F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[WingsofFury]

DAS would probably help the EWO in the second seat, but wouldn't replace the need for them. It would also drive the cost of integrating the EA gear up.

I would have to disagree with you there, in that DAS and the rest of the systems onboard would make it easier for the pilot to engage the system given the new displays found in the cockpit of the F-35.

What does that actually mean in terms of a Growler replacement?

Plenty actually - if systems can be integrated onto a single platform then cost savings would be found and the capabilities of a platform would be greatly enhanced as well.  That was the whole reason for the selection of the Super Hornet in the Growler role in the first place.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

I would have to disagree with you there, in that DAS and the rest of the systems onboard would make it easier for the pilot to engage the system given the new displays found in the cockpit of the F-35.

It isn't a display issue. The full EA/ED suite in a Growler requires a person operating the systems full-time, making decisions in real-time. They aren't going to be able to fly the aircraft as well.

If it came to an F-35 EW variant that HAD to be single-seat, the pilot would have to be the one who's left behind. Not kidding. There's a reason the US is not going ahead with this.

Plenty actually - if systems can be integrated onto a single platform then cost savings would be found and the capabilities of a platform would be greatly enhanced as well.

It looks like the US doesn't think the upfront cost of integration to be worth the cost savings over time, especially since they can run the Growler for a long time. They're just getting rid of the Prowler now, and the A-6 was retired 15 years ago.

 

[Haletown]

Good backgrounder  . . .



http://elementsofpower.blogspot.ca/2012/11/air-force-magazine-on-latest-from-f-35_23.html

" Conclusion:  The F-35 is an all aspect low observables, net-centric systems, long-range, yankin’ n bankin’ killin’ machine."

 

[observor 69]

Interesting how use of the word "stealth" has fallen out of favour/favor.  >

 

[Haletown]

Interesting how use of the word "stealth" has fallen out of favour/favor.  >

Yup . . . And the USN and the the USAF do not agree on weapons and tactics.

"Not that all radars are created equal. Even back in the 1980s, author Andrew Cockburn warned that, ironically, the Soviet Union's oldest, crudest radars might detect stealth bombers that newer systems missed. Stealth aircraft rely on carefully designed shapes and thin surface coatings to baffle incoming radar beams. But the lower the frequency of the incoming radar, the longer the wavelength, which means the less it reflects such subtleties at all: It's essentially too stupid to be tricked.

The upside is such relatively crude radars may detect a stealth aircraft is out there somewhere, but not accurately enough to shoot it down. The low-frequency, long-wavelength radars that are most likely to see through stealth are, for the same reasons of physics, the least precise. They're also too big to fit in anything but a ship or a fixed ground installation, where they are typically used to give warning that aircraft are in the general area. Actually tracking and hitting a target depends on smaller, shorter-wavelength radars which can fit in, say, an interceptor aircraft or surface-to-air missile and which offer more precision but are also more easily baffled by stealth technologies.

"Just because you can see someone now doesn't mean you can kill them," said Deptula. "Acquisition radars, which are what people generally tend to focus on, are only one element in an adversary's air defense equation." After a target is initially "acquired," he went on, "you need to be able to track the asset to then get to a firing solution; then you need to transfer that tracking data to the missile, which then needs to be able to acquire and track the aircraft [after it launches]. Presuming that the missile can track... now the fuse needs to be able to detect the aircraft" in order to detonate at the right time.

Break any link in that "kill chain," and the stealth aircraft survives, even if it's seen. So while stealth can't defeat all the radars all the time, it doesn't need to."

http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/27/will-stealth-survive-as-sensors-improve-f-35-jammers-at-stake/

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Are they talking about analog vs digital radar? or just ones using different wavelengths?

 

[Haletown]

For sure different wavelengths.  Whether or not the analog radar signal on older radar types is digitized for processing isn't explicitly stated but it seems to be the case where the author discusses merging multiple information sources into a more comprehensive picture.

Don't know about any modulation schemes involved. 

The way it reads, it is one thing to maybe sense a target out there, quite another thing to acquire a target and a lot of other things to maintain a target lock . . . and the slippery/stealthier you are the easier it is is to avoid detection and  acquisition and a lot harder for the air defense folks to maintain the lock.

The same works for the Mk1 eyeball.  Always harder to find and keep a low observable target in sight.  Which explains why combat aircraft are not painted International Distress Orange  :nod:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We hung onto analog radars on the hovercraft far longer than the rest of the CCG ships. mainly as the digital radars had a habit of deciding some returns were not worthy of displaying on the screen, leading to crashstops upon the real target becoming visible and other unpleasantness.

 

[Haletown]

We hung onto analog radars on the hovercraft far longer than the rest of the CCG ships. mainly as the digital radars had a habit of deciding some returns were not worthy of displaying on the screen, leading to crashstops upon the real target becoming visible and other unpleasantness.

Were you running Windows Vista on the processors?  ;D

 

[Haletown]

Sequestration and the F-35  . . . .  at least the B model is ok and it looks like Canada has some immigration issues.


http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ITn1Y0sf7eo&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DITn1Y0sf7eo%26feature%3Dplayer_embedded

 

[The Bread Guy]

This from Oral Questions in the House of Commons Monday - highlights mine:

Ms. Christine Moore (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, NDP):  .... The statement of operational requirements, which was fixed to ensure that only the F-35s would meet the requirements, was always classified. We recently learned that it could be discarded. As long as there is no new statement of operational requirements and we do not have an open and transparent process, the government will continue to choose the F-35.  Can they confirm that the statement of operational requirements has been rewritten? Will they make it public?

Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC):  Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in the past, one of the parts of our seven-point plan that we are undertaking before a purchase is made to replace the CF-18s is doing a full options analysis. As I said last week, the statement of requirements will be set aside while a full options analysis is completed.

Mr. Matthew Kellway (Beaches—East York, NDP):  Mr. Speaker, first the Conservatives told Canadians not to worry because they were following the rules. Not so much says the AG in a very thick report. Now they tell us not to worry because they will throw the rules out. The minister should know Rob Ford called and he wants his media strategy back.  If the secretariat is going to look at other options, it is going to need to find requirements first. Could the minister tell us how the government would perform an options analysis without that?

Hon. Rona Ambrose (Minister of Public Works and Government Services and Minister for Status of Women, CPC):  As I said, Mr. Speaker, as part of our seven-point plan, the Department of National Defence, overseen by the secretariat, will be performing a full options analysis. The current statement of requirements will be set aside while that full options analysis is being performed.

 

[McG]

Without a statement of requirement, against what does one analyze/evaluate options?

 

[Kirkhill]

Perhaps they are backtracking a step and trying to determine, at this point in time, the full range of capabilities the market has to offer.

Normally that would be Phase 2 in any of my projects.  Phase 1 is the client defines the problem.  Phase 2 is determining the range of possible solutions.  Later we get on to discussing which possible options are likely to be affordable.  Then a Design Basis Memorandum or Statement of Requirement can be generated.

Wasn't the Government on the hook to find out if the "Process" had been correct and also to determine if the "Outcome" was correct?  It sounds to me as if the Government's investigators are resetting the entire process and making no assumptions.

 

[Edward Campbell]

A guess - an unsupportd even by rumours wild arsed guess: the (reported (on CBC radio)) changes in the FWSAR SOR to include a possible multiple platform solution, presages a similar change in the next generation fighter/bomber SOR.

My second (equally unsupportd) guess is that Minister Ambrose has the PM's ear on this whole defence procurement issue.

On the second point: we are better off with one "solution," like it or not, than with none.

 

[The Bread Guy]

For the record, Minister Ambrose on this one in the House of Commons yesterday:

.... We have put together a secretariat. The membership is comprised of the senior deputy ministers in charge of military procurement, in addition to two independent members. Importantly, one of them is a former Canadian auditor general, and we appreciate very much his contribution and oversight. As the member knows, the secretariat will be responsible for the seven-point plan, including the options analysis …. the secretariat will ensure the proper expertise is brought in to review the statement of requirements and to do a full options analysis ....

.... we are better off with one "solution," like it or not, than with none.

Indeed.

 

[Haletown]

another good read  . . .  information that will most kikely be carefully avoided by our glorious state broadcorping castration.

"    You are in Command of the control center of an Integrated Air Defense System. I am flying along at 450 Kts at 45000 ft in my Acme Stealth Bomber.  At point X and Time T, one of my ‘angles’ and/or ‘aspects’ is aligned such that my signature is detectable by one of your ‘sensor systems’.
    At time T plus 1 microsecond later, that ‘angle’ and/or ‘aspect’ is no longer aligned such that it can be detected. DID your system detect me in the first place? If it did, what useful information did you collect to even process as to my range, altitude, heading, and speed? (Hint: Probably Zilch, Nil, Nada.)
    Did I mention that the RCS signal return you were able to detect was the equivalent of a (at most) large insect? How many large insects, or birds, bats, or chunks of vegetable matter are flying through your network airspace at any given time? Know anything about ambient RF noise? What are the chances your system filters out that 1 microsecond of signal as random noise? (Hint: Pretty Frickin' High - and all the processing power in the world doesn't help you if you are integrating a Zero) My RF ‘fuzzball’, in all frequencies where the physics dictate I can be tracked, is defined by very narrow spikes and very deep nulls. My three-dimensional orientation to any and all of your sensors is changing constantly and rapidly-- even if I fly in a straight line, constant speed and elevation.
    Oh, did I mention my tiny signal was received among all the other combat environment RF activity... including my onboard EW and offboard jammer support? 

    BTW: Did I mention this is ‘day one’ and your radars and control nodes are the primary targets?


Do read the whole story . . . lots of good information, however not not one mention of the F-35 being a "bomb truck" as it has been labelled by the military and aviation ignoranti over at the Rideau Institute.


http://elementsofpower.blogspot.ca/2012/11/does-sydney-j-freeberg-really-not-get.html

 

[The Bread Guy]

More from the home front....

"The F-35 might not be the only plane that could meet Canada’s requirement for stealth as currently set out, according to Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson.  Lawson told the national defence committee Thursday evening that the F-35 is not the only plane that meets the level of stealth set out in the statement of operational requirements (SOR). The terms of the SOR do not mean the F-35 is the only fighter aircraft Canada can to buy.  “Is there only one airplane that can meet the standard of stealth that’s set out in the statement of requirements?,” Liberal MP John McKay asked.  “No,” Lawson said.  And, he said, later, the stealth provision in the SOR is not hard and fast.  “The necessary element of stealth is not written in. The requirement for some level of stealth is what’s written into the statement of requirements,” Lawson told reporters afterward ...."

ipolitics.ca, 29 Nov 12

Before the House of Commons breaks for Christmas, KPMG’s review of the price tag for the F-35 fighter jets will be tabled in Parliament, breathing new life into Opposition claims of ballooning costs and Conservative mismanagement.

The report could sound the death knell for Canada’s involvement in the troubled project.

In the wake of a critical audit last spring by the Auditor-General, the accountancy firm was asked to give full-life-cycle costs for the F-35 – the all-in price of purchasing and operating the jets until 2052, not just the 20-year estimate the Department of National Defence provided.

The revised timeline will inevitably bloat the costs from the current $25-billion National Defence estimate.

Defence sources suggest that, were the same criteria applied to the widely admired $33-billion shipbuilding procurement process for the navy, costs for it would soar to over $100-billion.

As well, critics say, KPMG will not provide a comparator estimate for the F-35’s rivals, making it a “meaningless factoid,” in the words of one person familiar with the process.

Regardless, the impending arrival of a headline number several billion dollars higher than National Defence’s estimate has already set off a turf war within government between Defence officials and Public Works employees, who now run the fighter jet procurement process – not to mention their respective ministries.

In the eyes of National Defence, Public Works is already engaged in a butt-covering exercise by launching a “market analysis” of what alternatives exist to purchasing the F-35s ....

National Post, 29 Nov 12

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

Not sure if it has been posted but it seems that the plant that makes the F35 could go on strike

 

[PuckChaser]

Not sure if it has been posted but it seems that the plant that makes the F35 could go on strike

I wonder if any of those workers have friends at Hostess that could tell them how stupid that would be. If the plant goes on strike, I have a feeling a lot of countries are going to pull pin if its of any length or increases their cost per aircraft at all.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Not sure if it has been posted but it seems that the plant that makes the F35 could go on strike

Um... that already passed; it was resolved after a few weeks.

The bigger question is the effects of the Fiscal Cliff and WARN orders.