JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Viv S · Post by **Viv S** » 27 Jul 2014 21:48

Much to Mr Sweetman's dismay, it appears the Gripen is no longer in the running for the Danish contract. Appears Denmark is determined to go with the F-35.

Sweden Drops Out Of Denmark Fighter Competition

Bill Sweetman Jul 21, 2014

Sweden has decided not to make a formal offer of the JAS 39E/F fighter to Denmark because it believes that the nation’s requirement is loaded in favor of the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter.

The Swedish FXM defense export agency announced July 21 that it would not bid, leaving the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in a contest against Lockheed Martin's F-35A. The decision follows "a comprehensive assessment that the state and the industry have made together," according to FXM Director-General Ulf Hammarström.

The Danish newspaper Politiken reports that since Denmark issued its 800-p. request for binding information (RBI) in March, FXM has been in contact with the Danish defense ministry requesting clarification of some of the terms. Ultimately, Politiken reports, Sweden concluded that the RBI requires the F-35’s competitors to commit to specific levels of industrial participation, but does not impose the same condition on Lockheed Martin. "They just asked for the same rules to be applied to all concerned," a Swedish industry source said.

Saab has become more selective in bidding since 2008, when the company responded to a request for information from Norway, which not only rejected Gripen but published deliberately inflated cost figures for the Swedish fighter, along with an unrealistically low cost for the F-35. Similarly, the company told Canada last year that it would not provide the level of detail that Canada’s fighter procurement secretariat had wanted unless there was a firm commitment to a competition.

With Denmark on board, Belgium will probably follow suit. Eventually Poland and Finland will also likely settle for an F-35 buy.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 27 Jul 2014 22:24

The reason why Lockheed Martin is not subjected to the same level of offset, or industrial participation is because Denmark is a T3 partner in the JSF program. The government of Denmark has signed a written contract that covers industrial partnership arrangement between its industry and that of the JSF program which is coopetition based. The Same thing involves the UK and all other partners in the program and is subject to orders placed. As long as the UK orders its F-35B's BAE and other smaller companies will get 15% of the entire JSF contract (For all partner nations i.e. 3000 fighters). Same applies for Canada, Denmark, Australia, Belgium or who so ever signed up for development partnership. The only customers that negotiate now are the FMS customers, such as the ongoing discussions between lockheed Martin and South Korean government on transfer of technology and design studies to be used in South Korea's own 5th generation fighter as well as a communication satellite etc. If and when Denmark selects the F-35, they will sign an MOU with the JPO that extends their Tier 3 partnership to the production phase of the program. Offsets cover your actual cost of the fighter, a partnership covers the entire production run for the aircraft but is competition based, so if a nation's aerospace industry is competitive at quality and cost it is going to get the bulk of the work and thereby recover many many times more money then a simple offset deal. The UK industry will get something like 60-80 Billion in investment over 30-40 years compared to much less that amount that they are spending on acquiring the F-35Bs.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Jul 2014 06:39

One has to understand the relationship between these two nations and the US,NATO membership,etc. and the leverage that is exerted to buy US mil. eqpt. SoKo and Japan are two other examples,but here these two are trying to develop their own def. industry so as not to be totally dependent upon Uncle Sam.Japan has huge stocks of plutonium which it can swiftly use should it decide to go nuclear.The fact that NoKo and China are both N-weapon states is of great concern. Remember how Dassault also accused Spore and SoKo I think about "loaded" contests? Some tentative attempts to buy Sukhois was also swiftly shot down by Uncle Sam. It would be the same with east Bloc nations had the Cold War remained. The Sovets/Russia would not have allowed Pact nations to buy anything other than Soviet/Russian eqpt. In similar fashion was some of the component work parceled out to the Ukraine,Uzbekistan,etc.,just as some JSF work is being shared by European NATO states.

This is one major reason why NATO is relentless in its eastward expansionism despite the end of the CW.New military sales to new customers in a dwindling market. Replacing entire armed forces of a nation like the Ukraine to mesh with NATO eqpt. is given as the reason for replacing legacy eqpt.,even if as the Germans found out,East German MIG-29s were equal or superior to German F-16Cs in close air combat and kept them in service for some time.
Middle East tensions are also ratcheted up to scare the Arab monarchies sh*tless into buying almost everything,from Patriots to tanks,aircraft,munitions,helicopters,etc. If it was not the JSF on offer it would be some other bird.

There are 3 major Western competitors to American domination in the combat aircraft stakes.Dassault,SAAB and the BAe/Eurofighter consortium. The advent of the UCAV has seen another huge market open up with future ramifications for manned fighters.AWST reports that at Farnborough,US execs reported tough global UAV/UCVAV competition that for the first time included India in the list (China,Israel,India,Brazil and SoKo) .Therefore a lot of armtwisting will be exercised upon traditional buyers,not to stray from Uncle Sam's "fold". The JSF despite the fire incident will eventually arrive,not good PR at Farnborough though,but what is worrying the manufacturers is the slowness of overseas orders which are required to keep a min. [production going which ramped up in the future will allow it to bring the costs down. Right now,resumption of test flights have been restricted to lower performance parameters,G-force,turn rate,etc. until the faults re rectified.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jul 2014 06:46

Rafale has absolutely no interoperability with the US F-35's apart from Link 16, which even a 10 year old F-16 has. Last I checked, the french aren't willing to plant their troops at the DMZ and aim to make their air force interoperable with ROKAF anytime in the future. Same applies in the Japanese context.

In the larger NATO context, nations such as Denmark are not looking at a fighter to patrol their skies and fend off intruders. They are looking to contribute towards NATO, and expeditionary environment under the NATO umbrella. Here a 5th generation fighter with its stealth is going to be useful, so XYZ is good enough because the threat index isn't high argument has little value in that context.

The G and maneuvering restrictions on the F-35 are precautionary until the final report is submitted (soon). It has no bearing on the testing, since very very little of that testing is remaining (I have shown the exact %age). What testing is left that is paramount is the software verification, weapon releases and sensors (MADL etc). That testing does not involve hard flying.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 28 Jul 2014 06:48

There are 3 major Western competitors to American domination in the combat aircraft stakes.Dassault,SAAB and the BAe/Eurofighter consortium.

10-15 years ago I would have believed that statement. if you look at the article in Aviation Week about Japanese 5th gen efforts, it tells you that the US plans on formally starting the next gen in 2018, with 2030 as the target date.

None of these companies will be even close to compete.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jul 2014 17:51

There are 3 major Western competitors to American domination in the combat aircraft stakes.Dassault,SAAB and the BAe/Eurofighter consortium. The advent of the UCAV has seen another huge market open up with future ramifications for manned fighters.AWST reports that at Farnborough,US execs reported tough global UAV/UCVAV competition that for the first time included India in the list (China,Israel,India,Brazil and SoKo) .Therefore a lot of armtwisting will be exercised upon traditional buyers,not to stray from Uncle Sam's "fold". The JSF despite the fire incident will eventually arrive,not good PR at Farnborough though,but what is worrying the manufacturers is the slowness of overseas orders which are required to keep a min. [production going which ramped up in the future will allow it to bring the costs down. Right now,resumption of test flights have been restricted to lower performance parameters,G-force,turn rate,etc. until the faults re rectified.

SAAB and DASSAULT are minor competitors (with excellent products). Since it started production, less then 250 Gripens have been built. Every Gripen sold has a lot of US content including the engine which means profits for US companies. Around 130-140 Rafale's have been built since it began production. Combined, less then 400 Gripens and Rafales have been produced. Compared to this number, more than 500 Super Hornets have been produced, around 140 advanced variant Strike Eagles have been built for EXPORT (F-15K, F-15SA, F-15SG) in the same timeframe. The AIRBUS/BAE powered Typhoon has the best production run but despite it being a multi-national product it would perhaps earn enough orders as the Super Hornet operated by the US Navy. As a result the US OEM's (Lockheed and Boeing) were able to offer things like, advanced sensor integration, true multi-role capability, AESA radar, IRST etc much earlier. Lets take the block 60 F-16 vs Gripen C comparison. Delivered in 2005, the Block 60 F-16 had an AESA radar, IRST, Integrated EW suite (Including active electronic warfare) helmet mounted cueing and HOBS missile. The Gripen E will get these things around 2020 (2018 for sweden, later for export customers) a full 15 years later. Europe shot itself in the foot by pursuing 3 different fighters and producing them in small amounts. 100-200 production run for the rafale is ridiculously small number. The best option for them would have been to extend the M2K run, or develop an advanced F-16 for in house production while the 3 OEM's gathered and developed a dedicated 5th generation affordable fighter. Because they are showing up in a world where there is at least 1 fifth generation bird up for competition they pretty much exclude themselves from the competition anywhere where the threat index includes stealth fighters and UCAV's (The entire pacific and eastern european regions).

In the era of unmanned aviation, it all comes down to developing products. Currently the US efforts have captured the higher end market, while the Israelis have captured the lower end of the market. Looking at things, the Predator/Reaper family is being exported and it would be tough for the europeans to compete in the MALE mission given General Atomics portfolio and price point. High altitude market is captured by the Global Hawk, and neither dassault nor Bae have anything in that category. The Maritime market will also be captured by Triton, and the spill-over market may go to a Maritime version of the reaper. Combat drones depend upon secrecy and passing on sensitive technology. I would like to see the europeans develop hard to jam and defeat data links and controlling techniques and then export them which would be highly unlikely. In manned fighters data links can be swapped, in combat drones they are essential to the performance and the same as FBW on fighters etc. The current state of defense budgets in EU, means that from now on in their aerospace industry will always be an export driven industry, with the viability of the products like dassault rafale depends upon it being acquired in greater numbers by export customers than the developing air forces. Such industries have traditionally not done well. Politics in these nations is yet to catch up to this reality as everyone wants to do things alone (3 fighters is a perfect example). Unless the consolidate and come with joint requirements where each side has made compromises, the next development cycle will see them struggle just like they have by not fielding a dedicated 5th generation fighter when at least 7 Nations around the world are either flying one or developing one.

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 28 Jul 2014 20:09

One has to understand the relationship between these two nations and the US,NATO membership,etc. and the leverage that is exerted to buy US mil. eqpt.

...the UK was a partner in choosing the fly off between boeing and lockmart. ...the UK paid $2 billion up front to be in the partnership (IIRC). In some ways the JSF in its final form is also a UK creature. Now who is "leveraging" whom?

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 28 Jul 2014 20:20

These are military deals we are talking about, not some commercial deals for airliners between Boeing and Airbus. At the end of the day the US has pacts with Japan and South Korea, has troops positioned at the DMZ and these nations count on their partnership with the US for security and freedom to operate in their sphere of influence. If Dassault or EADS/AIrbus are to come with a product and say buy the Typhoon or Rafale its a 4.5 generation aircraft and is interoperable with the US F-35's (backbone of the USN , USAF, USMC fleets) then these air forces are not going to take this at face value. The threat is China, which is fielding at least 2 stealth fighters, one of the most formidable Russian 4th generation fighter (Su-35), Integrated Air and Missile defense systems (S300 clone, S400) and looking to invest into stealthy unmanned aviation. These nations aren't going to fall into the " 4.5 gen is good enough" trap just because Europe did not have the risk appetite to go out and develop full fledged stealth fighters like Russia, China and the US (india, south korea, japan and turkey).

UK Got a great deal with the JSF. By spending 2 Billion in the R&D phase they get a stealthy, supersonic, 5th generation Harrier replacement that can also be operated by the RAF. They get 60-80 billion dollar worth of business for their aerospace industry for the next 30 or so years. If and when future generations of the F-35 arrive (And they will just like the F-16) UK has its investment secure to use that to replace their typhoons while their own limited budgets concentrate on weapons and Unmanned system (s).

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 28 Jul 2014 23:19

If only we had partnered and donated couple billions on F-35 co-development instead of the PAKFA nonsense.

We would have been the natural low cost source for most components and servicing > earning forex given the large user base of US planes.

US has been the driving force of India's renaissance through 'allowing' IT outsourcing - not Russians or European colonists. We need a reset to present and future needs, instead of mooring our decisions in the past. Something which our cricket team has done very well by infusing young blood

TSJones · Post by **TSJones** » 28 Jul 2014 23:43

^^^Given the ideological complexity of India I don't think that could ever happen. I am still not convinced that Modi will refrain from ideology in his government's military acquisition plans despite some of the posters thoughts here on this thread otherwise. Time will be the proving agent. I would like to be wrong on this but I don't think I will be. Look for more Euro, Japanese and Russian involvement. Just my thoughts.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jul 2014 00:04

one small, but rather crucial, point to remember: threat perception. When all these planes (F-14/15/16/18, Rafale, Eurofiighter and Grip) were being considered there was a throbbing threat, which to a great extent provided some amount of justification to go their own ways.

Today, with that threat dissolved there is not much these European countries can use as justification to support such programs. They will be hard pressed even to go to the next gen machine.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Jul 2014 03:10

On the issue of the JSF and the IAF, we may recall that when the MMRCA selection process was announced, the JSF was not going to be available within the stipulated time frame (2016?) . So, LM proposed the F-16 as a 'stepping stone' to the JSF.

With the MMRCA contract still not signed and unlikely by the end of 2014, the first deliveries of the Rafale are going to overlap with increasing availability of the JSF.

To me this whole farce about the MMRCA has been one of trying to fill a gap that was created when the MoD dragged it's feet on the M2K issue way back in 2000. Imagine if we'd got 126-166 M2Ks starting in 2002—for one, we'd have replaced all the MiGs for example, and focusing on the LCA MK2 and the 'AMCA'.

With a $20bn (and counting) purchase of the Rafale, we are still looking at a gap filler in world where even Turkey's talisman is going to be a 5G a/c.

We are going to be driving Ambys.

Does this really make sense?

Do we have $20bn + to spend on a gap filler that won't be delivered for what another 3-4 years (2018-19)?

Do we need the Rafale to liquidate pakis--No!

Can we swing the balance with PRC with 126 Rafales-- No!

Who else is left: BD/SL/AFG/MYAN ?

Sher Khan--forget it.

What is our threat perception vs. paranoia?

JMT. Get ~60 JSF off the shelf assembled in India via a consortium (49% LM + 51% HAL + Tata, Reliance/ who ever in PPP mode) no 'ToT' nonsense.

As Italy, Spain and other 'partners' fail to exercise options, pick them up via LM for a discount.

Here's the kicker: No 'ToT' but access to object code to build the threat library, weapons integration AND a deal with GE or PW to gain the tech for the engine (f-135/36) whcih we can use use to build the AMCA/FGFA whatever.

We built the Marut HF -24 w/o an engine having to partner with the Egyptians (!) on the 'Helwan' engine which was a dud. We built the LCA without thinking through the engine.

Get 60 JSF plus just the the tech to build the engines to power it and it sends a really powerful political message to adversaries.

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 29 Jul 2014 05:07

Looks like another failure of European aviation... the F-35 appears to be leaving the various European competitors (Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen) in the dust. One by one everybody seems to be gravitating to the F-35. This reminds me of the Airbus vs Boeing airliner saga.

You have the give the Americans credit where it's due. Their huge military industrial complex allows for economies of scale that gives them an edge over smaller nations like France, Sweden and Britain.

I just wish the US was more trustworthy; it's scary doing such important business as purchasing the backbone of your air force from people who are so quick to stab their partners in the back.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Jul 2014 05:18

Get 60 JSF plus just the the tech to build the engines to power it and it sends a really powerful political message to adversaries.

Since we are strictly talking about hypotheticals, a TOT arrangement on the F-35 and its tech even one that restricts itself to the engine would make the Rafale TOT deal look like a bargain. Corporations that have a significant edge in terms of R&D funding compared to their competitors won't part away with key technology for cheap if at all. The F-119/F-135 family is a clean sheet engine design for 5th generation fighter applications. Getting TOT on those would be next to impossible. What you are referring to (60 F-35's with TOT) is a deal lockheed or the JPO has never done before and won't do for at least a decade if not more. The best they are doing currently (a function of what has been demanded from them) is a FACO for the F-135 in Turkey that involves assembling the engine (from components sources from around the world including some from Turkey) through a partnership in which Pratt and Whitney holds a 49% stake. Final assembly of the aircraft is going to be happening in Japan and Italy but that does not involve transfer of complex technology. Lockheed and Pratt have toiled hard developing the F-22 and F-35 and they won't part away with technology for cheap at least not for the next decade if not more.

Any u turn on the MRCA (Hypothetical) that involves a re-look at the F-35 (or a fresh look) is going to wind up in a perpetual spiral the moment the condition is set for a full transfer of technology. At best we can hope for a FACO for ourselves and perhaps for some other future customers if we can reduce the cost significantly compared to the line at Fort Worth. For full high end tech transfer we or anyone else has little options. The Russians have done so in the past and will continue to do so but given their defense expenditure increase they are likely to be less desperate than what they have been in the past. Getting back to reality, the F-35 is not a candidate for the MRCA for obvious reasons. I still think we should go for Rafale, but cull our tech transfer ambitions and have Dassault and Co invest in offsets directly into the Indian aerospace industry. A 10-12 Billion dollar rafale package sounds very good and given the routine timeframe that it takes babus to work a deal a 2017-18 Rafale is much better then a 2025 F-35 (If deal is inked in the 2020's).

All this technology transfer also has to be looked at in proper perspective. If we get TOT on the F-35, we won't automatically start making fighters at par or better then the F-35. I have always advocated (in the MRCA deal) to separate Technology injection from aircraft acquisition.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Jul 2014 05:26

^^
"Since we are strictly talking about hypotheticals, a TOT arrangement on the F-35 and its tech even one that restricts itself to the engine would make the Rafale TOT deal look like a bargain."

You're talking economics. I'm talking politics.

Think about eliminating defense capability in France and Russia. What's that worth to the US?

Object code access such as that provided UAE to integrate non US weapons on F-16 block 60.

In short 60 JSFs instead of 126 Rafales with ability to make f-135/36 engines in India with no EUMA/ and no 'Blue lantern' scheiss.

Heck, I'd even take F110-GE-132 engine tech that's 32K thrust.

We can build the airframes, we can build the avionics. We lack an engine.

Think creatively along strategic and tactical vectors

Arbitraging that could be a bargain for India.

Added later. I'm not talking about ToT on JSF. Just object code access to integrate Indian weapons and to deliver stuxnet type packages to pave access. We have the software people and the Israelis fro not having squeaked on Gaza.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Jul 2014 05:30

You're talking economics. I'm talking politics

Even with politics being considered a transfer of technology on the F-135 family is not going to happen even at a very high cost. The F-22 line could have been saved had Japan been permitted to buy the F-22 (no transfer of technology required) but the urge to do so was resisted despite the benefits of a lowered future cost. 20 Billion for 120 odd fighters and tech transfer is the price that is being estimated on the rafale deal where we hold the cards given that dassault hasn't managed to get an export customer for the rafale and the production has slowed down to a trickle. The F-35 program on the other hand is progressing nicely with 3000 orders projected and a rate of production that is slowly creeping up.

Think about eliminating defense capability in France and Russia

France's defense capabilities don't concern the US corporations much, since even with the M2K and the Rafale they have hardly given Lockheed Martin or Boeing sleepless nights.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 29 Jul 2014 05:31

Y. Kanan wrote:
I just wish the US was more trustworthy; it's scary doing such important business as purchasing the backbone of your air force from people who are so quick to stab their partners in the back.

Partners are based on circumstances. We cannot count on any F-35's taking off when dueling with Pakis, but honestly 500 LCA's are enough to keep Pakis at bay and slap their bottoms. Plus who wants to drop bombs in a pile of s**t to begin with.

F-35 really comes in to play when dueling with the Chinese-when our MKI supply chain from russia will be bottled up. And at that very moment, America will be happy to send in loaner planes as many as we need. That is a partnership worth it as compared to Russians who instead will love to see our butts kicked by chinese (As history has shown us umpteen number of times - for Russians, Chinese brotherly love trumps over Indian friendship)

Hoping this realization is not lost by folks!

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Jul 2014 05:59

"France's defense capabilities don't concern the US corporations much, since even with the M2K and the Rafale they have hardly given Lockheed Martin or Boeing sleepless nights."

They very much concern the DoD. Google "Full spectrum domination" and you'll see why destroying/diminishing 'other' nations' capabilities are part of that equation.

You probably already know this. The current GOTUS strategy is to hit Russia where it hurts. This is not just on the 'Gas' front but on the military side by hurting their defense sector (exports).

If I were in the negotiating team on the Indian side knowing full well that PAK/FA/FAK/PA etc is a non starter at $30 bn, I'd say to the US: " OK, we'll drop the PAK/FA stuff (which we are not sure we want anyway) if you give us a good deal on the F-35 plus a deal on ToT on the F110-GE-132, we can hookup.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Jul 2014 06:06

They very much concern the DoD. Google "Full spectrum domination" and you'll see why destroying/diminishing 'other' nations' capabilities are part of that equation

Not in the context of the F-35 deal that itself involves transfer of technology at a scale that has not happened in the past with such cutting edge kit. No one is getting anything like what you are asking. Japan and South Korea, trusted partners are getting offset deals that help them towards the 5th generation direction. Thats it. Better to structure any such deal through the FACO and Offset route, or it will be something that is even worst then the current MRCA TOT saga. What is more likely to happen is that the IAF gets the rafale, with a reduced TOT footprint and perhaps a reduced number. The F-35 can then be evaluated by the Navy (if at all). I don't see the F-35 in the indian armed forces for many reasons and tech transfer is not one of them.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 29 Jul 2014 06:49

One thing I have observed is that ToT is overvalued and useless - especially if the receiving end is a PSU. We need to junk this ToT fascination altogether. Their are no shortcuts or last minute cramming for technology development. Have to do it over a period of time with un-wavering perseverance.

I would rather have Lockheed use India as a low cost source for as many components and as a service destination. They can have 49% or 51% or 100% or 200 % ownership - irrelevant as long as we are earning through service or sourcing route. Lockheed will increase 'indigenization' level once the cost benefits shine through - that is capitalism at work.

We automatically get ToT if they make in India, just like the chinese auto industry inner working. Synergies line up well so Why pay when you can get for free!

This logic does not work for Rafale as we are likely to be the only su***rs to fall for this dressed up old Hag!

Manish_Sharma · Post by **Manish_Sharma** » 29 Jul 2014 07:26

nik wrote:One thing I have observed is that ToT is overvalued and useless - especially if the receiving end is a PSU. We need to junk this ToT fascination altogether....

Its amrikan propaganda, about ToT being overvalued.

If its useless then you americans should just give away 100% of ToT for JSF to every partner OR even Bharatvarsh. Let our navy buy just 30 F-35s at 100 million each, while you ToT us complete tech from raw materials to finished product on each and every inch of the platform. The engines, GaN chips, composites, landing gear, DIRCM each and everything. "Amrika ke baap ka kya jaataa hai?" Anyway our incompetent PSU will make a mess of it. Please go ahead, do this useless thing for taking our friendship/partnership to another level.

The truth is during MMRCA competition when phat panting teens weren't ousted yet, the reports were coming in though heavily filtered by media that US was most reluctant on parting with any crucial techs, though amrikan supporters were denying it, in fact pitching it here as "what a great jump Bharat will take when you get AESA radars...."

But amrika showed its ugly face in even more shocking way.

The ugly americans forbid Israel to give Bharatvarsh its 2052 radar for LCA Tejas. Well if the ToT is so overvalued then obama ke baap ka kya jaata tha? He shouldn't have cared!

The thing is America knows Bharat will take it over in a couple of decades like china is, so they're going to be very pro-active in trying to bring down Bharat.

Seeing how inadequate they're when arguing against other posters, specially french & russian platform supporters the american supporters have started this new campaign "ToT is useless......... chuuuhhhh.... achhe bache iss tarah ki baaton mein nahin aate."

We know what is good for you and everyone in the world, buy F-35 WITHOUT ToT, its just a overhyped conspiracy anyway, won't do you any good. Our moral support is there and with that you can design produce AMCA one day / some day.

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 29 Jul 2014 09:15

nik wrote:That is a partnership worth it as compared to Russians who instead will love to see our butts kicked by chinese (As history has shown us umpteen number of times - for Russians, Chinese brotherly love trumps over Indian friendship)

Hoping this realization is not lost by folks!

I'm not so sure; look around you this country is crawling with Russian tourists. India is probably that country's #1 tourist destination outside Europe. Those russkies have a soft spot for us.

But seriously Russia may not love India but they don't want to see china beat us in a war, certainly. Think about it; how could such an outcome possibly be in Russia's interest?

Apologies for straying off topic here.

member_26622 · Post by **member_26622** » 29 Jul 2014 09:45

@ Dhananjay - Your are questioning where my loyalties and origins lie which will be a waste of time - hopefully to your realization sooner than later. I can understand it given pseudo indian posters on the forum.

Getting back to the topic - If we ever get to buying F-35 then we should expect same or more level of sharing like UK, Japan and South Korea. That will come through given our numerical requirements otherwise it's a non mover as it will not meet our goal of been a 'source' and 'service' destination as per my prior post.

No foreign company will enter India without a JV partner, it just does not work like that anywhere in the world. So offering 100% FDI or XX% FDI makes no difference - They will ask for an Indian partner. I am not an expert on downsides of 49% FDI vs. 51% FDI, but feel that ToT level will be driven more by end customer rather than 2% FDI limit difference.

Main point been turning India in to a low cost source for defense goods (as China cannot compete given its Communist baggage).

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Jul 2014 18:26

Since there was a debate on the F-35 vs A-10 comparison (quite ridiculous) a quote from Gen Mike Hostage made just a few hours ago is relevant -

"I could not send an A-10 into Syria; they would not come back."

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Jul 2014 18:52

Industrial partnership on a program of this scale depends upon the end users Return and what that user seeks. Take UK as an example. They did not have the money to jointly fund a european 5th gen affordable fighter (nor did Eurofighter partner nations). They obviously did not have the money to fund a dedicated STOVL fighter to replace the Harrier. What the 2 billion has gotten them is a first in STOVL aviation i.e. a stealth, supersonic 5th generation STOVL fighter that they can integrate both into the RN as well as the RAF. From the industrial side of things, they get 60-80 Billion dollars worth of work for their aerospace industry which would keep it competitive and producing products for high end military projects. Its a major win for them given that the Return i.e offset is many times more then both their R&D contribution and their acquisition cost.

Smaller partners like Turkey have also managed to win a lot of work for their aerospace industries including a JV with the engine maker for assembly of the F-135 in house. Soko and Japan have both come into the program from the FMS route and as such both have gotten offsets that would see lockheed share a boatload of design information on the F-22 and F-35 fighters to be used on their own 5th gen products. This is on top of partnership that they may have with lockheed in the design phase of the program. They are fairly satisfied with the level of offsets as well. Industrial partnership is competition dependent and there are no guarantees. Turkey can only show up with products that it can effectively compete with both in terms of quality and price. The program is not a welfare program where each partner gets a designated work share. They have to compete for that work share which ultimately waters down the ambitions of many of the smaller partners, so what they get is a reflection of both their ability to extract offsets as well as their ability to deliver competitive products at competitive pricing.

Aditya_M · Post by **Aditya_M** » 29 Jul 2014 20:29

brar_w wrote:Since there was a debate on the F-35 vs A-10 comparison (quite ridiculous) a quote from Gen Mike Hostage made just a few hours ago is relevant -

"I could not send an A-10 into Syria; they would not come back."

Is that a reflection of the A-10's capabilities or the role it would play in the Syrian conflict?

If it's the former then I would love to know how the F-35 will fulfil the roles the A-10 does, if the latter then that quote is quite pointless in this discussion.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 29 Jul 2014 20:36

Is that a reflection of the A-10's capabilities or the role it would play in the Syrian conflict?

Its a function of survivability

If it's the former then I would love to know how the F-35 will fulfil the roles the A-10 does

You don't do things just like the aircraft you are replacing does it, if it were like that every aircraft ever produced would just be a modernized version of the aircraft it replaces. The current realities make low and slow CAS an extremely dangerous task especially against a decently equipped opponent. CAS is not going away, it has to reform and transform into something that is still effective yet can be conducted in a survivable fashion. From fixed wing aircraft that involves moving higher up, smarter weapons, upgrading multiple aircraft to enable them to do CAS (just as the B-1 conducted CAS even in Afghanistan)..The other aspects of close support have to come up as well, including rotary winged assets, artillery, precision munitions (Ground launched bombs such as the SDB) and net enabled soldiers that shorten the sensor-to-weapon timeline.

The F-35 sure aint going to be going low, slow and using its gun routinely even though that option is on the table and the bigger rounds are more focused towards that than air to air dogfights. The main area where the F-35 helps in CAS is through its SA picture and ability to discriminate from medium altitude. Here the EO sensors are able to pick up artillery, rockets, and mortar fire and automatically geolocate them while in real time sending coordinates to the weapons in the bays. Here your SDB IIs, Spear and Brimstone like weapons will be a major boost to CAS and troops on the ground.

This is a nice article of a multi part series of articles on CAS and its evolution -

http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/201 ... rt_27.html

An important quote -

CAS is a mission NOT a platform

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jul 2014 21:05

Turkey from 2008:

[youtube]SbnWg4v6iHk#t=280[/youtube]

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Jul 2014 22:35

Y. Kanan wrote:....
I just wish the US was more trustworthy;.....

The US is 'trustworthy' in the legal contractual sense. It's just not reliable politically. The Russians are not 'trustworthy' in the legal contractual sense but they are politically reliable.

The only trustworthy and reliable people be us (as in 'we').

The only way to manage for political reliability WRT GOTUS is via the LMs/Boeings/GEs. They have clout you won't believe. Thousands of calls/faxes to reps and senators in all 50 states within 72 hours.

In 2005, when John Cornyn of TX was running for election, at a VFW gathering he was shocked to learn that the only thing on their minds was his position on the US-India nuke deal (they wanted it done). This from people who have no sense of geography.

And that was just LM which was eyeing the F-16 in the MMRCA contest.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 29 Jul 2014 23:03

The only trustworthy and reliable people be us (as in 'we')

In theory that should be true.

In practice it is not. Unfortunate.

Cosmo_R · Post by **Cosmo_R** » 29 Jul 2014 23:22

^^^ That was said with more than a touch of irony. No emoticon to express irony

bijeet · Post by **bijeet** » 30 Jul 2014 03:39

Some F-35 Flight Restrictions Lifted

The Pentagon has lifted some flight restrictions on F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, while inspections will continue for the foreseeable future, according to a Defense Department official.

Speed restrictions were relaxed late last week from Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.6, while maneuverability restrictions were increased slightly from 3 Gs to 3.2, the official said.

Other restrictions remain, however, including borescope inspections of the front fan section of each F135 engine every three hours.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 30 Jul 2014 16:18

USNI reports,Chinese and Russian Radars On Track To See Through U.S. Stealth
By: Dave Majumdar
Published: July 29, 2014 11:01
http://news.usni.org/2014/07/29/chinese ... 234c8f82d4

An F-35B Lightning II aircraft takes off from the amphibious assault ship USS Wasp (LHD-1) in 2013. A former senior Navy official told USNI News its stealth protection could be pierced by new Chinese and Russian radars. US Navy Photo

A growing trend in Russian and Chinese radar could make U.S. stealth fighters easier to see and — more importantly — easier to target for potential adversaries, a former senior U.S. Navy official told USNI News.

U.S. fighters — like the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) — are protected by stealth technology optimized for higher frequency targeting radars but not for lower frequency radars.

Until now a focus on higher frequencies have not been a problem because low frequency radars have traditionally been unable to generate “weapons quality tracks.”

JSF and the F-22 are protected from higher frequencies in the Ku, X, C and parts of the S bands. But both jets can be seen on enemy radars operating in the longer wavelengths like L, UHF and VHF.

In other words, Russian and Chinese radars can generally detect a stealth aircraft but not clearly enough to give an accurate location to a missile

But that is starting to change.

“Acquisition and fire control radars are starting to creep down the frequency spectrum,” a former senior U.S. Navy official told USNI News on Monday.
With improved computing power, low frequency radars are getting better and better at discerning targets more precisely.

“I don’t see how you long survive in the world of 2020 or 2030 when dealing with these systems if you don’t have the lower frequency coverage,” the former official said.

Further, new foreign rival warships are increasingly being built with both high and low frequency radars.

“Prospective adversaries are putting low frequency radars on their surface combatants along with the higher frequency systems,” the former official said.

Chinese warships like the Type 52C Luyang II and Type 52D Luyang III have both high and low frequency radars, the former official said.
People's Liberation Army Navy guided missile Type 52D Luyang III destroyer Changsha. The ship is reported to field a radar that could detect U.S. stealth fighters.

“If you don’t have the signature appropriate to that [radar], you’re not going to be very survivable,” he said.
“The lower frequency radars can cue the higher frequency radars and now you’re going to get wacked.”

Nor will the Navy’s vaunted Naval Integrated Fire Control-Counter Air (NIFC-CA) do much to help the situation. Firstly, given the proliferation of low frequency radars, there are serious questions about the ability of the F-35C’s survivability against the toughest of air defenses, the former official said.

“All-aspect is highly desirable against this sort of networked [anti-air] environment,” he said.
Secondly, the Chinese and Russians are almost certain to use cyber and electronic attack capabilities to disrupt NIFC-CA, which is almost totally reliant on data links.

“I question how well all these data links are going to work in a heavily contested [radio frequency] environment where you have lots and lots of jamming going on,” the former official said.

Moreover, in certain parts of the world potential adversaries —China and Russia— are developing long-range anti-radiation missiles that could target the central node of the NIFC-CA network—the Northrop Grumman E-2D Advanced Hawkeye.
E-2D Hawkeye from the Pioneers of Air Test and Evaluation Squadron (VX) 1 on Aug. 27, 2013. US Navy Photo

“I think the anti-radiation homing weapons that are passive and go long-range are very, very difficult for the NIFC-CA concept to contend with,” the former official said.

Fundamentally, the Navy’s lack of an all-aspect broadband stealth jet on the carrier flight deck is giving fuel to advocates of a high-end Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft that can tackle the toughest enemy air defenses.

Without such capability, the Navy’s carrier fleet will fade into irrelevance, the former official said.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Jul 2014 18:03

A more balanced article than a similar one by Bill sweetman writing for the tabloid but still some points that are not well made -

JSF and the F-22 are protected from higher frequencies in the Ku, X, C and parts of the S bands. But both jets can be seen on enemy radars operating in the longer wavelengths like L, UHF and VHF.

This is not at all known. How stealthy is the F-35 and F-22 in these bands? (L, UHF, VHF?). What sort of impact does the F-35's stealth have on detection ranges of these bands? Any stealth fighter is vulnerable to these bands including the chinese jets, Russian stealth and what not.

Last time i checked those VHF radars were HUGE, expect them to be prime targets for cruise missile and broadband stealth bombers.

“I don’t see how you long survive in the world of 2020 or 2030 when dealing with these systems if you don’t have the lower frequency coverage,” the former official said.

And what is the coverage of the Active elements in the F-35s classified EW suite? No one is disclosing that no are they. It remains classified.

Further, new foreign rival warships are increasingly being built with both high and low frequency radars.

Radars which require the ship to emit and we all know where that goes once you put a 5th generation EW suite against an emitting target. Even with broad RF coverage the detection advantage would still go for the F-35 with its multi-band passive suite. How will these ships target the aircraft? The JSM will have a greater than 100nm range with a passive seeker. The LRASM will have a greater then 300 nm range..Both these weapons are smart weapons with the latter having the capability to operate in GPS/RF denied environments and passively.

Firstly, given the proliferation of low frequency radars, there are serious questions about the ability of the F-35C’s survivability against the toughest of air defenses, the former official said.

The Former official said? Why not ask a current serving program person who actually has the data in hand? The F-35 just recently was tested against high end chinese and Russian radar simulators over at the extensive and secretive radar test ranges. Why not seek clarification from them? Does this former navy official by any favor more EA-18G's for the US navy?

“I question how well all these data links are going to work in a heavily contested [radio frequency] environment where you have lots and lots of jamming going on,” the former official said.

That comment pretty much says that the "former official' is unaware of the work going on to build both LPI data links as well as non LPI large volume/data pipelines. Perhaps he was never a part of the NIFCCA inner circle that had to deal with these sort of things, or did not bother to read the literature on it that is available in the open.

“I think the anti-radiation homing weapons that are passive and go long-range are very, very difficult for the NIFC-CA concept to contend with,” the former official said.

Which Anti radiation weapon has longer legs than the detection radar on the E-2? Passive Homing missiles and Home on Jam is fairly easy to deal with - Just turn the radar/jammer off - It is for this reason that passive modes are secondary targeting modes and not primary ones. What the USN ex official conveniently neglects is that most of the Anti radiation weapons that can target NIFCCA sensors, can also target Jammers such as the growler using Home On Jam modes.

Fundamentally, the Navy’s lack of an all-aspect broadband stealth jet on the carrier flight deck is giving fuel to advocates of a high-end Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) aircraft that can tackle the toughest enemy air defenses.

The US Navy has NO STEALTH ON A CARRIER. They completely BUNGLED their previous attempt to put the A-12 and what led was a 20+ year legal back and forth with the OEM in various courts. The Navy has not really shown any enthusiasm for anything new in a long time. They were skeptical on PGM's until they were forced to acquire a lot by the congress upon which they became its most ardent supporters. They are similarly showing skepticism on stealth fighters but that is changing with many USN pilots now praising that aspect of the jet as is evident from various videos.

What this article seems to suggest is a lobbing effort for the UCLASS+ i.e the original J-UCAS type vehicle with full stealth and a strike role much like theBoeing Phantom Ray. The problem the USN has is that the Air force has its stealthy, long range RQ-180 and is developing an intercontinental broadband stealth bomber system and are thus no longer interested in a continental range UCAV. The US Navy has no experience with a program of this kind, has poor foresight when dealing with high technology and stealth and basically has a ton of ambition for its carrier air wings but an admiralty that would rather spend the money on ships and getting the ship count to a notional level with which they can earn some brownie points once they retire. This entire article seems to be lobbying from that angle (Getting the UCLASS to be the original J-UCAS) so in a way its different from the Daily Beast article but uses a similar argument that has been fairly well countered by plenty of folks around the internet (I have rebutted some of it here on this thread).

If its broadband stealth one seeks, there isn't a fighter on the planet that has 100% coverage, yet its not like the F-22 and F-35 are just stealthy in the x band, and not stealthy at all in other bands. Stealth is optimized for a range, it may not cover all that range but there still would be detection reduction even in the very high ranges. The fact that the Large VHF radars pose a significant detection advantage to the ISR attackers one can conclude that it would be easy to deal with these radars with other available assets.

It is surprising that Dave Majumdar who filed this report just a few hours ago, chose to conveniently neglect what General Mike Hostage (USAF tactical fighter boss ) said just yesterday at the AFA breakfast event. He should have reported it since it was a direct quote (His publication covered the event) so should have been pitted against that of an UNNAMED EX USN OFFICIAL with no context on that persons background and/or whether he has a position on the UCLASS, Next generation jammer and growlers. Anyhow for those who are interested, this is what General Mike Hostage said just yesterday (On the F-35). My Source is Amy Butler - Aviation week

You don't need a huge jamming capability to hide" in the signal noise of the battlefield, he says.

Hostage hints that inherent jamming is designed for self masking, self defense. He's mum on offensive capabilities.

What the USN's EX-OFFICIALS do not realize is that the F-35, much like the F-22 or any other all aspect stealth fighter does not need to have massive jamming pods to jam its way into contested airspace. Basic Physics says that. USN is on record of saying that the art of IAD-penetration is to tackle both ends of the spectrum i.e to overwhelm the RF range with stealth aircraft so as to comprehensively shrink the sensor envelope of the enemy, and at the same time to flood with airspace with NOISE from jammers. With stealth one is enjoying a massive advantage in detection ranges therefore one does not need to have a very high power jamming in order to tackle the other end of the spectrum. The last time I checked the F-35 had a largely classified EW suite. What we know about it is that its a advancement of the F-22's suite which was a no-expense spared EW job. We also know that the Apg-81 has offensive capability from the get go, with other elements of the Barracuda largely classified. We also know that the F-35 has been tested in this department and so far no red flags have been raised. Its easy for EX OFFICIALS with no knowledge of the F-35 to come out and talk about a capability of the jet that is classified. They should not expect the Program office or the Leaders to declassify these capabilities just for the sake of argument.

The current USN actually recognizes this "less" jamming need for stealth. The Next generation Jammer development is the proof. The USN has asked for very high powered (Highest power in the world) pods to be developed using the latest Gallium Nitride elements for the Growlers. The technology is asked to be Modular because the Next generation (F/A-X fighter) fighter is going to be stealth and it would not require such high power to have it and the F-35 slip through the cracks. The US Navy has called for the NGJ elements to be broken down and put on the next generation fighter so that it need not carry pods on most missions.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 30 Jul 2014 19:19

"Stealth" has *never* meant no-one-is-able-to-see or invisibility.

On the contrary it has always meant can-be-seen.

The question: when?

Secondly, "stealth" includes many technologies, one among them is the design of an object based on mathematics and others perhaps include a blockers, paint, etc.

Thirdly, the F-35 is at least the 4th "5th Gen" plane (if not the 5th).

Fourthly, 2018 is the year when they jump start the next gen (supposedly the 6th Gen) effort, with 2030 as the target date to deployment. Iam fairly confident that all these radars, if not already, will be accounted for.

Finally, what does all this tell us about the Russian and Chinese "5th Gen" air crafts? Can the IAF depend on the FGFA to do what they expect it to do? ?????????????????

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 30 Jul 2014 20:25

NRao wrote:"Stealth" has *never* meant no-one-is-able-to-see or invisibility.

On the contrary it has always meant can-be-seen.

The question: when?

Secondly, "stealth" includes many technologies, one among them is the design of an object based on mathematics and others perhaps include a blockers, paint, etc.

Thirdly, the F-35 is at least the 4th "5th Gen" plane (if not the 5th).

Fourthly, 2018 is the year when they jump start the next gen (supposedly the 6th Gen) effort, with 2030 as the target date to deployment. Iam fairly confident that all these radars, if not already, will be accounted for.

Finally, what does all this tell us about the Russian and Chinese "5th Gen" air crafts? Can the IAF depend on the FGFA to do what they expect it to do? ?????????????????

VHF Radars -

The electrical, computing power and the sheer size of these things make them prime First day targets, using things like cruise missiles, and all aspect broadband stealth bombers, UCAV's etc. VHF and L band radars are nothing new. The threat has existed since first generation stealth aircraft and throughout the development of the F117 to the B-2, to the F-22 and F-35 and onto UCAV's. The entire RF spectrum need to be dealt with just one platform. As you have correctly pointed out the PAKFA, and Chinese stealth fighters are also optimized for X band stealth and for good reason - A vast majority of IAD setup is configured in the X band. All FCR airborne radars are X band and the most lethal, hard to locate (plenty of decoy) Mobile radars and SAM's all use X- band radars (also for good reason). The designers of the stealth on the F-22 and F-35 have access to the most sophisticated Radar ranges in the world, Operational UHF radars (E-2 for starters) and L band AWACS aircraft (Wedgetail)..Given that there is plenty of sensor to test the platform against, one can reason that the Electronic warfare suite design for the F-35 would be well thought off and one where the entire spectrum is covered either through stealth or through a combination of stealth and jamming or through targeting (EW picks up emissions from afar, allowing targeting).

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Jul 2014 03:18

China's stealth bird programme gets an extra prototype.The aim is to have one sqd. in service by 2020.

http://www.janes.com/article/41254/four ... rst-flight

The fourth prototype, with the tail number '2012', has the same design modifications as the third prototype. Source: via Top 81 web page

The fourth known prototype of the Chengdu Aircraft Corporation (CAC) J-20 fifth-generation fighter made its first flight on the morning of 26 July, according to Chinese aviation websites.

The fourth known prototype of the J-20 fighter made its first flight on 26 July. (via Top 81 web page)The fourth known prototype of the J-20 fighter made its first flight on 26 July. (via Top 81 web page)

According to online postings by local spotters, the prototype flew for nearly two hours after having undertaken taxi tests since early July. The first hints on military web forums of a fourth J-20 prototype with the tail number '2012' emerged in late June, with clear photos emerging by mid-July.

Images show that '2012' features the refinements first seen in the third prototype, '2011'. These include an undernose faceted shape to hold a future electro-optical targeting system, adjusted air intakes to aid engine air flow and clipped tips on the vertical stabilizers.

The new J-20 prototype does not give any outward indication that CAC has installed an indigenous turbofan engine, despite much online speculation. The status of the J-20's intended WS-15 turbofan is not clear, and it is possible that initially deployed J-20s may use a Russian-made turbofan, perhaps an upgraded version of the Saturn AL-31 or the newer AL-117S.

In mid-June prototype 2011 reportedly left the CAC airfield to join its two other stablemates at the China Flight Test Establishment (CFTE) at Yanliang Airbase in Xian Province.

In late April an Asian government source told IHS Jane's that 20 J-20s, or about one regiment, could be deployed by 2020.

brar_w · Post by **brar_w** » 31 Jul 2014 06:58

Top USAF Officials Defend F-35

Despite ongoing restrictions on the fleet of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, the US Air Force’s top general warned against being “alarmist” when discussing the fifth-generation jet’s engine.

“Pratt & Whitney has been making pretty darn good engines for single-engine airplanes for a long time for the United States Air Force,” Gen. Mark Welsh, service chief of staff, told reporters during a media briefing. “What we found in the program so far, with these almost 9,000 sorties so far, is this engine works pretty well, too. That day it didn’t, and we need to figure out why.”

“It would be a little alarmist to assume we have a problem with the F-35 engine,” Welsh said. “The F-35 is the answer, the only answer, to ensure future air campaigns are not a fair fight.”

“That day” that Welsh used refers to June 23, when a fire broke out on an F-35A model at Eglin Air Force Base. The fleet has since been inspected, grounded, missed a pair of major airshows in the United Kingdom, and been allowed to fly again under heavy restrictions. It’s yet to be determined when the fleet will be given an all-clear.

Asked whether he wishes he had an alternative to the Pratt-designed F135 engine, Welsh said: “I’d like to have 1,763 F-35s with an engine that works real well every single day. That’s the goal.”

Like Welsh, Air Force Secretary Deborah Lee James characterized the fire as an unfortunate, but isolated, incident.

“It’s not unusual in a development program to have something like this happen,” James said. “I think we are all very optimistic we will be working through it. I do not see this in any way as a show stopper.”

Welsh and James were speaking as part of the roll-out for their new strategic document, called “America’s Air Force: A Call to the Future.” That document provides a roadmap for how the service can react more quickly to constantly changing threats and technology, a topic James touched on in her opening comments.

“Instead of focusing on a specific threat we’re trying to focus and recognize this quick pace of change and we have to recognize ourselves the imperative that we be able to change as well,” James said. “Strategic agility is what we’re shooting for.”

James also acknowledged that change doesn’t come easily in the Pentagon.

“This whole concept is going to take time to instill into a big institution like the Air Force because I don’t know that we’re known for being enormously agile at the moment,” she said. “But you have to start somewhere.”

As they have done for the last year, Welsh and James highlighted the service’s three largest recapitalization projects: the F-35, KC-46A Pegasus tanker, and long-range strike bomber. The need to keep those three on track led to the decision to try and retire the A-10 “warthog” close-air support plane, a move that has met ferocious resistance on the Hill.

The secretary acknowledged that pushback and indicated that her service needs to do a better job showing “consistency” to members of Congress. Not coincidentally, the need for better communication with members of Congress is part of the new strategic plan.

She also indicated the service would again create multiple budget options, as it did with the FY 2015 budget. The multiple budgets will cover a range of what-ifs, including the possibilities that the FY 2016 budget is and isn’t sequestered.

Rien · Post by **Rien** » 31 Jul 2014 10:04

Modern radar is exceptionally technically sophisticated. Obsolete fighers like the JSF were designed to defeat 1970's vintage radars. But modern air defence radars are confronted with multiple low RCS targets. These include drones of all types, cruise missiles, even hypersonic missiles like Brahmos and stealth planes like the PAK-FA, MCA etc. They have evolved to respond. By upgrading radars with AESA, networking multiple radars working in different bands from meter to centimeter band, and integrating lasers.

http://www.researchinventy.com/papers/v ... 015019.pdf

Page 3

All present stealth airplanes were designed to counter X-band radars, but those shapes
are getting useless if radar works in s-band and even more useless when the radar works in L- band.

The cause for the stealth air plane to be found is the wavelength of the radar, radar working in L-band produces wavelengths with size relative to the aircraft itself and should exhibit scattering in the resonance region rather than the optical region, so that most of the existing stealth aircraft will turn from sightless, to visible

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.js ... %3D6233312

http://www.konyvtar.zmne.hu/docs/Volume ... pdf/12.pdf

Radar cross section and system calibration pg 5

Reference 4 states that the high velocity ballistic target which has 0.1
−0.01 m2 RCS for the “X” band radar would show 0.5−5 m2 RCS in the VHF band.

This is the size of several humans, not a "marble". So the first part, detecting stealth fighters is not difficult.
Even obsolete radars can pull that trick off.

But the second part, locking on and guiding a missile to where the fighter is?

LIDAR - LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING

LIDAR is a Multi-Band and Multi- Static anti-stealth technology. Laser radar can detect stealth targets
efficiently because it has short wavelength, high beam quality, high directionality and high measuring accuracy,
which helps functions of target identifying, posture displaying and orbit recording. Apart from these
,LIDAR holds higher resolution and counter-jamming ability due to its coherence property and
ultimately high frequency.

As above all methods of reducing RCS have been cracked. The stealth technology has gone as far as it could go. The fact that a stealth technology aircraft like F-117 could be downed by a Third World country (Serbia) by upgrading its 1960 SAM system, proves the fact that all stealth aircraft are vulnerable to existing and futuristic counter-stealth technologies.

That's the conclusion from the article written by Indian engineers. Some of the problems in BR are that we get a lot of military fanboys who adore the looks of sexy hardware like missiles and planes and ignore boring technology like radars. But radars are far more important. The conclusion we can come to is that stealth planes are only useful against opponents who lack modern air defences. This is very useful for the US since it mostly goes into combat against primitive opponents. But Bharat will be facing off against Pakistan and China, who will both have modern air defence.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 31 Jul 2014 14:57

The much maligned Sweetman in AWST (2 reports) has reported that a joint Brit/Japanese JV is in the offing to use its superior Japanese AESA AAM radar on the Meteor missile to improve its capability to counter the Russian AA-12 .The Meteor ,which is unique unlike other AAMs in that its ramjet allows it to deliver full power right upto contact with the target,will also have to be reconfigured to fit into the JSF's internal weapons bay for use on RN JSFs. This is because the JSF has come in for a lot of criticism from some sources about its limited air combat capability,fixed AESA radar which cannot swivel,etc. against aircraft like the SU-35S, requiring it to keep a more frontal profile when attacking.Meteor will provide it with an advantage over most of its rivals ,given its range,and coupled with the Japanese AESA missile radar which has increased terminal detection range,will allow it to break off much earlier in combat with a first shot advantage. The proposal has come from the British.Japan's new defence sales policy is going to make it a major global player,esp. in electronics and a competitor to Israel.India too has another nation with which to diversify its arms,components, acquisitions.

In the other report,news of the JSF's progress and engine problems ,Bogdan's statements earlier about new problems arriving and that it would take along time to fix them,etc., are repeated,discussed,analysed."Same team,same tools,etc" reg. those involved in the engine development.Pros and cons about just one engine or a competition are analysed,his conclusion is that it is now too late for a competition,$4 B was already used ,scarce money should be used in ironing out the engine's faults,but development of a new engine for future uses and programmes should be taken up.

The Koreans meanwhile are pursuing their own stealth bird,but have yet to place the order for the chosen 40JSFs for budgetary reasons.They plan to spend a whopping amt. on their own bird,want more JSFs but are not talking about it for now for fear of losing funding for their own programme. There appears to be some intense rivalry between Japan and SoKo in the indigenous fighter/stealth stakes.

Yes,it is juvenile to imagine that while stealth tech will advance,anti-stealth will remain static and radar development will languish.If one examines weapon systems from history,one advancement prevailed for a period,then another took over and the cycle continues upto today. One can however clearly see that the advent and now acceleration of longer ranged ,long endurance unmanned vehicles,both in the air and underwater,are going to proliferate in increased number and variety.There was a report of an unmanned vehicle operating 5,000km from its command centre. APJAKs "reusable" hypersonic missile concept one hopes is making steady progress.The US's programme for its new stealth bomber is going to be a game changer.