The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[SlowMan]

Desperate isn't always a good thing - there have been many cases of the desperate making unrealistic claims during the bid process (especially on cost) only to have things change after they were in contract.

Both CASA and Boeing are making firm fixed price offers, with damage provisions for failures to deliver.

The F-35 is offered on the FMS term, which means no price negotiation, no fixed prices, and in Korea's case, no quality guarantee because most of units are being delivered to Korea prior to the USAF IOC; the US government has no obligation to assure quality on units delivered before the IOC date.

Korea is not the student, the US not the school or teacher. Korea is the customer, the LM is a shop keeper. What Korea can get out of the US depends whether Korea wants to buy American ware more than LM wants to sell its wares to Korea.

Boeing is also "American" and the US state department can't officially protest a Boeing win.

Korea is putting off its decision for the simple reason the with every passing day, LM wants to sell its wares to Korea more.

Well, a line has been drawn on the sand at $9.45 billion and not a dime more. Has Boeing not only bid under this figure initially($9.4 billion), Boeing is now offering to sell the Silent Eagles at the F-15K prices. This is why local observers call FX III a done-deal.

Korea is waiting to see if there will be a fire sale. It's simple as that.

The F-35 won't be on sale. If Lockheed cuts prices, then it has to cut prices for all the JSF partners and eat the loss.

I wonder if LM has left some "margin" so as you say, when it comes time to lower the cost, they can still afford to. the other bidders?

The F-35 is offered on the FMS term, meaning that Lockheed doesn't deal directly with the DAPA. Rather, the JSF Office and the USAF act as an intermediary bidder, so that Lockheed -> USAF -> Korean government in sales.

The other two jets are offered on the DCS(Direct Commercial Sales) term with firm fixed prices, so that Boeing can bypass the US DoD and negotiate with the DAPA directly.

 

[SlowMan]

But the Koreans are known to be very unsubtle about driving hard bargains and using strong arm tactics against foreign vendor's points of vulnerability.

Those Korean officials are only trying to save their necks. Every purchase decision can be reviewed by the Parliament defense committee, which will 100% review the FX decision and the opposition party will use anything they see as improper as a political tool against the administration. It's exactly like the political firestorm going on in Canada, perhaps even more intensive.

The very kind of non-negotiated/politically-driven purchase decisions like Japan's FX is simply not possible in Korea, because the political opposition, press, and the 200K replies on portal sites won't let that happen.

 

[SlowMan]

nt double post.

 

[2IDSGT]

Korea is the customer, the LM is a shop keeper.

Let's try that one out for analogies. The Russians and Chinese are both developing their own 5th generation platforms. That makes LM the only shop-keeper with shovels... in a town where gold has just been struck. Not really a buyer's market wherein VLO technology is concerned.

 

[SlowMan]

That makes LM the only shop-keeper with shovels... in a town where gold has just been struck. Not really a buyer's market wherein VLO technology is concerned.

Not if the customer intends to make his own shovels at half the price of Lockheed store's shovels.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

That makes LM the only shop-keeper with shovels... in a town where gold has just been struck. Not really a buyer's market wherein VLO technology is concerned.

Not if the customer intends to make his own shovels at half the price of Lockheed store's shovels.

Which is odd because earlier you were saying that the glide bombs means you don't need the F-35's VLO. You also said that Korea would prefer the F-22, which makes me curious as to why they would make their own F-35.

 

[SlowMan]

Which is odd because earlier you were saying that the glide bombs means you don't need the F-35's VLO. You also said that Korea would prefer the F-22, which makes me curious as to why they would make their own F-35.

Stealth is for China and Japan, not for North Korea.

A2A forward-aspect stealth is needed to battle Chinese jets over the Yellow Sea.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Which is odd because earlier you were saying that the glide bombs means you don't need the F-35's VLO. You also said that Korea would prefer the F-22, which makes me curious as to why they would make their own F-35.

Stealth is for China and Japan, not for North Korea.

A2A forward-aspect stealth is needed to battle Chinese jets over the Yellow Sea.

Then why the F-15SE?

 

[SlowMan]

Then why the F-15SE?

1. The most powerful operational AESA radar in the US inventory.
2. Forward RCS rating equivalent to the export-grade F-35.
3. High thrust to weight ratio.
4. High altitude combat ability.
5. Latest cockpit avionics, more advanced than the one in the F-35.
6. Twin engine.

 

[chuck4]

Korea is the customer, the LM is a shop keeper.

Let's try that one out for analogies. The Russians and Chinese are both developing their own 5th generation platforms. That makes LM the only shop-keeper with shovels... in a town where gold has just been struck. Not really a buyer's market wherein VLO technology is concerned.

Gold may not be what everyone need the most, hard as that might be for the gold merchant to understand.

 

[sferrin]

2. Forward RCS rating equivalent to the export-grade F-35.

Source? (Not that I'm holding my breath.)

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

2. Forward RCS rating equivalent to the export-grade F-35.

Source? (Not that I'm holding my breath.)

Not even Boeing is claiming to have the same RCS as the F-35 with the F-15SE. :

 

[SlowMan]

Source? (Not that I'm holding my breath.)

http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%253A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%253Acfb19b80-dbc1-4cc1-adce-18bccd187551

Silent Eagle - How Stealthy?

The issue is not what level of RCS reduction can be achieved, says program manager Brad Jones, but what the U.S. government will release for export - and that will depend on the customer. So Boeing is conducting the studies to generate data on the different levels of RCS reduction possible. That data in hand, the company will begin licensing discussions with the U.S. government, he says.

As for the F-15SE versus F-35 on frontal stealth, Jones says what Boeing is looking for is an assurance from the U.S. government that all competitors will be set at the same level of RCS reduction. Let the battle begin.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/south-korea-to-develop-f-15ses-conformal-weapons-bays-349439/

The F-15SE's conformal weapons bays will provide internal carriage and reduce the aircraft's radar signature. Boeing has claimed that the F-15SE will provide the frontal-aspect stealth provided by fifth-generation fighters.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Boeing is looking for is an assurance from the U.S. government that all competitors will be set at the same level of RCS reduction.

That sounds like they were betting LM would not be allowed to sell the full F-35 to SK. They lost that bet.

On many occasions members of the JPO, LM, and the DoD have stated unequivocally that only one F-35 will be sold, no export versions.

Direct quotes have been provided to you on many occasions on many forums. Frankly I am getting tired of it.

The only thing you have provided is Boeing's hope that the USG will cripple the F-35 for the Korean bid in order to give Boeing a chance. That did not happen.

Pleas stop trying to pass off ancient history as current information.

For the F-15SE to have the same frontal RCS as a F-35, it's RAM would have to be several orders of magnitude better than the RAM of the F-35 because the F-15SE's shaping (known to be the largest contributor to RCS) leaves much to be desired.

Instead of regurgitating an old false claim, show a recent claim as to the F-15SE's RCS from Boeing.

 

[GTX]

Korea is the customer, the LM is a shop keeper.

Using this same analogy (in respect to Korea's wish for nice offsets), Korea also needs to remember that there are already 10 other customers in line in front of them... :

 

[SpudmanWP]

two minutes on Google found from FlightGlobal

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/cutaway-technical-description-how-boeing-developed-the-f-15-silent-eagle-367978/

A bigger change was not invisible, and remains the most sensitive aspect of the new airframe. Boeing has applied RAM coatings to reduce the F-15SE's radar profile in the frontal aspect. At first, Boeing claimed the F-15SE could match the frontal aspect signature of an export-cleared F-35. A year later, it had softened its claim, saying only that the F-15SE stealth profile had achieved its goals.

Funny on how the did not define what "goal" it met.

 

[GTX]

The F-35 is offered on the FMS term

Interestingly FMS is often selected because it offers a far better price/solution.

Well, a line has been drawn on the sand at $9.45 billion and not a dime more. Has Boeing not only bid under this figure initially($9.4 billion).

I am curious as to how you are supposed gaining access to privileged bid data such as supposed prices...

 

[GTX]

That makes LM the only shop-keeper with shovels... in a town where gold has just been struck. Not really a buyer's market wherein VLO technology is concerned.

Not if the customer intends to make his own shovels at half the price of Lockheed store's shovels.

Then why don't they? Why waste all this time buying someone else's product if you can make your own? Oh that's right...they can't. ;D

 

[SpudmanWP]

And another:

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-applies-to-export-f-15se-to-south-korea-343636/

Boeing has backed down from previous statements comparing the frontal-aspect radar cross-section of the F-15SE to an international release standard for the F-35. However, Jones confirms that Boeing's original briefing chart - claiming the F-15SE provides frontal-aspect stealth offered by fifth-generation fighters - remains accurate.



Lockheed and F-35 programme officials, however, have criticised Boeing's assertions that the F-15SE offers equivalent front-aspect stealth as the JSF, and denied that an international release standard exists for F-35 stealth characteristics.

Funny how you can remember (and have links for) invalid F-15SE claims yet forget about those claims being retracted.



Final thought, How can they back away from the claim of F-35 frontal RCS, yet still say:

However, Jones confirms that Boeing's original briefing chart - claiming the F-15SE provides frontal-aspect stealth offered by fifth-generation fighters - remains accurate.

The only way that works is if they consider the F-18E/F as a 5th gen design. Well, we are talking about Boeing

 

[GTX]

Then why the F-15SE?

1. The most powerful operational AESA radar in the US inventory.
2. Forward RCS rating equivalent to the export-grade F-35.
3. High thrust to weight ratio.
4. High altitude combat ability.
5. Latest cockpit avionics, more advanced than the one in the F-35.
6. Twin engine.

Let's look at each point shall we?


1. Define "powerful" in this regard please. I would imagine something such as the APG-79 would be a major contender there...though without a definition of powerful, it is hard to make a comparison.
2. Addressed by others here already.
3. So what? All of the contenders have high T/W.
4. So what? Are you saying the other contenders can't fly at high altitude. A SR-71 can go even higher but I don't see that being argued as a contender.
5. Proof for this statement please. I am really curious to see how you justify it.
6. Once again, so what? This often brought up issue of twin engines is one that is not borne out in the real world. Yes, once upon a time twin engines gave increased survivability, however that is less and less of an issue given the reliability and damage tolerance of modern gas turbines.

 

[SlowMan]

That sounds like they were betting LM would not be allowed to sell the full F-35 to SK. They lost that bet.

Boeing can match that too.

For the F-15SE to have the same frontal RCS as a F-35, it's RAM would have to be several orders of magnitude better than the RAM of the F-35 because the F-15SE's shaping (known to be the largest contributor to RCS) leaves much to be desired.

Koreans have -30 db RAM(98% X-band absorption rate) RAM that they would be eager to try out on the Silent Eagle. If the export-grade F-35 is really that low(It isn't), then the Silent Eagle too would be allowed to go that low and use whatever the best RAM available for the program.

Using this same analogy (in respect to Korea's wish for nice offsets), Korea also needs to remember that there are already 10 other customers in line in front of them... :

Many customers, Canada, Australia, and Netherlands, are tired of waiting for a high price shovel and are lurking at the competing shovel stores offering deep discounts.

Interestingly FMS is often selected because it offers a far better price/solution.

Not in the case of the F-35.

I am curious as to how you are supposed gaining access to privileged bid data such as supposed prices...

Because it's the law??? Budget is publicly disclosed. The legal price limit can also be calculated from the law. The law says the absolute price limit is $9.45 billion and the DAPA must fold if it can't find a bidder offering at or below this legal limit.

Then why don't they? Why waste all this time buying someone else's product if you can make your own? Oh that's right...they can't. ;D

To fill in 13% or so of missing technology for it.

 

[GTX]

export-grade F-35

Err...the what?

 

[GTX]

the Silent Eagle too would be allowed to go that low and use whatever the best RAM available for the program.

Are you really so naive as to think low observability is just a matter of adding on some RAM?

 

[SpudmanWP]

I would not put a lot of faith in the APG-79 (or it's sibling the -82)

This is from the most recent DOT&E report (Keep in mind that the -79 has been operational for over 5 years).

Executive Summary
• The APG-79 AESA radar provides improved performance relative to the legacy APG-73 radar; however, operational testing did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in mission accomplishment between F/A-18E/F aircraft equipped with AESA and those equipped with the legacy radar.
• While SCSs H6E and 23X demonstrate acceptable suitability, the AESA radar’s reliability continues to suffer from software instability. The radar’s failure to meet reliability requirements and poor built-in test (BIT) performance remain as shortfalls from previous test and evaluation periods.
• Overall, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet weapon system is operationally effective and suitable for most threat environments. However, the platform is not operationally effective for use in certain threat environments, the specifics of which are addressed in the DOT&E FY12 classified report

Activity
• DOT&E reported on APG-79 radar IOT&E in FY07, assessing it as not operationally effective or suitable due to significant deficiencies in tactical performance, reliability, and BIT functionality.
• The Navy conducted APG-79 radar FOT&E in FY09 in conjunction with SCS H4E SQT. The Navy’s Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force subsequently reported that significant deficiencies remained for both APG-79 AESA performance and suitability; DOT&E concurred with this assessment.
• Concurrent with SQT for SCSs H6E and 23X, the Navy conducted a second APG-79 radar FOT&E period in FY11. The Navy conducted the testing in accordance with the DOT&E-approved Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) and test plan. DOT&E issued a classified report on this testing in FY12; finding that the Super Hornet made incremental improvements, but still retained important deficiencies.

Assessment
• The APG-79 AESA radar demonstrated marginal improvements since the previous FOT&E period and provides improved performance relative to the legacy APG-73 radar. However, operational testing does not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in mission accomplishment between F/A-18E/F aircraft equipped with AESA and those equipped with the legacy radar.
• Full development of AESA electronic warfare capability remains deferred to later software builds

Recommendations
• Status of Previous Recommendations.
-- The Navy made minimal progress addressing FY11 F/A‑18E/F recommendations. Recommendations to continue to improve APG-79 AESA reliability and BIT functionality, to conduct an operationally representative end-to-end missile shot to demonstrate APG-79 radar and current SCS ability to support multi-AIM-120 engagement, and to develop and characterize the APG-79 AESA’s full electronic warfare capability remain valid.
• The Navy satisfactorily addressed three of seven FY11 EA-18G recommendations. Recommendations to improve aircraft maintainability and BIT software maturity, to improve ALQ-218 and ALQ-99 maintenance documentation and diagnostic tools, and to assess the
need for a more capable threat range at Whidbey Island, Washington, remain valid.

This from a radar that is 6 years after IOC.

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2012/pdf/navy/2012fa18ef.pdf

 

[GTX]

Oh I agree spud. My point was that just saying the F-15 has the most powerful AESA radar is meaningless without a definition of what is being assessed. Without this, once could just as easily argue the APG-79 is the best...regardless of how it performs. ;D

 

[GTX]

It is also interesting to note that if the APG-79 were to be the radar in the F-35 then certain people would be howling like mad about the radar based on that report and how the whole program should be cancelled because of it. However, given the fact that it is in the Super Hornet, there is hardly a peep and certainly no news articles... :

 

[SlowMan]

Are you really so naive as to think low observability is just a matter of adding on some RAM?

Shaping is the low-weight solution to RCS reduction. RAM could have the same effect; its disadvantage is increased weight.

But since Boeing is not proposing to reduce the RCS of the Silent on all-aspect, the frontal-aspect RCS reduction primarily through RAM is perfectly feasible.

Oh I agree spud. My point was that just saying the F-15 has the most powerful AESA radar is meaningless without a definition of what is being assessed.

Detection range on low RCS objects.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/old-school-jet/

Old School Jet Retooled to Slay Stealth Fighters

The magic is all in the Eagle’s nose. Compared to the angular, stealthy F-22, the totally non-stealth F-15 has a more capacious nosecone that can carry a larger radar. The larger the radar, the more likely it is to detect the J-20, despite that plane’s potentially very small frontal radar cross-section. The F-15 also routinely carries more fuel and missiles than the F-22.

 

[kcran567]

The least Boeing could do is make the Silent Eagle look as cool as the SK concept.
That aside, if the new radars can detect the F-35, J-20, etc. then the next step in the future is pure visual stealth and advanced radar jamming.


Is the F-35 zone of detection now nearing that of 4th gen fighters with the new radars? If the F-15SE and the new avionics/radars can track the F-35 as easily as it can non-stealthy aircraft it seems like the whole program was a waste of money and time.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If the F-15SE and the new avionics/radars can track the F-35 as easily as it can non-stealthy aircraft it seems like the whole program was a waste of money and time.

Since it can’t it isn’t. Problem solved.

 

[AeroFranz]

Not sure how advanced signal processing techniques would affect the equation, but all other things being equal, lower RCS still buys you decreased detection range according to the radar-range equation.

 

[chuck4]

fighters with the new radars? If the F-15SE and the new avionics/radars can track the F-35 as easily as it can non-stealthy aircraft it seems like the whole program was a waste of money and time.

Errrr, no. EVEN if new radar can detect stealth fighter with similar range as old radar can detect non stealthy fighters, These new radars would also now, by physics, be able to detect nonstealth fighters much further away than old radars. So stealth fighters even if no longer quite invisible, would remain just as less visible compared to old nonstealth fighters as before.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Are you really so naive as to think low observability is just a matter of adding on some RAM?

Shaping is the low-weight solution to RCS reduction. RAM could have the same effect; its disadvantage is increased weight.

But since Boeing is not proposing to reduce the RCS of the Silent on all-aspect, the frontal-aspect RCS reduction primarily through RAM is perfectly feasible.

Oh I agree spud. My point was that just saying the F-15 has the most powerful AESA radar is meaningless without a definition of what is being assessed.

Detection range on low RCS objects.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/old-school-jet/

Old School Jet Retooled to Slay Stealth Fighters

The magic is all in the Eagle’s nose. Compared to the angular, stealthy F-22, the totally non-stealth F-15 has a more capacious nosecone that can carry a larger radar. The larger the radar, the more likely it is to detect the J-20, despite that plane’s potentially very small frontal radar cross-section. The F-15 also routinely carries more fuel and missiles than the F-22.

Listen Slowman, I am willing to play along with your claims about the Korean competition, (hey after all you could be right.) But the problem is you over play your hand, and you make wild claims like the above, just like you made all those F-22 assertions earlier. all the VLO stuff LO stuff is classified. Boeing retracted their claim about the SE. The Korean Government will have the information but you certainly do not. so any claims you make about VLO/LO (even stuff Boeing is being obvious about) Is a wild guess on your part.

Once again you went from saying it is "all about cost" and then suddenly started adding a bunch of falsehoods. How does it look when everything outside the Korean Competition that you mention is wrong? Well that makes me doubt all your claims even those regarding Korea. The more you post, the more you contradict your sweeping claims. I think you just like the attention, so I am no longer going to give it to you.

 

[JFC Fuller]

If you scaled-up an AN/APG-81 to fit in the nose of an F-15 it will have a greater detection range against an F-35 than the AN/APG-81 of the F-35 will have against an F-35. However, that should be more than offset by the fact that the F-35 is LO meaning the F-35 will still see the F-15 first. Whether this is the case or not, and by what margins in either way, is of course classified so public discussion of it is largely pointless. What it does underscore is the point of the F-35 programme- LO and improved flight performance compared to the LWF competition descendent's. The electronic bits that go inside an F-35 can all be retrofitted to a legacy airframe.

 

[SlowMan]

http://www.tacticalreport.com/view_news/Saudi_Defence_Ministry_F-35_JSF_F-15_Silent_Eagle_and_Eurofighter/3142

Saudi Defence Ministry, F-35 JSF, F-15 Silent Eagle and Eurofighter (30 credits)
Posted on: Tue, Jan 22, 2013

The Saudi Defence Ministry is said to have decided to begin focusing on a project to acquire the Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle for the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF). The following 410-word report sheds light on the project and tells what about the Saudi plans in this regard. It also tells about the Eurofighter and what about the Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF (Joint Strike Fighter).

 

[chuck4]

http://www.tacticalreport.com/view_news/Saudi_Defence_Ministry_F-35_JSF_F-15_Silent_Eagle_and_Eurofighter/3142

Saudi Defence Ministry, F-35 JSF, F-15 Silent Eagle and Eurofighter (30 credits)
Posted on: Tue, Jan 22, 2013

The Saudi Defence Ministry is said to have decided to begin focusing on a project to acquire the Boeing F-15 Silent Eagle for the Royal Saudi Air Force (RSAF). The following 410-word report sheds light on the project and tells what about the Saudi plans in this regard. It also tells about the Eurofighter and what about the Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF (Joint Strike Fighter).

I wouldn't be too surprised if the nominal Saudi decision is nothing more than a face saving cover for having been tactfully denied the F-35 on account of:

1. Saudi Arabia's somewhat diminished importance in the post Iraq American security structure in the gulf area.

2. The whole gulf region's diminished importance due to United State's impending oil independence, confered by fracking shale oil and gas retrieval technology.

3. Pressure of Isreali Lobby.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Another possible explanation is that they are looking at the Silent Eagle as the basis of a Wild Weasel platform, in other words an updated version of the F-15G.

 

[quellish]

so any claims you make about VLO/LO (even stuff Boeing is being obvious about) Is a wild guess on your part.

Unless he has access to some kind of device that is capable of computing the scattering of radiation, in which case all bets are off.

Thankfully, such "computers" are a thing of myth.

 

[2IDSGT]

so any claims you make about VLO/LO (even stuff Boeing is being obvious about) Is a wild guess on your part.

Unless he has access to some kind of device that is capable of computing the scattering of radiation, in which case all bets are off.

Thankfully, such "computers" are a thing of myth.

 

[SlowMan]

Since it can’t it isn’t. Problem solved.

The frontal RCS of the export-grade F-35 and the Silent Eagle are about the same.

If you scaled-up an AN/APG-81 to fit in the nose of an F-15 it will have a greater detection range against an F-35 than the AN/APG-81 of the F-35 will have against an F-35. However, that should be more than offset by the fact that the F-35 is LO meaning the F-35 will still see the F-15 first. Whether this is the case or not, and by what margins in either way, is of course classified so public discussion of it is largely pointless.

Aviation Week doesn't have the original article, so I link a copy instead.

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=211266

Ranges of the new lines of AESA radars are classified. But they are estimated at about 90 mi. for the smallest (aimed at the F-16 radar-upgrade market). The F/A-18E/F and F-35 (with radar ranges of 100 mi.) are followed by the F-22 (110-115-mi.). The largest is carried by the upgraded F-15Cs and Es (125 mi.). By comparison, the range for a mechanically scanned, F-15C radar is 56 mi. according to Russian air force intelligence. U.S. aerospace officials agree that an AESA radar "at least doubles" the range over standard military radars.

Yup, the Silent Eagle's radar's more powerful than the F-22's radar and is especially good at the low-RCS targets. This is the reason behind the USAF's new "F-15 detects, F-22 circles around for a kill" combat tactic.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The frontal RCS of the export-grade F-35 and the Silent Eagle are about the same.

Since you 'know' they are the same please tell us what dbsm they are?