Admin
Administrator 
Posts: 377
|
Post by Admin on Aug 5, 2013 9:15:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 21, 2013 14:47:21 GMT
While all possible options for dealing with budget cuts are considered the Pentagon is not going to cancel the F-35 program. The F-35, even with it's design specification driven cost over-runs, is still highly cost effective when it comes to replacing the existing F-18's, Harriers, F-16's and F-15's currently in service. The only comparable aircraft in the US inventory of fighter aircraft is the F-22 and production has already been stopped on that aircraft.
When we look at cost effectiveness we can compare (1) F-35 to an entire squadron of F-16's for example when it comes to combat effectiveness. That (1) F-35 is far more effective (and safe) when it comes to mission capability than the squadron of F-16's.
|
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Aug 22, 2013 13:58:20 GMT
There is another option available, although it's disputed which will actually be 'better': theaviationist.com/2013/02/11/typhoon-aerial-combat/#.UhYX4D-OyHgIs it worth such a huge amount to the US to develop an aircraft that might already be inferior to one that is already out there and operational (and that they could easily purchase from their close allies)? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 23, 2013 16:15:42 GMT
LOL. The Typhoon fighter is not a stealth fighter and it cannot detect the F-35 that is. The F-35 can stand off outside of visual range and shoot down the Typhoon and the Typhoon can't even detect the F-35 to engage it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Aug 24, 2013 14:15:04 GMT
LOL. The Typhoon fighter is not a stealth fighter and it cannot detect the F-35 that is. The F-35 can stand off outside of visual range and shoot down the Typhoon and the Typhoon can't even detect the F-35 to engage it. The persisting myth about stealth aircraft technology is that it makes an aircraft totally invisible to radar. It does not. It reduces the size and clarity of the radar signature, so the Typhoon will indeed detect something, and its aircraft radar and RWR systems are amongst the most developed in the world. And the Typhoon does indeed incorporate many stealth features in its design (including radar absorbant paint) while exhibiting markedly superior combat capabilities to the F35. Which is admittedly vastly superior in that respect to the F117 which had totally feeble dynamic capabilities and a very limited weapons load (due to the necessity of an enclosed bomb bay and no hard points on the wings). So the F35 is unlikely to shoot down an unwary Typhoon at BVR. |
|
|
|
Post by bobbins on Aug 24, 2013 18:17:04 GMT
The Typhoon is an example of military waste. Originally built for a job that it won't ever do, we get people blubbering positively about it so we can avoid mentioning the European stupidity
|
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Aug 24, 2013 23:49:44 GMT
The Typhoon is an example of military waste. Originally built for a job that it won't ever do, we get people blubbering positively about it so we can avoid mentioning the European stupidity You are probably correct, and we similarly get people blubbering positively about things like the F-35 and the F-22 so we can avoid mentioning the even greater American stupidity.  |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 25, 2013 11:02:53 GMT
LOL. The Typhoon fighter is not a stealth fighter and it cannot detect the F-35 that is. The F-35 can stand off outside of visual range and shoot down the Typhoon and the Typhoon can't even detect the F-35 to engage it. The persisting myth about stealth aircraft technology is that it makes an aircraft totally invisible to radar. It does not. It reduces the size and clarity of the radar signature, so the Typhoon will indeed detect something, and its aircraft radar and RWR systems are amongst the most developed in the world. And the Typhoon does indeed incorporate many stealth features in its design (including radar absorbant paint) while exhibiting markedly superior combat capabilities to the F35. Which is admittedly vastly superior in that respect to the F117 which had totally feeble dynamic capabilities and a very limited weapons load (due to the necessity of an enclosed bomb bay and no hard points on the wings). So the F35 is unlikely to shoot down an unwary Typhoon at BVR.
The RCS is also exponentially affected by distance. A airplane two miles away is four times harder to pick up on radar than a airplane one mile away. At four miles it is 16-times harder to pick up on radar than one at one mile.
The RCS of an F-35 is about the size of a bumblebee and well below the "squelch" lever of any radar. It isn't that the radars aren't good enough but instead its that the background radiation is so great that the radar receiver can't see it. Sort of like picking out a white piece of paper on a hillside covered in snow. It becomes invisible because of the background radiation.
So the Typhoon will never see the F-35 if it's out of visual range (over about 5 miles) but it might be able to pick up an incoming air-to-air missile but the missiles are also stealth today and coming head-on have virtually no RCS. There are no perpendicular surfaces to bounce the signal back to the aircraft and radar works based upon the "mirror" effect of visible light. It only bounces back from a perpendicular reflective surface. That air-to-air missile is also coming in very fast covering a mile in about 0.7 seconds. If that F-35 is ten miles away that only gives about 7 seconds for the pilot to be alerted, figure out where the threat is coming from, and take evasive action. Seven seconds is actually a long time but the missile is unlikely to be detected at launch and if its a head-on shot then the time could be reduced to perhaps two seconds or less (due to closing speed between the aircraft and the missile) and the missile is going to follow the Typhoon wherever it goes. Not a lot of time to actually evade the missile and, as noted, a stealth missile could evade detection altogether.
Ultimately we come down to the simple problem that the Typhoon is going to be unable to engage the F-35 because it will never be able to pick it up on radar and while it might evade a missile or two eventually it will be shot down.
Let me provide an example from history. During WW II there were three operational obsolete Gloster Sea Gladiators (three others were used predominately for parts) that provided part of the defense of Malta. We're talking slow and poorly armed biplanes going up against fast heavily armed monoplane fighters but the old biplanes, because of their high maneuverability, were almost impossible to shoot down. Eventually the old biplanes lost but not before racking up an impressive "kill" ratio of the far more advanced Italian fighters that they faced.
The inability to shoot down the enemy aircraft is pivotal which is the case when addressing a stealth aircraft. The stealth aircraft always knows where the non-stealth aircraft is while the non-stealth aircraft never knows where the stealth aircraft is. The stealth aircraft never loses in this situation.
To my knowledge not even the US military can detect our own stealth aircraft because we used the latest US military radar systems to establish the baseline for RCS levels in our aircraft development. They actually have to turn on a radar transponder (i.e. it picks up the radar signal and sends it back to the source) before they can be detected.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 25, 2013 11:32:27 GMT
The Typhoon is an example of military waste. Originally built for a job that it won't ever do, we get people blubbering positively about it so we can avoid mentioning the European stupidity You are probably correct, and we similarly get people blubbering positively about things like the F-35 and the F-22 so we can avoid mentioning the even greater American stupidity.
I do know more about the B-2 bomber though when it comes to mission capability. One B-2 bomber with one aerial refueling tanker had the same mission capability of 100 conventional military aircraft (fighters, bombers, and aerial tankers). The combined flight crews for the B-2 and aerial tanker is about 10 people while the flight crews for the conventional military aircraft is over 200. The ground crews are also reduced proportionately along with the logistical support for air operations.
I also have inside information on why the B-2 cost so much per airplane. It was an aggressive development program with design specifications that pushed technology far beyond what existed at the time. The first seven aircraft were to all be test aircraft (with six to be converted to operational use after testing) and the initial BAM (Basic Assumption Memo) was for 250 B-2's to be produced but for political reasons Congress decided to build 100 of the already obsolete B-1 bombers. That funding was pulled from the BAM budget for the B-2 and the cost equated to 132 B-2 bombers leaving 118 left to be build. At that time Northrop offered the DOD a fixed cost for building the 111 remaining B-2 production aircraft of $154 million each (less engines that the Air Force furnishes) under one primary condition. Northrop would produce the aircraft at the most economically cost production rate and the Air Force would pay Northrop as the planes were delivered. Congress refused to agree with that wanting to control the production rate that it constantly delayed with dramatically increased the cost of production. Then it finally cut the total production and rolled in the development and non-recurring capital costs of the program into the total cost of each airplane. Development costs and non-recurring costs are never a part of the production costs of an airplane but it was included on the B-2 program.
Congress drove the price of the B-2 up far beyond what it could have been built for and also built over 100 obsolete B-1's to boot. The B-1 remains a white elephant in the Air Force inventory today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Aug 25, 2013 18:32:34 GMT
I've actually worked on the F-117, B-2, F-35 and a few other classified stealth programs and without crossing the line into classified information there is a simple principle behind the radar cross section (RCS) of stealth aircraft. The goal is to reduce the RCS so that it is less than the atmospheric "bounce" of the radar signal. In short the radar receiver has to be "turned down" because if it isn't then the screen just becomes a receiver for all of the "radio noise" from the atmospheric bounce. Sort of like a TV that isn't receiving a station and all we see is the dotted pattern of radio signals being picked up. Eliminating the atmospheric radio single is accomplished with what is call "squelch" that cuts out the "background" radio signals.
The RCS is also exponentially affected by distance. A airplane two miles away is four times harder to pick up on radar than a airplane one mile away. At four miles it is 16-times harder to pick up on radar than one at one mile.
The RCS of an F-35 is about the size of a bumblebee and well below the "squelch" lever of any radar. It isn't that the radars aren't good enough but instead its that the background radiation is so great that the radar receiver can't see it. Sort of like picking out a white piece of paper on a hillside covered in snow. It becomes invisible because of the background radiation.
So the Typhoon will never see the F-35 if it's out of visual range (over about 5 miles) but it might be able to pick up an incoming air-to-air missile but the missiles are also stealth today and coming head-on have virtually no RCS. There are no perpendicular surfaces to bounce the signal back to the aircraft and radar works based upon the "mirror" effect of visible light. It only bounces back from a perpendicular reflective surface. That air-to-air missile is also coming in very fast covering a mile in about 0.7 seconds. If that F-35 is ten miles away that only gives about 7 seconds for the pilot to be alerted, figure out where the threat is coming from, and take evasive action. Seven seconds is actually a long time but the missile is unlikely to be detected at launch and if its a head-on shot then the time could be reduced to perhaps two seconds or less (due to closing speed between the aircraft and the missile) and the missile is going to follow the Typhoon wherever it goes. Not a lot of time to actually evade the missile and, as noted, a stealth missile could evade detection altogether.
Ultimately we come down to the simple problem that the Typhoon is going to be unable to engage the F-35 because it will never be able to pick it up on radar and while it might evade a missile or two eventually it will be shot down.
Let me provide an example from history. During WW II there were three operational obsolete Gloster Sea Gladiators (three others were used predominately for parts) that provided part of the defense of Malta. We're talking slow and poorly armed biplanes going up against fast heavily armed monoplane fighters but the old biplanes, because of their high maneuverability, were almost impossible to shoot down. Eventually the old biplanes lost but not before racking up an impressive "kill" ratio of the far more advanced Italian fighters that they faced.
The inability to shoot down the enemy aircraft is pivotal which is the case when addressing a stealth aircraft. The stealth aircraft always knows where the non-stealth aircraft is while the non-stealth aircraft never knows where the stealth aircraft is. The stealth aircraft never loses in this situation.
To my knowledge not even the US military can detect our own stealth aircraft because we used the latest US military radar systems to establish the baseline for RCS levels in our aircraft development. They actually have to turn on a radar transponder (i.e. it picks up the radar signal and sends it back to the source) before they can be detected.
Thanks for that and the following post - lots of good information there. Some I knew, but heaps I didn't.  |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Aug 26, 2013 0:47:37 GMT
There is a point that in a visual dogfight the Typhoon could, perhaps, out perform an F-35 because "stealth" does not imply invisible. In actual combat, because the F-35 would always know where the Typhoon is., it would never come within visible range to engage in a dogfight.
I would also point out that the "cost savings" is only realized if the military reduces its forces because it doesn't require the same force size to maintain the same mission capability. If all the military does is increase its mission capability by employing expensive stealth technology then there is no cost savings.
By way of example while we only have about 22 operational B-2's they have about the same mission capability of defending the United States from foreign attack of all the B-52's and B-1's in the US inventory. They can deliver both precision conventional and nuclear munitions anywhere in the world from the United States with impunity and zero combat losses. If the United States was only concerned with providing the mutual defense of the United States (per Article I Section 8 of the US Constitution) then all of the B-52's, B-1's and their support aircraft could be retired tomorrow. All of the ground crews supporting these aircraft could be discharged and the logistical support for them could be eliminated. All of the foreign US air bases could be closes and all of the US Army security support for these bases would become unnecessary. It would easily cut one hundred billion dollars per year from the DOD budget and probably more.
In short it could save twice as much in just one year than the entire B-2 program cost.
The problem is that the US government doesn't use these expensive programs to reduce spending but instead merely uses them to expand the mission capability of the military that is already far greater than what would ever be required to defend the United States.
|
|
