2IDSGT said:;D Cute... have fun everybody.
Why Australia should scratch the F-35 and fly Sukhois
http://indrus.in/blogs/2013/04/08/why_australia_should_scratch_the_f-35_and_fly_sukhois_23629.html
kcran567 said:There are some valid points in the article, its not all bluster. The Russian pilot stated the f-35 is a very "hot" fighter and can be picked up 40 miles out (possibly more) IR detection. And the advances in L band radar that is on the Pakfa and installed on later Flankers. If the F-35 loses its stealth advantage, doesnt that make it a very expensive first shot aircraft that doesnt stand a chance in close combat with a Flanker? If the F-35 will be detected by L band and IR sensors, why not buy Flankers?
sferrin said:kcran567 said:There are some valid points in the article, its not all bluster. The Russian pilot stated the f-35 is a very "hot" fighter and can be picked up 40 miles out (possibly more) IR detection. And the advances in L band radar that is on the Pakfa and installed on later Flankers. If the F-35 loses its stealth advantage, doesn't that make it a very expensive first shot aircraft that doesnt stand a chance in close combat with a Flanker? If the F-35 will be detected by L band and IR sensors, why not buy Flankers?
How the hell would a Russian pilot know how far away he could detect an F-35?
Which would be as much non-public data as I have... that being ZERO.data on the F-35 available to Russian engineers
kcran567 said:There are some valid points in the article, its not all bluster. The Russian pilot stated the f-35 is a very "hot" fighter and can be picked up 40 miles out (possibly more) IR detection. And the advances in L band radar that is on the Pakfa and installed on later Flankers. If the F-35 loses its stealth advantage, doesnt that make it a very expensive first shot aircraft that doesnt stand a chance in close combat with a Flanker? If the F-35 will be detected by L band and IR sensors, why not buy Flankers? If the F-35 is able to jam the Flankers long range shot, the Russians are spending money also in defeating American long range missiles, so that makes the fight a closer range fight that would favor a Flanker.
kcran567 said:sferrin said:kcran567 said:There are some valid points in the article, its not all bluster. The Russian pilot stated the f-35 is a very "hot" fighter and can be picked up 40 miles out (possibly more) IR detection. And the advances in L band radar that is on the Pakfa and installed on later Flankers. If the F-35 loses its stealth advantage, doesn't that make it a very expensive first shot aircraft that doesnt stand a chance in close combat with a Flanker? If the F-35 will be detected by L band and IR sensors, why not buy Flankers?
How the hell would a Russian pilot know how far away he could detect an F-35?
Its heat signature, data on the F-35 available to Russian engineers, and is the F-35 that different from other fighters in the IR spectrum? Probably much worse than an F-16 because it is carrying a much larger engine and is having heat sync/dissipation problems as we speak. A very bright IR target. As far as L-band detection, I'm just hearing what the article has to say. How would the Russian know technical data like the F-35 engine core is 160 degrees hotter than a standard fighter engine, did he just make it up? I'm sure they are going off some known data source.
If the F-35 will be detected by L band and IR sensors, why not buy Flankers?
For example, the JSF can operate effectively only to a maximum of around 40,000 feet (it can fly higher but loses operation impact at higher levels). By contrast the Sukhois can operate at full capacity at much higher levels and with that advantage they have systems and weapons that could blast an Australia JSF and its pilot out of the sky before they had a chance to 'first look, first shoot, first kill'.
Also, because the F-35 represents the latest in American defence tech, many of its parts will be off limits to Australians and will have to be flown to US bases or serviced by Americans flown in especially for the task. This will not only add to costs, it will increase down time.
I am at a loss here. Any idea what they are talking about? How does Su-35 flying 10,000 feet higher than JSF in any way impair JSF's BVR capability?
Any truth in this?
AdamF said:Also, because the F-35 represents the latest in American defence tech, many of its parts will be off limits to Australians and will have to be flown to US bases or serviced by Americans flown in especially for the task. This will not only add to costs, it will increase down time.
Any truth in this?
TaiidanTomcat said:Australia is going to be the repair depot for all pacific based F-35s including the US ones, so i would guess No.
GTX said:TaiidanTomcat said:Australia is going to be the repair depot for all pacific based F-35s including the US ones, so i would guess No.
Actually that is not yet confirmed. It has been something proposed for a while and there are many of us in Australia working to make it the case, but unfortunately at this stage nothing is confirmed.
Triton said:For the coming military clash with Indonesia?
chuck4 said:Triton said:For the coming military clash with Indonesia?
Not as unlikely as you may think.
GTX said:chuck4 said:Triton said:For the coming military clash with Indonesia?
Not as unlikely as you may think.
Based upon what???
Triton said:What of the threat of the K-FX/I-FX to the Lockheed Martin F-35?
There was an immediate circling of the wagons late last week after Lt Gen Chris Bogdan, Joint Strike Fighter program director, took a shot at his contractors’ security measures in a Senate hearing. The government side of the program, Bogdan said, had “implemented robust security measures over the past five years” and together with international government partners “recognized the huge responsibility” of protecting the project’s technology.
But then Bogdan added "I'm a little less confident about industry partners to be quite honest with you ... I would tell you I'm not that confident outside the department."
Industry spokesmen were quick to dispute Bogdan’s statement, and even JSF program office media representative Joe DellaVedova seemed to be walking them back, telling Reuters: "The F-35 is no more or less vulnerable to known cyber threats than legacy aircraft were during their initial development and early production.”
As I believe the kids say on the Intertubez these days: LOL WUT?
What JSF-world calls legacy aircraft – F-16s and F-15s – went through initial development and early production in the 1970s when we didn’t know what cyber-anything was (apart from villains on Dr Who), technical data was stored on sheets of Mylar, and Boris Badenov had a Minox tucked in his sock. Perhaps there was some GRU project to insert radio transmitters and keystroke monitors into IBM Selectrics that we didn’t know about. DellaVedova did not respond to a request to clarify this comment.
But as a government official familiar with cyber threats and Air Force programs points out, “for the program manager to reach a threshold of worry where he'll say that to Congress, no less, he's got serious issues on his hands.”
Bogdan also knows what anyone listening who has studied security and cyberespionage to any degree understands: Industry has far more people and a consequently larger “attack surface” than government in the JSF program, so it is of little use if government security is strong, if industry’s is lacking. This also sounds like a wider issue than the security vulnerabilities that forced a redesign of the JSF’s massive Autonomic Logistics Information System over the last couple of years.
It’s also a matter of concern that there is still a JSF security issue on this scale, four years after the program was reportedly hacked and the Advanced Persistent Threat – basically, Chinese-based computer network exploitation – was first identified. But as some experts noted at the time, the JSF program’s information system is huge and spread among thousands of stakeholders, and it was designed long before the APT emerged as the menace it is.
Moreover, the recognition of the APT happened at a point in time when the JSF program was – by most recent accounts – in very poor shape. Shutting down the information system and replacing it with something more hacker-resistant was not an option.
It’s not so much technology as culture and training, as I reported a few months ago. I don’t think, for example, that any enterprise is likely to be very secure as long as people claiming to be inside it brag about their access on public message boards. (You know who you are.) Maybe if the contractors fired some of their Astroturf consultants, they could free some resources to fix the problem.
2IDSGT said:In his endless devotion to snotty-faced, pedantic snark about the program that cost him a job, BS seems to have forgotten that development of *legacy* fighters didn't stop in the 1970s... or 1980s... or 1990s... or even in the early 2000s. For those still dense enough to need Bogdan's intent Barney-style, the F-35 is no more vulnerable to cyberespionage than any other type in use today. Sorry, I don't really have a source to back myself up, but I'm just gonna assume that Boeing and LM aren't breaking out the paper blueprints and slide-rules every time they want to tweak "what JSF-world calls legacy aircraft."...What JSF-world calls legacy aircraft – F-16s and F-15s – went through initial development and early production in the 1970s when we didn’t know what cyber-anything was (apart from villains on Dr Who)...
Full disclosure: Sweetman is a personal friend and former co-worker at Jane's. As a military technology journalist, I have great respect for his vast and detailed knowledge of weapon systems of all kinds.
But Sweetman himself would tell you he approaches F-35 coverage unlike other journalists. I see my role as simply to report the facts offered by both critics and supporters, allowing my readers to draw their own conclusions. Sweetman approaches F-35 coverage from the standpoint of an analyst who has empirically concluded the program is a flop.
The U.K. Royal Air Force (RAF) used its first deployment of Eurofighter Typhoons to Red Flag to conceptualize how it might use the fighter in conjunction with the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.
At the end of this decade, the RAF will start settling towards a two-type front-line fast jet force with the planned retirement of the Panavia Tornado GR4 in 2019, and the introduction of the F-35 from land-bases and carrier operations at around the same time, both the Typhoon and F-35 are likely to be working together for at least a decade and perhaps out to 2040, so commanders are keen to figure out how the two aircraft will be able to complement each other.
In an ideal world you would have all fifth generation fighters, but that’s not a very realistic and a very expensive option, in which case, what we have tried to maximize is a flexible approach and some of those aspects have been warmly received,” added Wells.
TaiidanTomcat said:2IDSGT said:In his endless devotion to snotty-faced, pedantic snark about the program that cost him a job, BS seems to have forgotten that development of *legacy* fighters didn't stop in the 1970s... or 1980s... or 1990s... or even in the early 2000s. For those still dense enough to need Bogdan's intent Barney-style, the F-35 is no more vulnerable to cyberespionage than any other type in use today. Sorry, I don't really have a source to back myself up, but I'm just gonna assume that Boeing and LM aren't breaking out the paper blueprints and slide-rules every time they want to tweak "what JSF-world calls legacy aircraft."...What JSF-world calls legacy aircraft – F-16s and F-15s – went through initial development and early production in the 1970s when we didn’t know what cyber-anything was (apart from villains on Dr Who)...
Not to mention SAAB, Dassault and EADS. Or is it all on abacus?
Full disclosure: Sweetman is a personal friend and former co-worker at Jane's. As a military technology journalist, I have great respect for his vast and detailed knowledge of weapon systems of all kinds.
But Sweetman himself would tell you he approaches F-35 coverage unlike other journalists. I see my role as simply to report the facts offered by both critics and supporters, allowing my readers to draw their own conclusions. Sweetman approaches F-35 coverage from the standpoint of an analyst who has empirically concluded the program is a flop.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/05/aviation-week-suspends-bill-sw.html
Interesting stuff at Red Flag:
U.K. Thinks 5th Generation
by Tony Osborne:
The U.K. Royal Air Force (RAF) used its first deployment of Eurofighter Typhoons to Red Flag to conceptualize how it might use the fighter in conjunction with the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II.
At the end of this decade, the RAF will start settling towards a two-type front-line fast jet force with the planned retirement of the Panavia Tornado GR4 in 2019, and the introduction of the F-35 from land-bases and carrier operations at around the same time, both the Typhoon and F-35 are likely to be working together for at least a decade and perhaps out to 2040, so commanders are keen to figure out how the two aircraft will be able to complement each other.
And
In an ideal world you would have all fifth generation fighters, but that’s not a very realistic and a very expensive option, in which case, what we have tried to maximize is a flexible approach and some of those aspects have been warmly received,” added Wells.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aa04297ca-c9d7-488c-b316-9cb1282d1bc9&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
Perhaps he hasn't heard of another term that also has its origins in politics... "concern-troll." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#Concern_trollAbraham Gubler said:Astroturf consultants is a political campaign term for people who create fake grassroots campaigns. Which in this context must clearly imply the various people on the internet who support the F-35 and oppose the anti F-35 campaign.BioLuminescentLamprey said:Any ideas about who he's personally insulting towards the end? I've got my own strong suspicions on exactly who that is.
Geoff_B said:https://www.f35.com/support
So how many of you are signed up members of this LM officially sanctioned group ?
Faith triumphing over evidence, Slavish belief in pronouncements by authorities....
The newly released document, hosted on a government building-design resource site, outlines what base-construction engineers need to do to ensure that the F-35B's exhaust does not turn the surface it lands on into an area-denial weapon. And it's not trivial. Vertical-landing "pads will be exposed to 1700 deg. F and high velocity (Mach 1) exhaust," the report says. The exhaust will melt asphalt and "is likely to spall the surface of standard airfield concrete pavements on the first VL." (The report leaves to the imagination what jagged chunks of spalled concrete will do in a supersonic blast field.)....
...But the F135's overall pressure ratio is almost twice as high, which would point to a much higher jet velocity (which LockMart doesn't mention), the JSF nozzle is much closer to the ground, and the Harrier has two nozzles, several feet apart.
So maybe the F-35B is not shaping up to be the best anti-runway weapon since the RAF retired the JP233. However, it may still not be what the Marines got when they first acquired the Harrier in the early 1970s.
Lockheed Martin pooh-poohs the report, saying that it was based on "worst-case" data and that "extensive tests" conducted with prototype BF-3 in January (after the report was completed) showed that "the difference between F-35B main-engine exhaust temperature and that of the AV-8B is very small, and is not anticipated to require any significant CONOPS changes for F-35B."
.With only two CC-150T in service, it is impractical to permanently assign them to NORAD operations. Canada has never had more than two such tankers and not one between 1997 and 2009. This is partly why the Polaris fleet does not currently possess the avionics necessary to operate in the north, and will not until an upgrade scheduled to start later this year
on a NORAD mission, USAF KC-135s must be reequipped with a drogue basket and crewed with qualified personnel. Unfortunately, the latter is not always available, because only a few crews are capable of undertaking probe and drogue refueling compared to the nominal boom system.
Geoff_B said:https://www.f35.com/support
So how many of you are signed up members of this LM officially sanctioned group ?
sferrin said:In an ideal world you would have all fifth generation fighters, but that’s not a very realistic and a very expensive option, in which case, what we have tried to maximize is a flexible approach and some of those aspects have been warmly received,” added Wells.
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aa04297ca-c9d7-488c-b316-9cb1282d1bc9&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
Geoff_B said:So how many of you are signed up members of this LM officially sanctioned group ?