Skip to comments.JSF 'no match' for latest Russian fighters or Chinese radar
Posted on 02/07/2012 4:14:53 PM PST by kronos77
THE stealth qualities of the futuristic F-35 Joint Strike Fighter on order for the Royal Australian Air Force are overrated and the plane's combat performance greatly exaggerated, a defence lobby group has claimed.
The complaints by Air Power Australia, longtime critics of the $16 billion JSF acquisition, were made last night before a public hearing of parliament's defence sub-committee.
Latest-generation Russian fighters such as the Sukhoi T-50 would easily defeat the F-35 in air-to-air combat, Air Power's Peter Goon said, referring to recent modelling tests by his organisation.
"The aircraft we are planning to buy is carrying over 2000 pounds (900kg) of dead weight," Mr Goon said, referring to the JSF's big jet engines.
New Russian and Chinese air defence radars would also have little trouble detecting the JSF, a craft touted for its stealth qualities, he added.
The RAAF says it wants 100 US-designed JSFs to replace the decommisioned F-111 strike aircraft, with the first squadron supposed to be operating by 2018.
But the program has been mired in cost overruns and delays.
Last month US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta ordered the purchase of US JSFs to be delayed to allow Lockheed-Martin time to resolve production and technical shortcomings.
The company is contracted to deliver the first two training aircraft in 2014 with another 12 scheduled for 2015-17.
Defence Minister Stephen Smith has said he is now considering an option to order additional F/A-18F Super Hornets to fill any capability gap created by further JSF production delays.
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.com.au ...
But the UAV’s are manned to an extent. It’d be one ground pilot against another. My feeling is that when your plane is out of missiles what are you left with? Guns. And the one who is up on ACM will win the day.
This is now old news they have extended the range on the newer version. http://www.missilethreat.com/missiledefensesystems/id.52/system_detail.asp
I wonder if those were climate modeling computers they used?
Probably so. As we all know, the God-like, flawless intelligence that went into the AGW modeling programs allows them to model just about anything with just a few parametric tweaks. A config parameter adjustment here & there, and lo & behold, your super computers are modeling strike fighter performance rather than global warming.
As such, no wonder the JSF was no match for the T-50. The model would quickly allow the T-50 to recognize the persistent hockey stick flight pattern of the JSF, and kill it every time.
The Mig 25 Foxbat was largely used for surveillance and interceptor roles. For these two purposes, the plane served well.
The engine required replacement only if the aircraft was tested to its limits: + mach 3.2 speeds.
The rivets, like Imnidiot mentioned, were in non-aerodynamic areas, and therefore economically better designed than ones wasting labour-expensive, aerodynamic rivets all over the aircraft.
Western intelligence and the MiG-25:
MiG-25RBSh with markings of 2nd Sqn/47th GvORAP (Guards independent recce Regiment)
Inaccurate intelligence analysis caused the West initially to believe the MiG-25 was an agile air-combat fighter rather than an interceptor. In response, the United States started a new program which resulted in the McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle. NATO obtained a better understanding of the MiG-25’s capabilities on 6 September 1976, when a Soviet Air Defence Forces pilot, Lt. Viktor Belenko, defected, landing his MiG-25P at Hakodate Airport in Japan.
The pilot overshot the runway on landing, damaging the landing gear and making the MiG-25 un-airworthy. It was carefully dismantled and analyzed by the Foreign Technology Division (now the National Air and Space Intelligence Center) of the United States Air Force, at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. After 67 days, the aircraft was returned to the Soviets in pieces. The analysis, based on technical manuals and ground tests of engines and avionics, revealed unusual technical information:
* Belenko’s particular aircraft was brand new, representing the very latest Soviet technology.
* The aircraft was assembled very quickly, and was essentially built around its massive Tumansky R-15(B) turbojets.
* Welding was done by hand. Rivets with non-flush heads were used in areas that would not cause adverse aerodynamic drag.
* The aircraft was built of a nickel alloy and not titanium as was assumed (though some titanium was used in heat-critical areas). The steel construction contributed to the craft’s 64,000 lb (29,000 kg) unarmed weight.
* Maximum acceleration (g-load) rating was just 2.2 g (21.6 m/s²) with full fuel tanks, with an absolute limit of 4.5 g (44.1 m/s²). One MiG-25 withstood an inadvertent 11.5 g (112.8 m/s²) pull during low-altitude dogfight training, but the resulting deformation damaged the airframe beyond repair.
* Combat radius was 186 miles (299 km), and maximum range on internal fuel (at subsonic speeds) was only 744 miles (1,197 km) at low altitude (< 1000 meter).
* The airspeed indicator was redlined at Mach 2.8, with typical intercept speeds near Mach 2.5 in order to extend the service life of the engines. A MiG-25 was tracked flying over Sinai at Mach 3.2 in the early 1970s, but the flight led to the destruction of its engines.
* The majority of the on-board avionics were based on vacuum-tube technology, not solid-state electronics. Although they represented aging technology, vacuum tubes were more tolerant of temperature extremes, thereby removing the need for providing complex environmental controls inside the avionics bays. In addition, the vacuum tubes were easy to replace in remote northern airfields where sophisticated transistor parts might not have been readily available. With the use of vacuum tubes, the MiG-25P’s original Smerch-A (Tornado, NATO reporting name “Foxfire”) radar had enormous power about 600 kilowatts. As with most Soviet aircraft, the MiG-25 was designed to be as rugged as possible. The use of vacuum tubes also makes the aircraft’s systems resistant to an electromagnetic pulse, for example after a nuclear blast.
CITATION: Broad, William J. “Nuclear Pulse: Awakening to the Chaos Factor” and others.
Science, Volume 212, 29 May 1981, pp. 10091012.
Nonsense. Stealth technology has always been and still is detectable with low band transceivers. Datalink the output to a fire control transceiver manned by competent techs and the solution isn’t that difficult. Stealth technology reduces detection range it does not make one invisible. The Serbs did nothing extraordinary. The Brits tracked F-117s using shipboard RADAR during Desert Storm. Crappy tactics and air force arrogance is what led to the loss of that plane in 1999.
I had the opportunity about 6 months ago to spend some time with a former USMC and Air National Guard pilot who retired as a Col. after 28 years. He had flown combat in Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom. He had flown every fighter in the US inventory except for the F-22, and as I sat in his house looking at all the plaques on the wall, I could easily see this guy was Sierra Hotel. He’d gone to all schools, Top Gun, you name it. He had testimonials, pictures of him with famous people shaking hands, you could tell he made a mark.
I asked him what it was like flying against an F-22, and he said it was like being a baby seal. Not even close.
“Like being a baby seal...”
Those were his words...
The thing about the Raptor is that it is an all-round superlative fighter. Its survivability is not just all about 'stealth' (and people tend to overestimate stealth), but rather stealth + kinematics + avionics. It really is the perfect airframe.
As for comparisons between the F-22 and other fighters (other being the F-35, the SU-30, and the F-15/16/18) it is best to look at what the builder of the F-22 and the F-35 had to say.
(Raptors Edge, 9 February 2009) "The operational arguments focus on combat effectiveness against top foreign fighter aircraft such as the Russian Su-27 and MiG-29. Lockheed Martin and USAF analysts put the (kill) loss-exchange ratio at 30-1 for the F-22, 3-1 for the F-35 and 1-1 or less for the F-15, F/A-18 and F-16."
3:1 is very good. Just nowhere as good as 30:1.
Now, from the very beginning the USAF was supposed to have a hi-lo mix of the F-22 and F-35 (stemming from the ATF at the high end and the JSF at the low end), but due to all sorts of nonsense and cuts the numbers of the F-22 have been cut to nothing (due to the Bush and Obama administrations, with the Bush administration making the cuts to 187 and the Obama chaps solidifying that ...it is just that most people just concentrate on Obama as if the Raptor program was doing well before that). Anyways, F-22 numbers were cut, and now the story changed into how the F-35 can do the job just as well (and not only that, but how upgraded F-15s, in particular radar upgrades to AESA, will be enough). That is correct ...the F-35 will be enough, as will upgraded F-15s. There is only one problem, and that is that the US will not be messing around with nations like China and Russia. Which I guess is ok, since (looking at the last couple of decades) the US has only engaged the likes of Grenada, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Balkans, Panama, etc. Even an up-to-date F-4 Phantom with breathed on avionics and more modern weapons would have been more than sufficient. However, if the US ever needs to do something in defense of Taiwan (which I doubt it would do anyways) then it will quickly discover legacy platforms like the F-15/16/18, and tier-2 assets like the F-35, will never be able to compete with what a F-22 would have been capable of. But hey, the US wouldn't go to Taiwan's defense anyways, so it doesn't matter. And against the likes of Iraq/Somalia/Afghanistan even a F-16 with an upgraded radar (maybe a RACR or SABR AESA kit) and some extended range JDAMs/SDBs with the AMRAAM-C+/D would be more than enough.
If I were Taiwanese I would definitely be spending more on my own defense. Or else risk getting the same harsh jolt to reality that Georgia's Mikheil Saakashvili received when the Russians rolled in and all NATO did is ....erm ....
Click on pic for past Navair pings. Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist. The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation. This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
The simple answer to your query is that no one knows. My personal feeling is that I would be surprised if the T-50 will have any great margin of superiority in any aspect (except possibly cost).
Today I was watching a house "overhaul" program. The owner was presented a $40K option to produce a 1 BR apartment and study that would rent for $750/month. The second option was $43K for a 2 BR that would rent for $1,200 per month.
The owner selected the 2 BR. Anyone with a brain would. Unfortunately that leaves out our congress and presidents. 3 to 1 for the JSF vs 30 to 1 for the F-22? How is that even a close decision? Build the 22's to guarantee air superiority and dominate the ground with the JSFs.
Reminds me of an old political cartoon from the Civil War, in which Lincoln, the butt of the cartoon, had been informed by his cabinet that his blockade ships were unequal to the job of catching a certain Confederate ram rated at 12 kts. Lincoln's reply directed them to assign six monitors rated at 2 knots each, to the job of overhauling and engaging the ram.
And it also was realized at the same time that the Soviet vacuum-tube radar would be a lot less sensitive to EMP than the solid-state electronics then (early 70's) being installed in e.g. F-15's.
Hey...I have seen that somewhere before...
If there is a lottery, someone will win, even if the odds are 150,000,000:1.
Heck, the guy didn’t say it was invulnerable. Even a hunter walking up to a baby seal to club it isn’t invulnerable. He could have a heart attack or break through the ice, right?