Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
#4334666 - 02/04/17 05:07 PM Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
Well if there's still any doubt that the F-35 really works and is hand down superior to any 4th gen aircraft, I hope the following article finally dismisses it:

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/red-flag-gives-f-35a-its-toughest-test-yet


For example you can read above that in Read Flag the F-35 have been subjected to extremely challenging scenarios and despite it, the F-35 is achieving a kill ratio of 15 to 1 (in favour of the F-35, obviously).
I hope this confirms once and for all that the F-35 is an excellent and the best, except perhaps the F-22 fighter aircraft in air-to-air combat.

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4334673 - 02/04/17 05:46 PM Re: Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 53
FlightJunkie Offline
Junior Member
FlightJunkie  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 53
Bottom of the sea
This does not change the cost and all the misteps up to this point.

Last edited by FlightJunkie; 02/04/17 05:47 PM.
#4334676 - 02/04/17 05:52 PM Re: Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,555
VF9_Longbow Offline
Hotshot
VF9_Longbow  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,555
Tokyo, Japan
cheaper just to bribe all the pilots, ground staff and politicians on the other side than it is to drag these things into the sky

good and cool plane but yeesh, cost control anyone

#4334685 - 02/04/17 06:31 PM Re: Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet [Re: VF9_Longbow]  
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 53
FlightJunkie Offline
Junior Member
FlightJunkie  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 53
Bottom of the sea
you dont need to bribe them. They already got stakes in the project.

#4334716 - 02/04/17 10:31 PM Re: Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
@FlightJunkie and VF9_Longbow

Jezz, the cost doesn't change and it "out of control", like this:

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/d...low-100-million

rolleyes


Incredible how people still refuse to distinguish between cost of pre-production aircraft and higher or full production aircraft. Also incredible that people either ignore and/or refuse to acknowledge that every ground breaking or next step evolution in technology always bring extra development problems.
And also keep ignoring that basically every aerospace project have had development problems and cost overruns and this is not a recent event - F-14, F-15, F-16, Rafale, Typhoon are just a few examples.

What's also unbelievable is that the costs of the F-35 have been under control and on schedule since at least 2012 or more precisely after the 2010 program restructuring but people still claim that the F-35 program cost is "out of control".

Finally it's funny to see the F-35 program reaching every proposed/planned milestone, having it's price drastically dropped during the last years or resuming proving that the critics are wrong but critics still fail (or refuse) to acknowledge this rolleyes

#4334718 - 02/04/17 10:38 PM Re: Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,619
CyBerkut Offline
Administrator
CyBerkut  Offline
Administrator
Hotshot

Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,619
Florida

#4334742 - 02/05/17 01:14 AM Re: Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 746
Rends Offline
Member
Rends  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 746
Germany
I must admit that i'm not very familar with ultra modern aircrafts.
But i remember watching a TV documentary last year about aircrafts and they mentioned that any stealth aircraft can be detected very easely by using modern weather radars. Because of the engine heat every aircraft creates contrails ( visible or not) and this contrail shows up on the radar it wouldn't surprised me if this Technology will be used in the future to fight stealth planes. If the operator notice contrails coming out of nothing he can be sure that there is a Stealth plane in the air and launch his SAM.
Guess it will be possible ti the future to fit this radars in aircrafts too. The one they showed in the tv show were already very small.

Last edited by Rends; 02/05/17 01:25 AM.

Fight blood cancer register at : http://www.dkmsamericas.org/
#4334745 - 02/05/17 01:31 AM Re: Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,402
Zamzow Offline
Member
Zamzow  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,402
This is worth a copy/paste here... a bit WCE, but I'm guessing there's enough F-35 relevant commentary from a Super Hornet pilot here to offset that...


----------


Super Hornet pilot here... long #%&*$# post ahead and I can't #%&*$# believe the day has come when the future POTUS thinks it is fit to micromanage fighter jet procurement via popular appeal, especially when it's most likely #%&*$# Internet posts and blog articles that give him the extent of knowledge on the F-35 or other acquisitions programs - and not, you know, secret classified briefs by the experts in this area.

And before people say that this will rein in the military-industrial complex, or that this will save us money.... read on why he's so horribly wrong.

First of all, if you are one of those guys who thinks we should support the troops, or that Obama gutted the military, or whatever - you need to tell Trump to stop with this #%&*$#. Politicians getting involved in procurement and trying to micromanage ever aspect is exactly how we end up with unnecessary procurement, aging equipment, and a persistent 'kick-the-can' down the road mentality.

Don't believe me? Here's two recent examples of brilliant political meddling:
The USS Zumwalt and her class of destroyers were envisioned due to a Congressional requirement for shore bombardment ships after the US retired the Iowa-class battleships in the early 90s. Aside from the fact that shore bombardment for mass amphibious assaults is of questionable necessity in modern warfare with the advent of precision weapons and helicopters, this class was cut to just 3 ships (with each now costing multiple billions) with unnecessary compromises (although railguns are #%&*$# cool, tbh) and an unknown future and role.

The F-22 was originally supposed to have over 700 of them built. Citing the end of the Cold War, the US cut that order to around 380. Then in the 2000s, it was finally cut down to 187 total built because the Bush administration felt it was unnecessary and a relic of the Cold War. Fast forward to today, and we don't have enough F-22's so we've had to extend the life of our F-15s - which are aging - and now suddenly everyone now wants F-22's instead of F-35s. Oops.
Now, as for the F-35 and the F/A-18 Super Hornet... look, as a Rhino pilot (the nickname for the Super Hornet), I'd love all the fancy toys, funding, and the entire concept behind the Advanced Super Hornet/Block 3 Rhino...

But this ship has sailed. And honestly, this whole tweet just screams of populist politics from someone who doesn't know the intricacies or complexity of a modern fighter jet project or modern aerial warfare.

Cost First of all, the F-35's cost has gone way down since the project underwent reform a few years ago, with low rate production F-35A's (the Air Force model) reaching the cost of the Super Hornet already. The Aussies bought 24 Super Hornets at a price of $90 million each, and they recently bought the EA-18G Growler (the electronic attack version of the Rhino) about $110 million a piece.

Yes, the F-35B and -C versions (the Marine and Navy versions, respectively) cost more, but replacing the F-35A with the Super Hornet or a derivative of it makes no sense, unless you're reading Wikipedia and think the $60 million price tag on a Super Hornet still exists (it doesn't). Not to mention, the Advanced Super Hornet concept isn't going to cost anywhere near $60 million, not after you've added the conformal fuel tanks, stealthy weapon pods, and other equipment.

And before people say 'but the F-35 has had cost overruns!' - yes, it has, and they're inexcusable. That said, the time to cancel the program was 10 years ago, not today after the first F-35B squadron went operational a year ago, and not after the first F-35A squadron went operational this year, and not after multiple nations have their Air Force personnel in the US training on and preparing for their own inductions of these planes.

To Best Understand the F-35... Read Further I was going to try and do a point by point comparison of the F-35 and the Super Hornet, but I realized it was easier to just explain why the F-35 exists in the first place.

Back in the 1970s, the US Air Force adopted a "high-low" doctrine to replace the 8+ variants of interceptors and fighters they had in operation. That doctrine produced the "high" F-15 Eagle - a no-holds-barred air superiority fighter that was big, fast, and cost a ton of money. The "low" plane, the F-16 Fighting Falcon (Viper), was supposed to be small, cheap, and a complement to the F-15.

You see, fighter jets have gone through different 'generations' of development. The first generation of fighter jets - those designed during and right after WW2, like the German Me262, the Soviet MiG-15, and the US F-86 Sabre, had little in difference to the propeller fighters of WW2 besides having much higher speeds and engine performance.

The second generation of fighter jets, of the 1950s like the F-100 Super Sabre and the F-106 Delta Dart, pushed the aerodynamic envelope. They had big afterburning turbojet engines, were capable of supersonic flight, and were primarily focused on speed to intercept Soviet bombers as it was widely believed that any war would be determined by massive bomber formations carrying nuclear weapons to annihilate the other side.

By the end of the 2nd generation (the end of the 1950s), avionics had improved rapidly: on-board radars, data-links to ground intercept controllers, and air-to-air missiles came into existence, which created the third generation of fighter jets. The F-4 Phantom was the US's third generation fighter jet - it could fly fast, it had powerful engines, and it had a powerful radar and the latest in air-to-air missile technology. Problem was, the technology wasn't quite there yet, and the tactics (which I will cover later) weren't up to date.

In the late 60s, the US started developing the next generation of fighter jets: they had to maneuver and perform well, but would continue leveraging avionics. Thus was born the first fourth generation fighters, the F-14 Tomcat and the aforementioned F-15.

Well, avionics design and warfighting changed considerably. The F-16 - packed with modern avionics and radar - quickly took on the strike fighter role, capable of air to air combat as well as air-to-ground combat, becoming the workhorse of airstrikes in the Gulf War through today.

By the end of the Cold War, the US realized it needed to work on the next generation air superiority fighter - thus was born the F-22. In the late 90s, the US realized it needed to work on the next generation complement to the F-22 - and thus the Joint Strike Fighter project started.

The JSF had lofty goals - too lofty as some would say - as it wanted to combine a strike fighter replacement for the F-16, F/A-18 (which itself was derived from the rival prototype of the F-16, the YF-17), AV-8 and A-10.
It was always destined to be a HUGE project. All this talk of its 'record expense' was by design: the US alone was going to purchase 2,443 of them to replace all those airplanes, many of whom were last produced for the US decades ago (no exaggeration - the last A-10 rolled off the line in 1984).

The F-35 was also going to be sold to our closest allies, just as the F-16 (of which over 4,500 have been produced) and F/A-18 were. Nations ordering them right now include the UK, Italy, Australia, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Korea, Japan, etc.

This isn't a minor detail either. More types of airframes adds complexity and bureaucracy throughout the military: it means more pilots required, more training programs for each individual airframe, more program management (for future upgrades to each type), and more maintenance training and parts supply lines for the different jets.

So before anyone says "well the F-35 was going to cost a trillion over its 50 year lifespan" consider the costs of having 4 separate fighter jet pipelines, much less the rising costs of trying to keep jets designed in the Cold War airworthy and relevant.

The Navy actually already 'necked down': it retired the A-7, A-6, F-14, S-3, and EA-6B.
What aircraft did it buy to replace ALL those roles? The Super Hornet (and its derivative the Growler) for fleet defense, interdiction, attack, and tanking.

The Super Hornet is - contrary to popular belief - not just an 'upgraded' Hornet. It was sold with the F/A-18 moniker to convince Congress that it wasn't a new jet, just an upgrade, but by and large it mostly does not have parts commonality and it is a much larger jet. Underlying systems architecture is similar, as are many maintenance procedures, but it has different engines and a different radar and its avionics have diverged considerably from the original Hornets.

The Rhino is what we would call a Gen 4.5 fighter - an aircraft not quite a 5th generation fighter like the F-22 or F-35, but one that incorporates all the technological advances and concepts of the 90s and puts them into a modern jet. With multiple upgradeable flight computers, advanced mission computers designed specifically to receive constant upgrades (think of yearly updates from smartphones - now, we've even benefitted from F-35 derived tech, on both fronts), and newer sensors and countermeasures as well as a concerted effort to reduce our radar cross section (and make us stealthier), we're much costlier than the older Hornet - but more survivable and more mission capable.

Our capabilities to integrate into the battlefield, the carrier battle group, and even connect with the guy on the ground or surveillance in the air makes us tactically flexible (we can choose the right tactics for the right situation), more precise, and deadlier.

Which brings me to my next point: going to the Super Hornet or a Super Hornet derived plane now for the Air Force, at least, is #%&*$# stupid.

No Rhino pilot is going to say we're the fastest thing out there, or the most maneuverable. But we are all going to say that we are confident in our tactics and our capabilities and getting the most out of the sum of the jet, and it's one hell of a jet.

The problem with going to a Super Hornet derivative now is that the Super Hornet was designed from the start for carrier takeoffs and landings. That means a big beefy landing gear and strong arresting hook, capable of taking the shock of landing a 44,000 pound jet on a moving carrier deck flying at 140 knots through the air and bringing it to a halt in 3 seconds. That means big foldable wings to lower your approach speed and for storage on the ship. Those are all compromises the Air Force and their 1 million foot long runways (I kid, I kid) don't need.

In addition, you're talking about buying a plane that was ultimately designed over 20 years ago. Aerospace design and concepts have changed considerably today. There were design 'features' on the Rhino that, today, don't make sense or we've figured out newer and better ways to do it - and have built it into the F-35.

Stealth is built into the underlying structure of the F-35 - that can't be retrofitted.

Sensor integration is another big one. The Rhino has a ton of antennas and sensors, sure - meanwhile, the F-35 is designed to have them built in all over the airframe to give the pilot the ability to look in any direction and visually "see through" the aircraft - not to mention, to be able to detect threats from any direction as well and have a computer that can process all of this and feed it to the pilot in a digestable manner. The guys that have all flown it have raved about its situational awareness, and more situational awareness for us pilots = more mission effectiveness = we get the mission done correctly and get home safe.

The best way I can explain it is imagine having a printer built in the 1980s, and trying to get it to print wirelessly on your home network. I'm sure you can rig a solution to make it work, but at one point or another, you should just buy a new #%&*$# printer.

So has the F-35 had shortcomings in its development? Abso-#%&*$#-lutely. Some legitimate, but most of the concerns you hear about on the Internet are wrong and show a huge misunderstanding of how fighter jets are developed, how aerial combat works, etc.

For instance, the argument about how the F-35 couldn't fire its gun. Unless you think fighter jets simply fire their guns blindly now, you'd realize that our guns are linked to our systems to give us a firing solution. It's not that the F-35 couldn't fire its gun - it's that it would be useless and a waste of bullets if our mission computers weren't fully programmed yet to give us accurate firing solutions to account for every variable.

Same thing with all the angst about what weapons it can drop. The reality is, EVERY single weapon is tested and delivered/dropped by test pilots in every flight regime imaginable from flying straight and level to steep 45 degree-plus dive bombing profiles. Sure it can drop them - but we won't certify them for use in training or combat until we are certain they won't miss or even hit our own aircraft because of aerodynamic issues with weapons release. And with modern smart weapons, they have to interface with our own avionics to make sure we're getting the right releases at the right parameters and that said weapons will hit the right targets at the right times.

Again, the F-35 is unprecedented in that regard. When the F-16 and F/A-18 were introduced in the late 70s/early 80s, they had to be certified for their 20mm gun, the AIM-9 Sidewinder, the AIM-7 Sparrow, dumb bombs, and some basic smart weapons and air to ground missiles. The arsenal the F-35 has to be certified for today incorporates everything from GPS-guided JDAMs, to laser-guided bombs of all sizes, to different variants of the AMRAAM and Sidewinder, as well as a new gun (which Congress dictated... again, more political meddling).

Tactics... I mentioned I'd talk about that. First of all, all those articles you read about the F-16 beating the F-35? Throw them the #%&*$# out. We train our aircrew to fly each airframe to its advantages and limits, and to take advantage of opponent weaknesses.

The F-35 is a new airframe, and tactics for it are being developed as we speak. Even how to fight it is up for development. You fight an F-16 very differently than you do an F/A-18, and no doubt, the F-35 will fly differently from those as well.

I bring this up, because during the Vietnam War, the Air Force and Navy diverged on how to make up for the lackluster F-4 performance. The Air Force chose to add guns to their F-4 - which improved their kill ratio.

The Navy opened up TOPGUN to develop tactics for the F-4. The Navy never added guns, but increased its kill ratio even more than the Air Force did. How so? Because the Navy started teaching its pilots to fight the F-4 vertically, to utilize its power advantage over the nimbler but less powerful MiGs. When MiGs got pushed into a vertical fight, the F-4 outperformed them and shot them the #%&*$# down.

Absolutely NONE of this #%&*$# is done willy nilly - a ton of time, effort, and money is put into all of this. And unfortunately, too many people are commenting on and getting involved in areas they have next to zero expertise in.
Ultimately, Trump's comments here are pointless and disruptive. If an Advanced Super Hornet design was being made to compete against the F-35, the Air Force, Marines, and Navy would choose the F-35 still meaning we're wasting money and time. It's not like the F-35 didn't compete - it beat the X-32 in 2000, when the Super Hornet had already been introduced, so any 'price competition' on F-35's today is going to end up with the F-35 as the only option.

Hell, the Navy has already put out RFP's for a 'sixth generation' fighter to replace the Super Hornet in the 2030's - we're already thinking ahead.

In sum:

Cost - the F-35 isn't necessarily more expensive than the Super Hornet, and it is a cheaper beast going forward than standing pat with what we have.

The time to cancel the F-35 was a decade ago, not today, after the F-35 has already reached operational status.

The F-35 has had cost overruns and delays, yes, but those are in the past. It's pointless to start a competition now for a fighter jet we decided on 16 years ago.

The Super Hornet isn't the right plane for the Air Force, and is reaching its upgrade limits a lot quicker than the F-35 will.

The F-35 is the cornerstone of American airpower for the next few decades, and will be the cornerstone of Western airpower as well. This affects a whole lot more than a tiny fraction of the US budget.

Most people don't know #%&*$# about aerial combat, military procurement and testing and development, but all feel fit to comment anwyays.

#4334781 - 02/05/17 11:57 AM Re: Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
Excellent post Zamzow, that Super Hornet pilot pretty much nails it thumbsup

#4334797 - 02/05/17 01:03 PM Re: Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet [Re: Rends]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
Originally Posted By: Rends
I must admit that i'm not very familar with ultra modern aircrafts.
But i remember watching a TV documentary last year about aircrafts and they mentioned that any stealth aircraft can be detected very easely by using modern weather radars. Because of the engine heat every aircraft creates contrails ( visible or not) and this contrail shows up on the radar it wouldn't surprised me if this Technology will be used in the future to fight stealth planes. If the operator notice contrails coming out of nothing he can be sure that there is a Stealth plane in the air and launch his SAM.
Guess it will be possible ti the future to fit this radars in aircrafts too. The one they showed in the tv show were already very small.



I believe that you (and many other people for that matter) misunderstands the concept of Stealth.

First and above, ANY radar can detect ANY stealth aircraft! Yes, you read that correctly - basically any radar can detect any stealth aircraft.
This means that Stealth doesn't make an aircraft "invisible" to radar. What stealth does is to reduce the size or area of the aircraft that can be seen by a radar.
For example with your naked eye you can spot a Boeing 747 much further than you can stop a F-16 and why? Because the 747 is bigger.
When it comes to radar, it was discovered decades ago that the size of a radar contact is not dependent of the contact's actual size but on the contact's actual shape. For example a B-2 looks much more smaller to a radar than for example an Airbus A320 while both have similar real size.
And what does this mean? It means that a radar will detect the Airbus A320 at MUCH LONGER range than it can detect the B-2. For example a radar that could detect the A320 at several hundreds of kilometers would only be able to detect the B-2 at a dozen kilometers, if so.
And this is what Stealth is all about.

For example how far can your "contrail weather radar" detect a stealth aircraft like the F-35?
And if it actually can detect the stealth aircraft at a "useful" range what would be that radar's precision/resolution? Would it is sufficient to for example actually guide a missile towards the stealth aircraft?

Also, the fact is that even if you came up with a radar system (like that contrail weather radar) that could detect a F-35 at a relatively useful range, lets say for example 100km the fact is that non-stealth aircraft (like the Super Hornet, Typhoon, etc...) would be detected at much farther distances/range like for example 400km or even more. So believe me, Stealth is here to stay as many other technologies before it, like for example the guided missiles and ECM.

Resuming, even if new radar detection systems that would be more effective against stealth aircraft came up this only means that non-stealth aircraft would be at an even more disadvantageous situation since these system would still detect non-stealth aircraft at much farther range compared to stealth aircraft.


I hope I'm not extending this post too much but I can give you a more practical example:

- Probably one of the "best" systems against Stealth aircraft nowadays and in the near future is the Russian Nebo-M VHF radar - VHF radars which are another often mentioned "magical solution against stealth" - which is a radar system often used in conjunction with S-400 SAM system.
However while powerful, this radar can detected a F-35 stealth aircraft at best at a maximum range of less than 90km - And this using the RCS (Radar Cross Section) value for the F-35 of a "golf ball" which according to newer information the F-35 RCS value is even lower (or more "stealthier") and this 90kn value is also without the F-35 using it's standoff directional jammer against the VHF radar source.
While 90km seems an "interesting" range against an advanced and stealth fighter aircraft like the F-35, it's must be noted that the F-35 will be able to carry weapons like the Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) which has a range in excess of 110km, which means that a F-35 can destroy these radars without ever being detected.

Moreover, this same radar system (Nebo-M) will be able to detect non-stealth fighter aircraft like the Super Hornet, Typhoon, Rafale, etc... at ranges around 480km. I hope this example alone is enough to demonstrate the advantage of STEALTH.

#4334802 - 02/05/17 02:04 PM Re: Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,671
Sunchaser Offline
Member
Sunchaser  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,671
Houston, Tx.
Someone already told Trump, the American voters.

And while the "Super Hornet pilot here..." has a right to his opinion his job is to fly the plane.

I am 1 million percent behind every US veteran but a wall of text proceeded by an obvious dig at the American voters, we did put the guy there, should relegate this topic to the dumpster

Why?
2 reasons from op:
"First of all, if you are one of those guys who thinks we should support the troops, or that Obama gutted the military, or whatever - you need to tell Trump to stop with this #%&*$#."

"Ultimately, Trump's comments here are pointless and disruptive."

1 reason from me:
My response.

#4334805 - 02/05/17 02:36 PM Re: Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet [Re: Sunchaser]  
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,402
Zamzow Offline
Member
Zamzow  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,402
Originally Posted By: Sunchaser
Someone already told Trump, the American voters.

And while the "Super Hornet pilot here..." has a right to his opinion his job is to fly the plane.

I am 1 million percent behind every US veteran but a wall of text proceeded by an obvious dig at the American voters, we did put the guy there, should relegate this topic to the dumpster

Why?
2 reasons from op:
"First of all, if you are one of those guys who thinks we should support the troops, or that Obama gutted the military, or whatever - you need to tell Trump to stop with this #%&*$#."

"Ultimately, Trump's comments here are pointless and disruptive."

1 reason from me:
My response.


This is an F-35 thread. And I don't think that guy was trying to politicize the topic at all - he was calling out people (whether voters OR certain elected officials) simply not knowing what they're talking about. That's why I went ahead and pasted the thing in it's entirety.

#4334823 - 02/05/17 04:00 PM Re: Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 24,027
oldgrognard Offline
Administrator
oldgrognard  Offline
Administrator
Lifer

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 24,027
USA
I would have suggested that you snip out the initial and unnecessary political content.

That makes it more about the airplane and program and less likely to go off the rails.


Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Someday your life will flash in front of your eyes. Make sure it is worth watching.
#4334825 - 02/05/17 04:04 PM Re: Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,671
Sunchaser Offline
Member
Sunchaser  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,671
Houston, Tx.
Your paste begins:

"Super Hornet pilot here... long #%&*$# post ahead and I can't #%&*$# believe the day has come when the future POTUS thinks it is fit to micromanage fighter jet procurement via popular appeal, especially when it's most likely #%&*$# Internet posts and blog articles that give him the extent of knowledge on the F-35 or other acquisitions programs - and not, you know, secret classified briefs by the experts in this area.

Sim hq has moved posts into WCE with less provocative content.

#4334836 - 02/05/17 05:05 PM Re: Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 746
Rends Offline
Member
Rends  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 746
Germany
@ricnunes.
Guess you didn't understand correctly what i wrote. The weather radar In the documentary doesn't detect the aircraft itself but the contrails.
Example. Let's say there are 4 planes in the air at xxx miles. 3 of them are F18s and one is the F35.
The operator on a standard radar detects 3 aircrafts but the operator on the weather radar detects 4 contrails.
Conclusion, there is a stealth aircraft in the air.
Well i don't know details about the range of the weather Radar and what can be read and what not (alt speed ect...)
Like always in history there are measurements and countermeasurements.

Btw. Anyone ever heard of passive radars? They try to make use of all the signals coming from am/fm mobile devices and all that stuff that surrounds us everyday to spot stealth aircrafts.


Fight blood cancer register at : http://www.dkmsamericas.org/
#4334838 - 02/05/17 05:12 PM Re: Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet [Re: Sunchaser]  
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 24,027
oldgrognard Offline
Administrator
oldgrognard  Offline
Administrator
Lifer

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 24,027
USA
Originally Posted By: Sunchaser
Your paste begins:

"Super Hornet pilot here... long #%&*$# post ahead and I can't #%&*$# believe the day has come when the future POTUS thinks it is fit to micromanage fighter jet procurement via popular appeal, especially when it's most likely #%&*$# Internet posts and blog articles that give him the extent of knowledge on the F-35 or other acquisitions programs - and not, you know, secret classified briefs by the experts in this area.

Sim hq has moved posts into WCE with less provocative content.


Correct.

But the topic is good and we are showing some restraint because we hope that the focus stays on the airplane and the program.

In hindsight, it might have been appropriate for moderators to edit out all the superfluous stuff and made a comment that we did so.


Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Someday your life will flash in front of your eyes. Make sure it is worth watching.
#4334846 - 02/05/17 06:05 PM Re: Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet [Re: Rends]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
ricnunes Offline
Senior Member
ricnunes  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,840
Portugal
Originally Posted By: Rends
@ricnunes.
Guess you didn't understand correctly what i wrote. The weather radar In the documentary doesn't detect the aircraft itself but the contrails.
Example. Let's say there are 4 planes in the air at xxx miles. 3 of them are F18s and one is the F35.
The operator on a standard radar detects 3 aircrafts but the operator on the weather radar detects 4 contrails.
Conclusion, there is a stealth aircraft in the air.
Well i don't know details about the range of the weather Radar and what can be read and what not (alt speed ect...)
Like always in history there are measurements and countermeasurements.

Btw. Anyone ever heard of passive radars? They try to make use of all the signals coming from am/fm mobile devices and all that stuff that surrounds us everyday to spot stealth aircrafts.



I actually understood the concept. However and again the concept is only good as its practical range.
And again the system is also as good as it's precision. Seeing that such system doesn't detect the aircraft itself but instead its contrails I would say that the precision of such "radar"/system would be quite low and likely insufficient to for example guide a missile towards the target.

And moreover, a jet aircraft doesn't always leave a contrail behind it! For example where I live during the summer I can easily observe that most airliners don't leave a contrail. And even more if for example a F-35 (or any other jet) flies lower - let's say 20,000 feet or even a bit lower - it won't leave contrails and as such wouldn't be detected by that "contrail radar".

I would even bet some serious money that even if the F-35 (or again any other jet) leave a contrail behind that such radar wouldn't be able to detect these contrails at long and/or any useful range. For example I doubt that it would surpass the detection range against a stealth aircraft of a Nebo-M VHF radar for example.
And lets not even start about the complexity of having "normal radars" working in tandem with that "contrail radars" and all of this to achieve what would be a "dubious" performance.


The "passive radar" is likely an even more "far fetched" concept. Again how far would such a "passive" system be able to detect anything, specially against Stealth aircraft which not only deflects radio waves away from the emitter but also absorbs them (thru the use of RAM materials)?


All this talk about "contrail radars" and "passive radars" reminds me the talk about body armour used by soldiers or even police officers and I'll quote a comment that I read from someone in the past which I found "spot on":
- Any blacksmith can "easily" build you a body armour that could even withstand with .50 cal HMG rounds. However the problem is building a body armour that can be easily be carried by humans/soldiers (or lightweight enough) and with a good ability to stop incoming rounds.
That's why you only have body armour that can defeat assault rifles but aren't unable to stop HMG and even high powered rifles (like sniper rifles) since to stop those rounds you would need a prohibitive and very heavy armour.

With "contrail radars" and "passive radars" the concept is the similar. You could "successfully" develop them however would they be any good or really effective? IMO, nope!

#4334848 - 02/05/17 06:18 PM Re: Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,560
Arthonon Online content
Veteran
Arthonon  Online Content
Veteran

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 10,560
California
As far as the contrail radar and passive radar capabilities go, I would say that if anyone here knows about it, then the people designing the modern aircraft know about it, and to assume they aren't factoring in those capabilities I think does them an injustice.

Something someone read on the Internet is most likely something that those designers know about it detail long before it hits the web, so I'm confident their design has dealt with it as needed.


Ken Cartwright

No single drop of rain feels it is responsible for the flood.

http://www.techflyer.net

#4334854 - 02/05/17 06:59 PM Re: Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 746
Rends Offline
Member
Rends  Offline
Member

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 746
Germany
Both seems very new Radar designs and they are working on it.

https://airbusdefenceandspace.com/newsro...sive-radar-use/

Quote:
Airbus Defence and Space started to develop the passive radar solution in 2006 and has already demonstrated a working system, which can detect ultralight aircraft many kilometres away with accuracies down to 20m, as well as detect larger aircraft 200km away, making it one of the early pioneers and currently at the head of the field in this area. Airbus Defence and Space hopes that the application of this technology originally conceived for military use could reshape the way that air traffic is managed in the future.


Fight blood cancer register at : http://www.dkmsamericas.org/
#4334925 - 02/06/17 04:00 AM Re: Red Flag gives F-35A its toughest test yet [Re: ricnunes]  
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 22,854
Rick.50cal Offline
Lifer
Rick.50cal  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 22,854

Trump was not making a detailed assessment of high tech weapons... he was doing a VERY SIMPLE tactic to "soften the ground", or "prepare the battlespace" or "Suppression of enemy air defence", in prep for NEGOTIATING a better price. That he might, or might not get.

He's not comparing RCS, or studying Sun Tsu, more using his own book "The Art of The Deal".

That this Naval Aviator did not recognise this, is his own fault.


POLITICS, WAR, ECONOMY, CONTROVERSY! and other heated discussions and debates in the PWEC sub-forum at the bottom of this forum main page. See you there!
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0