ignorant of these matters but people in the industry and Mr. Weiss knows the state of Chinese advancement in these areas which collectively are the building blocks for the AESA radar. Basically if you are behind in these areas do not expect to be on par in terms of performance. This is not withstanding the software needed to run it and the quality in performance is a function of time and experience in using AESA which the Chinese lacks.
(iii)Moving on in the area of IR imaging, the US is way ahead in the field being also several generation ahead. In this type of sensor, there is non cooling, cooling, non imaging, imaging, scanning and staring arrays. Each of them represent state of technological development. It is generally regarded, two generations separates the US from the Chinese. They are not simply claims but again people in the industry knows where each is at and so does Mr. Weiss.
Thirdly regarding avionics, there are at least one component worth mentioning i.e. data buses
View attachment 25880
Data buses are important because they are the data pipes that moves data around the airplane and anything to do with imaging and sensors require a big data pipe. I don't know what is build into the J-20 but we know that the J-10 A and B still using ARINC data buses which is frankly several generations old. It is like trying to conduct video conferencing using dial up modern. You probably can claim video conferencing capability but the performance will be a mere shadow in substance.

Finally, the issue is not just about the different components of avionics and sensors but the fusion of it. This is the hardest part and which is the heart of the fifth generation capability. What the US is attempting to do is to deliver level 4 sensor fusion which I would venture to say that the majority of enthusiast might not even have a clue what that is. It is those million lines of codes that drives the software to perform something. It is not meaningless. Mr. Weiss knows what he is talking about.

Thank you for expanding our data stream Mr. Brumby, the US hasn't pursued ABSM technology, because the threat did not justify the expense, hence comparing that platform is irrelevant.

Mr. Weiss has "all" the information available through both military and civilian channels, as he is in the "need to know" classified strata, it is his job to counter every threat that we could possibly face, and develop a weapon or weapons to defeat that threat.

 

[Brumby]

the US hasn't pursued ABSM technology, because the threat did not justify the expense, hence comparing that platform is irrelevant.

My understanding of the US's lack of interest in ABSM technology adoption in the manner that the Chinese is using it is not due to technological impediment or cost justification. It is a strategic reason of restrain to avoid projecting a wrong message of a potential launch of ballistics nuclear weapons which might prompt a mutual assured destruction response. The other side cannot differentiate such launches whether it is with or without a nuclear payload, something the Chinese doesn't seem to care.

 

[Equation]

My understanding of the US's lack of interest in ABSM technology adoption in the manner that the Chinese is using it is not due to technological impediment or cost justification. It is a strategic reason of restrain to avoid projecting a wrong message of a potential launch of ballistics nuclear weapons which might prompt a mutual assured destruction response. The other side cannot differentiate such launches whether it is with or without a nuclear payload, something the Chinese doesn't seem to care.

Like how the US doesn't care what the Chinese are concern about the US FON operations on the SCS? What about cruise missiles with nuclear war heads? Can anyone differentiate if it has a nuclear or conventional war head in the first place? NO the US doesn't pursue because it can't replicate China's technological ASBM program since it's saves more money to pursue something it has already been familiar with.

 

[Equation]

Mr. Weiss has "all" the information available through both military and civilian channels, as he is in the "need to know" classified strata, it is his job to counter every threat that we could possibly face, and develop a weapon or weapons to defeat that threat.

Yes it is hard BUT not impossible to do for China or anyone else. You are assuming that the US fusion of avionics and sensor tech are too far ahead that no one could ever catch up to them. That these so called experts words such as Mr. Weiss are golden because they are in the know how...blah...blah...blah... top secret stuff therefore everyone else's opinion's and thoughts are irrelevant.

 

[Air Force Brat]

My understanding of the US's lack of interest in ABSM technology adoption in the manner that the Chinese is using it is not due to technological impediment or cost justification. It is a strategic reason of restrain to avoid projecting a wrong message of a potential launch of ballistics nuclear weapons which might prompt a mutual assured destruction response. The other side cannot differentiate such launches whether it is with or without a nuclear payload, something the Chinese doesn't seem to care.

actually, its because they don't have anything that we can't sink with the standard kitchen sink weapon??? Think about it, the Liaoning prolly has at least 2 or 3 attack subs tag teaming it, and anything else in their inventory of any concern to us?

If BHO decided he want the Liaoning on the bottom, not that he would possibly want to do that, it would happen quickly and quietly. Now that China is building a real Navy?? we might think about ABSM, but really, I doubt its a high priority.

At the height of the cold war, Russia had lots of ships and boats, we have a catalogue of each ones sonar signatures?? Most folks Nuke boats make lots of noise, so they all have company, not as worried about the offensive capability of diesel electrics, although they are very quiet, they frequently have to surface or at least snorkel.

Back on Topic, the F-35, and likely many other aircraft are capable of carrying anti-ship missles, and they are being developed rapidly.

 

[Brumby]

Navy Refueling Drone May Tie Into F-35s

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If you’re following the Navy’s new drone program, hold on to something. Keeping track of the various names of what used to be UCLASS and then became CBARS and is now the MQ-XX Stingray — or perhaps the MQ-25 — may make you as dizzy as keeping up with what the Navy plans to do with it. The Navy is in a hurry.

Perhaps the most interesting wrinkle introduced so far is the idea of tying as many as three of the aircraft at a time to an F-35, an idea Rear Adm. Michael Manazir, director of air warfare for the chief of naval operations, offered at an Air Force Association event Tuesday.

“What I would hope to do is be able to use technology and innovation so that when that (unmanned) aircraft in the mid-‘20s comes off the flight deck doing an ISR and a tanking role, we can connect it through a waveform still to be determined to an F-35 or an E-2 or a Super Hornet and be able to give that (unmanned) aircraft commands,” Manazir said. “Third Offset is about man-machine teaming.”

The UCLASS — Unmanned Carrier-Launched Aerial Surveillance & Strike drone — was envisioned as a stealth bomber but became the CBARS (Carrier-Based Aerial Refueling System). The Stingray, besides carrying gas, could play an innovative role in Fusion Warfare — i.e., combining and sharing among friendly forces what sensors aboard aircraft, ships, submarines and satellites reveal about the enemy and the battlespace.

“The unmanned system coming off the carrier, in the instantiation that I think about, is three (drone) wingmen and an F-35,” Manazir said. “A single pilot. Combat spread now is 25 miles apart in Fifth Generation tactics. Imagine a single aviator owning a 100-mile front of air dominance or air superiority — because that pilot is talking to the extended unmanned systems.”

“We are very anxious to get unmanned platforms onto the aircraft carrier,” Manazir, said. While he said the Navy might one day arm the new MQ-XX Stingray – the drone’s latest temporary official name – he explained that just buying a drone that “will do tanking and ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) is how we get unmanned onto the carrier rapidly and at the least cost.”

The Navy has requested $89 million in fiscal 2017 for research and development of the Stingray and $2.16 billion across the Future Years Defense Plan, with four or more companies — Boeing, General Atomics, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman – expected to offer bids. Navy leaders are to meet April 3 or 4 to settle on a Request for Proposals to be issued this summer.

Interesting point to note is that combat spread for 5th gen tactics is 25 miles apart. This would mean that MADL and IFDL links are good for at least that distance. In a four plane flight formation, it would mean that with sensor fusion the potential radar detection coverage is as much as 90,000 sq. miles

 

[Brumby]

F-35: who’s right?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

A recent submission to the Australian Senate enquiry on the F-35 acquisition. The issues are well known.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear this morning. As you probably know, the F-35, like the future submarine, has been a gift that keeps giving for someone in my line of work. The fact that we’re here today in 2016 to talk about it as a planned acquisition when the original conception was for a 2012 in-service date with the RAAF is a good illustration that things haven’t gone according to plan.

The question for the Committee is whether the deviation from plan is terminal, or whether it is a regrettable but ultimately manageable setback on the way to a mature capability. I think it is much more likely to be the latter than the former, despite much that the Committee has been told in written submissions and in evidence here. I won’t claim to have enough information at hand to make a solid judgement, though I would hazard that my professional qualifications and experience make me a reasonably experienced judge. My doctorate is in physics, I have been involved in defence capability development for over 20 years, and I managed a technical analysis branch in what was then DSD which had responsibility for electronic intelligence.

As well, I have had good access to the F-35 program during my time at ASPI. I have had briefings from our own Department of Defence, Lockheed Martin and discussions at the Pentagon on the subject. Most of the discussions were at the unclassified level, but I had the opportunity to discuss the modelling and simulation work that underpins the concept of operations for the F-35 with the practitioners. My conversations with those involved in modelling work suggested that I was dealing with careful analysts who well understood the nature of their business. They could explain their assumptions and, critically, how they tested the sensitivity of their conclusions to variations of those assumptions and of input parameters. The results of that work—which should be available to the Committee should you choose to ask for a brief—is starkly at odds with some of the material in submissions you have received.

Which brings us to the nub of the question that anyone wanting to understand the F-35 inevitable comes up against—who is right? On one hand you have a very active group of critics who have managed to get traction with the media and with elements of governments in Australia and Canada at least. As the submissions show, their view is that this program is a fiasco of extraordinary magnitude. On the other hand, you have the acquisition organisations and air forces of some of the most professional and competent operators of combat aircraft in the world—I include in that list Australia, Canada, Japan, Israel, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States. Those groups have access to classified data on the aircraft, and the partner nations also have good internal access to the program. Their collective judgement is that the F-35 is the way ahead for their air combat capability. (I think the Canadian Government will return to that conclusion unless money is their only driver.)

It is true that the American procurement system has the odd hiccup, and it has produced some systems that are far from meeting the cost-benefit balance required to justify their procurement. That generally happens when they shoot for ultra-high performance with insufficient regard for cost. Occasionally the American system produces systems that don’t work as advertised (the airborne laser comes to mind)—but only very occasionally. Much more often it is cost that leads to a ‘death spiral’ of ever lower numbers and higher unit costs. In that list I’d include the Seawolf nuclear submarine, the B-2 bomber and—ironically, given that it is proposed by many as the solution for alleged intractable problems with the F-35, the F-22 Raptor fighter jet. All are fine platforms, and all are unaffordable. They are not good solutions to military problems.

In summary, to conclude that the F-35 is not the right solution for Australia’s air combat capabilities, we have to assume that the American procurement system has made a rare error on the biggest program it has ever done, and that the most professional militaries of the world have failed to notice when doing their due diligence.

That said, further slippage of the program seems possible—particularly where the software is concerned. In our submission we talked about a hedging strategy of additional Super Hornets in the event that a danger of a capability gap emerges in the next few years. That was certainly the right answer when the Howard Government purchased 24 Super Hornets back in 2007 as an ‘interim’ capability. But that came with a cost of over $6 billion once maintenance for the rest of this decade is taken into account. So it’s not something you’d repeat lightly. We believe that remains the most viable fallback position, and I’m happy to expand on that in our discussion this morning.

 

[dtulsa]

As I have posted many times the F35 should be scrapped entirely replaced with a gen plus type aircraft a airforce simply should not have a machy jammed down it's throat it'd been done many times in the past with a tragic and great loss of life I am of the attitude that he who gets their firstest with the mostest wins

 

[dtulsa]

And may I may add that after reading the latest defense review that the devlopment of this thing has taken longer than both world wars plus Korean wars now scheduled for combat certification for late 2017

this country built Lord knows how many ships planes tanks etc. in the time this technological marvel to get into service we would have lost all those wars if we had waited on something likr this snd quite possibly it may be outdated by the time it enters service