Britain's 'invisible' stealth fighter

[12Alfa]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2619606/Britains-1-3bn-invisible-stealth-fighter-hide-enemy-radar.html

It's only a few million, it might still work:wink2:

[Lt DeFault]

Well, at least there's an upside.

The Army will argue that there is no point spending all this money and that we should be spending more on body armour and tanks.

[12Alfa]

True, we (Canada) have this project on hold for the moment looking into a better AC to suit our needs,:luxhello: and not the arms industry.:c:

[Assassin 7]

I wonder what ever happen to the F-15SE?

[Grenny]

I love the press. :-D

ANY plane is detectable. You can make it harder by reducing the radar-cross section and reducing reflection. But is is impossible to make them disappear.

Being detected from 100 miles away is better the being from 200 miles.

The only question is the price tag VS result relation.

But about a air-force department we have the Joke:

An air force procurement agent goes to the bakery to buys one bread. The baker says: 100€. The agent just pays that without a question.

[Hedgehog]

Oh this whole bloody thing is a fiasco.

Are we gonna buy the cheap...sorry value for money aircraft and the expensive carriers?

Or the expensive aircraft and the value for money carriers?

(And why the F**k the carrier's are not nuclear powered i have no idea.....)

Typical politicians.

"Oh look at me I want your votes!!!"

[rant]F**k off & listen to your advisers who have 40+ years experience in the Royal Navy!

They were probably at the battle of the falklands and know what the hell they're on about.[/rant]

[Guest Killjoy]

Why is it that the RAF and Royal Navy get money THROWN at them, and yet the Squadies on the ground have to use Porn Magazines stuffed down their vests as substitutes for Kevlar plates?

[apelles]

I know that is not comforting, but in in my country, we have an "Air force" of 16 leased swedish light fighter, the army without any combat helicopter. We have 15 preserved T-72M1 "tank", the rest is given away to "New Iraq". The whole army not bigger than a medium infantry division in the USA, and still half of this is clerk. While we have more generals than Poland.

However the politicians have armored Audis and State employee chauffeurs.

What a dumbfuck country is mine?

[Homer]

"Stealth aircraft use flat surfaces and sharp edges to deflect radar signals and evade detection. The new threat to the F-35 comes from a new system called AESA – Active Electronically Scanned Array..."

Only the F-117 used flat surfaces and AESA has been around for decades. I would've taken this article seriously if it was 1982. Typical Daily Mail.

[12Alfa]

"Stealth aircraft use flat surfaces and sharp edges to deflect radar signals and evade detection. The new threat to the F-35 comes from a new system called AESA – Active Electronically Scanned Array..."

Only the F-117 used flat surfaces and AESA has been around for decades. I would've taken this article seriously if it was 1982. Typical Daily Mail.

Well if one reads some forums it looks like the F-35 has more than stealth issues.

http://info300.net/slay/Brife1.html

http://ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html#mozTocId61836

This just one of many out there that reports that is maneuverability is not matched by other modern aircraft.

I'm not bashing anything before this is locked down, just showing the other side of the F-35 from other the manufactures.

Some argue that it won't come to a dog fight, but I would not find this comment biased in reality, just as the F-117 can't be seen, that to proved incorrect. It does have some remarkable systems if they work as advertised.

[Homer]

Reports based on what? The plane is still in the development and demonstration stage. Even basic info about its performance is classified. How can you assess something that is incomplete or unknown?

I looked at that site you provided. I suggest finding a better one.

[Invader ZIM]

I'm still blind from the first link, but I agree with Homer here, if you go to almost any dedicated aviation forums you'll find Carlo Kopp's articles are to be taken with a whole shaker of salt.

I can tell you first hand, some of the info on those pages is very incorrect, and not just about the F-35

The first place I would try is here: http://www.f-16.net/f-35-news.html

The second is their forums, where you can see pro and con discussions about the various systems and make an informed opinion of your own, or even ask questions about what your concerns are. There are some guys that work in the industry there and may be able to give better insight about the various aspects of the systems and program then sensationalist news articles.

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewforum.php?f=65

[12Alfa]

Reports based on what? The plane is still in the development and demonstration stage. Even basic info about its performance is classified. How can you assess something that is incomplete or unknown?

I looked at that site you provided. I suggest finding a better one.

Your suggestions are always welcome:clin:

I did not assess anything, it's assessed on a simulation that Your AF did.

By the looks of this vid they are flying ___Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 (VMFA-121) has their redesignation ceremony at the newly built F-35B hangar at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Nov. 20. The squadron accepted the first operational F-35B in the world, ushering in a new era of Marine Aviation. The F-35B accomplishes the multi-role, fifth-generation

___google the youtube for the vid

But then again this might be spin.

I have plenty of sites, I did not post them all because we all can search if we want to see whats going on.

I'm hoping my country will select another AC. My point of view is we require lift, and not fighters.

[Invader ZIM]

it's assessed on a simulation that Your AF did.

Are you referring to the RAND corporation Pacific Vision simulation??

[Grenny]

Why is it that the RAF and Royal Navy get money THROWN at them, and yet the Squadies on the ground have to use Porn Magazines stuffed down their vests as substitutes for Kevlar plates?

Our airforce has twice the combined budgets of army and navy...and has contributed not half a fuck to our combat missions.

[Tjay]

The attraction of 'Stealth' aircraft for the UK is that the MoD can acquire them for very little cost. They will then be allocated to squadrons at the few remaining airfields in Britain, and arranged on the hard standings for the taxpayers to admire. It will be explained that the reason no planes can be seen is due to the latest developments in stealth technology that makes them invisible not only to radar but also to the naked eye. :clin:

[Invader ZIM]

LOL, that humor or yours.

[12Alfa]

Are you referring to the RAND corporation Pacific Vision simulation??

No that one never took place, I had a weekly email from one of many def pub's on it a few months ago, which I deleted after I view:icon_frown:, will see if I can find it.

[Invader ZIM]

Thanks, yea I'd be interested in looking at the info if you find it.

[Homer]

I did not assess anything...

It was a rhetorical question.

By the looks of this vid they are flying ___Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 (VMFA-121) has their redesignation ceremony at the newly built F-35B hangar at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Nov. 20. The squadron accepted the first operational F-35B in the world, ushering in a new era of Marine Aviation... we all can search if we want to see whats going on.

I never said it was not flying. I said it was in the "development and demonstration stage" which means they are learning how to use/maintain it and to check to make sure its working and the wings don't fall off. Individual planes don't go "operational", whole squadrons do. "Operational" in Pentagonese means it is ready to deploy and go to war (if needed). VMFA-121 will be the first squadron to go "operational" when the the F-35B reaches its IOC (Initial Operating Capability) date.

...it's assessed on a simulation that Your AF did.

No, that one never took place...

Make up your mind please.

[Homer]

Thanks, yea I'd be interested in looking at the info if you find it.

I'm pretty sure its RAND report you mentioned earlier. I looked up the arguments of the F-35 opponents to get their perspective and there were a few phrases that were common at a few sites. I traced the source back to the RAND powerpoint brief. It's weird. The quotes come from section named, "backup" which appears after the conclusion of the main section. Curious.

[12Alfa]

It was a rhetorical question.

I never said it was not flying. I said it was in the "development and demonstration stage" which means they are learning how to use/maintain it and to check to make sure its working and the wings don't fall off. Individual planes don't go "operational", whole squadrons do. "Operational" in Pentagonese means it is ready to deploy and go to war (if needed). VMFA-121 will be the first squadron to go "operational" when the the F-35B reaches its IOC (Initial Operating Capability) date.

Make up your mind please.

What I said , that I thought there was a simulation, did not quote the Rand corp (quoted by another), so that was what I ment when I posted last to clarify that I knew it was not the Rand sim. Pay attention when I babble!!:clin:

YOU-I said it was in the development and demonstration stage

Them-The squadron accepted the first operational F-35B

So you can forgive me for the confusion on exactly what this AC is,is not, or if it won't do/cannot do.

[Invader ZIM]

Thanks for the presentation Homer, that's the origional I was looking for.

Well, I had been familiar with the exercise in 2008 and dug into the details of RAND corporation simulation awhile back, and found the following:

http://web.archive.org/web/20090915183215/http://www.rand.org/news/press/2008/09/25/index.html

Andrew Hoehn, Director of RAND Project Air Force, made the following statement today:

“Recently, articles have appeared in the Australian press with assertions regarding a war game in which analysts from the RAND Corporation were involved. Those reports are not accurate. RAND did not present any analysis at the war game relating to the performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nor did the game attempt detailed adjudication of air-to-air combat. Neither the game nor the assessments by RAND in support of the game undertook any comparison of the fighting qualities of particular fighter aircraft.”

It would be akin to taking Steel Beasts, and not modelling the individual fire control systems, or important specifications of various vehicles or shutting them all off, and pitting Leopard 2's against T-62's and having the T-62's win in the "simulation". T-62 fans would rejoice and you'd find tons of references to the simulated battle pointing out the uselessness of the expensive Leopard 2, of course omitting the additional details on how the simulation was conducted or the special notice by the company that conducted the simulation indicating how inaccurate the simulation was.

You can see the inaccuracies assumed in the link under the Assement part of the powerpoint, it's a very generic "simulation" of the air battle.

One also should note that RAND corporation is a giant think tank, where the employees have to go out and find grants to do research on various projects, they do lots of things that aren't even remotely related to military or tactical matters. There are people there who hold classification ratings, and there are reports generated that are classified, but you'll find none of that on the internet.

[Homer]

You're not confused enough because it was indeed a simulation and RAND wrote a report for it. You were sorta almost half-right.

You posted a link that had the RAND quotes as evidence for the F in F-35 means FAIL. Generally, links are used because people agree with what is on the site, feel that it presents the info more eloquently than they could, or just too lazy to type it all out themselves. It's the same thing as saying it, is it not?

You have a son. Make him keep track of your ramblings

[Invader ZIM]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f-35s-air-to-air-capability-controversy-05089/

May 16/13: Australia. During Parliamentary hearings external link [PDF] of Australia’s Joint Committee On Foreign Affairs, Defence And Trade, RAAF Air Marshal Geoff Brown discusses some aspects of the F-35′s air-to-air performance. MP Dr. Dennis Jensen [Lib - Tangey] began the exchange by asking him about Air Power Australia’s correct predictions of aerodynamic performance ratings like sustained turn rate, which have been downgraded below the fighter’s original specifications.

The Air Marshal also talked about some Red Flag dogfights, and made a point about sensor fusion. As you read it, however, is the differentiator here really sensor fusion – or just a stealth level that rendered the F-15D’s radar useless?

“…the ability to actually have that data fusion that the aeroplane has makes an incredible difference to how you perform in combat. I saw it first hand on a Red Flag mission in an F15D against a series of fifth-generation F22s. We were actually in the red air. In five engagements we never knew who had hit us and we never even saw the other aeroplane…. After that particular mission I went back and had a look at the tapes on the F22, and the difference in the situational awareness in our two cockpits was just so fundamentally different. That is the key to fifth-generation. That is where I have trouble with the APA analysis…. To me that is key: it is not only stealth; it is the combination of the EOS and the radar to be able to build a comprehensive picture. In that engagement I talked about at Nellis, in Red Flag, the ability to be in a cockpit with a God’s-eye view of what is going on in the world was such an advantage over a fourth-generation fighter – and arguably one of the best fourth-generation fighters in existence, the F15. But even with a DRFM jamming pipe, we still had no chance in those particular engagements. And at no time did any of the performance characteristics that you are talking about have any relevance to those five engagements.”

The RAAF Air Marshall saw something that wasn't in the simulation. :clin: