So, would you rather see a different plane? Forgetting the stealth, and going back to something like a modernized F-15 or an upgraded F-18? That been suggested down here in the States as providing more bang for the buck.

 

I don't advocate for any particular alternative, though I do see some merit in the RAAF's approach of buying an interim warplane (in the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, incl an EA-18G-like option) and adopting a "wait and see" approach for JSF, i.e. waiting for the design to mature, and seeing if the cost and delay problems are resolved.

From Defense Aerospace

 

[excerpt]

 

Plan B Needed for RAAF Combat Fleet

(Source: Australian Strategic Policy Institute; issued May 13, 2011)

 

Australia needs a Plan B and even a Plan C to maintain air combat supremacy in the event of further delays in the new Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a new study says.

So, would you rather see a different plane? Forgetting the stealth, and going back to something like a modernized F-15 or an upgraded F-18? That been suggested down here in the States as providing more bang for the buck.

 

I don't advocate for any particular alternative, though I do see some merit in the RAAF's approach of buying an interim warplane (in the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, incl an EA-18G-like option) and adopting a "wait and see" approach for JSF, i.e. waiting for the design to mature, and seeing if the cost and delay problems are resolved.

 

I would prefer a stealthy aircraft over a non-stealthy one; this had better be worth the money.

I would prefer a stealthy aircraft over a non-stealthy one; this had better be worth the money.

 

Stealth is always a matter of degree, of course, so how much stealth does one need? And for what price?

I would prefer a stealthy aircraft over a non-stealthy one; this had better be worth the money.

 

Stealth is always a matter of degree, of course, so how much stealth does one need? And for what price?

 

Enough to get into weapons range, of course... at a price that doesn't break the national bank. F-22 levels ideally.

 

I can see a case for the -35B and the -35C, as stealthy manned carrier aircraft will be needed in the future and you can't take an F-22 on a carrier. The -35A, though... needs to shape up fast.

Stealth is always a matter of degree, of course, so how much stealth does one need? And for what price?

 

Enough to get into weapons range, of course...

 

That raises an interesting point, because weapons are getting longer and longer ranged while still getting smaller and able of being carried by just about any platform.

 

New weapons can be developed much more quickly and much more cheaply than any new fighter or bomber.

 

And, with all of that said, how often do we send our very expensive first line aircraft into the teeth of an air defense system?

 

Doesn't experience show that we invariably 'soften up' an enemy with cruise missiles, anti-radar missiles, jamming, etc before even risking it?

 

All meant to provoke discussion of course.

 

... at a price that doesn't break the national bank. F-22 levels ideally.

 

And while we (the West) buys $150+ million aircraft, other nations can buy new Chinese aircraft at $20-25 million apiece?!

And, with all of that said, how often do we send our very expensive first line aircraft into the teeth of an air defense system?

 

The last time the French did it was 19 March 2011. With the Dassault Rafales.

And, with all of that said, how often do we send our very expensive first line aircraft into the teeth of an air defense system?

 

The last time the French did it was 19 March 2011. With the Dassault Rafales.

 

Perhaps I should have been more specific. I meant to say an integrated air defense system that posed any significant threat in the modern sense.

 

Beyond MANPADS, Libya had little to offer other than single digit SAMs designed 30-40 years ago.

 

Its hardly an example of an air defense system that anything like a "fifth generation", or for that matter, even a "fourth generation" aircraft, could expect to face serious opposition.

 

And yet, witness the sheer number of cruise missiles that were dedicated to taking apart what little air defense there was.

 

My point is this: we don't typically send expensive warplanes and valuable pilots into harm's way in any environment where stealth is necessary to keep them alive long enough to dispense their payload.

 

That is not to say that stealth isn't useful or that it hasn't been used. Obviously there are many examples where it has. Is it indispensable and a prerequisite across the board? I wonder.

I post here because I think this is the most consolidated topic line about F-35.

 

Do you known I don't like very much the F-35, but I want to comment a detail finded reading two days ago the May 2011 issue of Air International, in the propaganda-like 48 page supplement about the F-35 (almost none detail about specifications, performances, radar range ...).

- F-35 will have a very advanced internal ECM system, designated AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda, and allegdy based on the AN/ALR-94 suite of the F-22.

- ASQ-239 provides multispectral ECM against radars, and adds SIGINT capabilities to the F-35.

- ASQ-239 has ten dedicated apertures, six on the wing leading edge, two on the trailing edge, and two on the horizontal stabilizer (i.e., ten apertures as 5xALQ-99 ECM pods in a EA-6B Prowler, perhaps with a similar ECM capability but with less power output?).

- But my doubt is, the ALR-94 of the F-22 is a mere ESM system or has jamming capabilities?

 

Researching in the net, I only find this reference about possible jamming capabilities is (probably copied from some past open source of Jane's):

http://vnfawing.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=...c63e534034cad2e

The AN/ALR-94 electronic warfare system is an integral element of the F/A-22 Raptor sensor suite. It is reported to provide RF warning and countermeasure functions, together with missile-launch warning, and to be integrated with the AN/ALE-52 flare dispenser.

Perhaps the ALR-94 has jamming capabilities and the ALR designation is to produce some disinformation ....

I have no sources or firm information but my expectation is that the ALR-94 is producing threat information in a well-understood format (i.e. threat frequency, strength, azimuth, bearing) that another software module can use to direct the AESA radar to execute jamming operations. The ALR-94 continues to be 'just a warning receiver' but the information it generates and packages to explain the warning is a key component feeding a jamming system. Has such a system ever been funded for the F-22? I doubt it but it sounds like the chance is far greater that such software and interconnects will find their way into the F-35 eventually.

Edited May 24, 201114 yr by TonyE
threat information, not thread information though it is producing that as well

I have no sources or firm information but my expectation is that the ALR-94 is producing threat information in a well-understood format (i.e. threat frequency, strength, azimuth, bearing) that another software module can use to direct the AESA radar to execute jamming operations. The ALR-94 continues to be 'just a warning receiver' but the information it generates and packages to explain the warning is a key component feeding a jamming system. Has such a system ever been funded for the F-22? I doubt it but it sounds like the chance is far greater that such software and interconnects will find their way into the F-35 eventually.

Yes, some mention about it in the article

The radar (APG-81 AESA of F-35) could also be used, following future upgrades, as an electronic attack weapon, burning out emiters with pure power or injecting hostile radars or command and control systems with computer inputs that would provide false targets, misleading information, or shut down an air defence system.

The ALR-94 is a passive system, yes, but its no ordinary RWR. It has emitter DF and identification capabilities, supposedly able to sort up to 256 at a time.

 

The Journal of Electronic Defense (now sadly defunct) did a pretty detailed write up on the ALR-94 back in 2002.

 

The jammer is in the radar.

From DefenseNews

 

[excerpt]

 

U.S. Military May Deploy F-35 Before Formal IOC

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 24 May 2011 21:52

 

The U.S. military may deploy the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) before the tri-service fighter is formally declared Initial Operational Capable (IOC), top uniformed officials told Congress on May 24.

From Flight Global

 

[excerpt]

 

DATE: 26/05/11

SOURCE: Flight International

 

Lockheed Martin reveals F-35 to feature nanocomposite structures

By Stephen Trimble

 

Lockheed Martin has revealed the F-35 Lightning II will be the first mass-produced aircraft to integrate structural nanocomposites in non-load bearing airframe components.

 

A thermoset epoxy reinforced by carbon nanotubes will replace carbon fibre as the material used to produce F-35 wingtip fairings beginning with low rate initial production (LRIP)-4 aircraft, said Travis Earles, a manager for corporate nanotechnology initiatives.

From DefenseNews

 

[excerpt]

 

U.S. Military May Deploy F-35 Before Formal IOC

By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Published: 24 May 2011 21:52

 

The U.S. military may deploy the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) before the tri-service fighter is formally declared Initial Operational Capable (IOC), top uniformed officials told Congress on May 24.

The same thing in the May 2011 Air International issue, page 39 of the F-35 supplement:

IOC for the F-35A and F-35C is set for 2013. This is before initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) is concluded in November 2015 - an unparalleled situation, brought about by delays. IOT&E completion in 13 months behind the original schedule established in May 2008, and four years later than originally set out in 2001. Milestone C, which signals the end of LRIP and allows multiyear buys, cannot be declared until operational testing is completed. It is currently planned for 2016

Now in my mind: perhaps it will be better for market issues to name the F-35 as "Little Raptor" or "Baby Raptor".