JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 01 May 2015 22:12

P.S. Mort:

10GHz resonates with water vapor but 170 and 220GHz don't. And the receivers/transmitters are very compact. Not light, but compact. SUV-portable, easily. So also plane-portable or aerostat-portable. I don't think Stealth aircraft are very Stealthy at those frequencies.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8422
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mort Walker » 01 May 2015 22:33

UB,

You are correct about geometry, but an aircraft needs to have both horizontal and vertical surfaces, and the propagating wave could be polarized horizontally + vertically, so the impact of geometry is less and you may be able to double the amount of energy coming back to your receiver. Most radars have linear polarization which is what stealth planners are banking on. Dual or circular polarization takes $$$ to do right.

At 170-220 GHz your ability to work with circuits becomes very difficult with electronic components as we know them today. A receiver works by using ADCs, and the best (16-32 bit) spurious free dynamic range (SFDR) ADCs are clocked between 100-500 MHz. So down converting from 170-220 GHz is a real challenge. We can work with up to 25 GHz easily, but after that it becomes a real task. At high frequencies, simple things like coaxial cables and connectors can exhibit some strange properties and cause impedance mismatch issues.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 01 May 2015 22:49

Somewhere in my wanderings over the Mongolian Steppe on a starlit night, trying to avoid stepping in yak-dung, I came across a whole volume of papers from an early 1980s conference. It was between Soviet and US 'scientists', basically on Star Wars. Biggest dung-throwing contest, if u think about it - place must have been full of PWDG (ppl with dark glasses) and any papers that passed the Clearance To Present must have been full of pakistan. BUT.. there were several papers on 200-220GHz. Apparently they used them to (c y I call the whole conference pakistan):
See through the dust and debris cloud of a thermonuclear explosion to see if another warhead should be targeted there, or whether the target had been destroyed.

More recently, 200-220 GHz came up in a USArmy paper on vision through dust clouds in tunnels. I thought it was to see Bin Laden sitting around smoking his hookah inside a tunnel in Tora Bora, but it turned out that it was intended to develop pilot's goggles to see through BrownOut dust clouds while landing in EyeRak.
So there are at least some ppl who have been working on these things and know how to make them work .... something I would dearly love to get my hands on, for 400% bissful reasons that can't be mentioned here.
I bet F-35 pilots will have to wear those over their 3DHOHUDVEDs (3D Holographic Head-Up Display Vision Enhancing Devices, for the Acronym-ignorant) but it was really for helicopter pilots to see the trip-wires stretched across the landing pad by the friendly locals through the dust-storm kicked up by their rotors. Trip on trip wire - chopper topples, rotor hits ground, finis. Talk about asymmetric warfare ideas... apparently led to loss of enough choppers to warrant a full-fledged development /refit program.

But Star Wars was 30 years ago. A lot of muddy water has flown through the Ulan river since then, and THz technology has come along quite a lot. Esp. in the nuke fusion industry for the high-power applications. Yes, I have seen about the wires, metal conductors etc. but they have some neat slow-mode waveguides to send these.
Question to ask urselves is whether the air-defense strategies and tactics all over the world have remained static in that time, after seeing Iraq 1991, Iraq 2003, and Serbia.
Don't you think some serious smarts and money would have gone into this?
BTW, one reason why ppl can easily predict that the F-35 has all sorts of problems, is that the geometry can be related so easily to the F-22 and to the F-15. In the spirit of
Jo Lahore mein gandoo

one can then easily predict what happens on the F-35, and voila! the reports show that it is true.
Net-centric Warfare indeed! So one small ionospheric nuclear blast and the whole war zone is reduced to the technology level of 1913.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8422
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mort Walker » 02 May 2015 00:16

It is being report 36 Rafale for $6 billion for IAF. The order must be cancelled and four squadrons (72) of F-35 should be ordered immediately!

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8757
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 02 May 2015 01:16

deleted..
Last edited by brar_w on 02 May 2015 01:18, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8757
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 02 May 2015 01:16

So I don't believe that will happen. These days, any program that sticks it's head up above the $40B mark (LHX estimate, 1980s) just does the equivalent of the legendary Kabir sitting out on the tree... Target #1 for cuts.
Which is why, I think the F-35 proponents are so insecure.


The problem with that is, that any program that replaces the F-35 or even a part of it automatically becomes a $150+ Billion dollar program such is the scope of the Fleet replacement. So given your RULE of $40 Billion, the USAF and USN would be left with no option but to shut shop after the current fighters are retired since nothing more than $40 billion can survive.

In reality however, its not going to be the case and all those that have closely followed the events pretty much know this. As mentioned despite of the Budget Control Act, a Democratic President and DOT&E phase there is broad support as everyone realizes how important modernization is given the fleet age of the F-16, and F/A-18 and given that greater utilization particularly over the last 10 years or so (especially for the USMC and USN). There is a reason why the production slots are full till 2018 deliveries and why they are now working on a 477 Aircraft order that will take the total aircraft produced to above 750.

Also Mach 7 Hypersonic missiles are going to take very very long time even though the concepts have been around for many years. In the air-air realm that will take at least 30 years at a minimum since neither of the NG air to air missiles reflect that capability and new service types (Missiles) usually last a few decades before they are completely replaced.

So now one has a $120M gizmo with a $300M support cost to keep up, faced with a horde of little X-37-class supersonic interceptors each costing maybe $5M


X-37? Supersonic Interceptor?? $5 Million? WTF!!

Image

Good luck with your $5 Million dollar supersonic interceptor UAV. A meteor Missile (A2A) costs upwards of $3 Million !!
It is being report 36 Rafale for $6 billion for IAF. The order must be cancelled and four squadrons (72) of F-35 should be ordered immediately!


Canceling the Rafale defies the purpose for which it was intended to be procured in the first place i.e. replace and replenish the depleting squadron strength. The selection process lasted for a lot many years with plenty of aircraft coming into a program that started off as an M2K purchase. Delaying it any further should make little sense, if you cancel it you should be looking to buy more MKI's and LCA's at the bottom end not embark on a yet another fighter acquisition program.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 02 May 2015 01:40

Sorry, not X-37 (so many Xs, who cares?)I mean X-47. The one with the wings going in all sorts of directions.
Its older brother X-45 is the one with the self-healing flight control system built to take battle damage. No pilot.
Whole program for development came in under $1B.
Speed claimed as "Cruise at Mach 0.9+, subsonic" :rotfl: That's what they said about Boeing SoniCruiser.
No one flies Mach 0.9+ and stays subsonic in cruise. This means it has enough power for Mach 1.6.
Cheap, cheap at $200M each OBO through Ulan Bator Used X-Planes Inc.
One owner. Clean. Auto, Air, power brakes.
No Reasonable Offers Refused! Every Vehicle Must Go to Make Room for Next Year's Models!
This Rafale deal I don't understand. 166B each for these Ooo La La finicky French Prima Donnas? What are they throwing in?
Last edited by UlanBatori on 02 May 2015 01:46, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8757
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 02 May 2015 01:43

Sorry, not X-37 (so many Xs, who cares?) I mean X-45.


Boeing X-45 was a design primarily for SEAD. Even Boeing changed the design and demo'd the Phantom Ray. It was "small-medium" fighter sized. The Northrop Grumman X-47 was the continuation of the J-UCAS as Boeing didn't get a contract (lost to NG) and self funded the Phantom Ray. Both the platforms are subsonic, high TOS ISR aircraft with limited strike.

Image

It won't be anywhere near 5 Million. As I mentioned, a modern western A2A missile (meteor) currently goes for above $3 Million!!

Speed claimed as "Cruise at Mach 0.9+, subsonic" :rotfl: That's what they said about Boeing SoniCruiser.
No one flies Mach 0.9+ and stays subsonic in cruise. This means it has enough power for Mach 1.6.


The X-45 was supersonic? Mach 1.6 ? Do tell that to Boeing, the USN, the USAF and the J-UCAS program management that framed the requirements !! Even the offshoot in the X-47 is subsonic, and so is the eventual program that all these prototypes result in (UCLASS).

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 02 May 2015 02:47

yeah, yeah, can't fly fast enough, can't turn, despite what the pilots are saying and they are all scared for their jobs anyway. These arguments won't stop even when 1000's of the aircraft have been inducted into service and seen combat. Oh, I forgot super weapons are gonna knock out stealth too.

And also the Marines can't afford them . Never mind that they were instigators of the JSF in the first place with Britain jumping on board with ready cash also in order to get some input in the process. :roll:

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 02 May 2015 03:12

The Marines can afford thousands of them, sure, at $100M each initially and then billions for upkeep. They have all sorts of money lying around.....
BTW, no one here has said the F-35 can't U-Turn. It's just that it has to do it slowly so that the vibrating fins and wings don't hit themselves coming back - and the compressors don't come swinging out the sides of the engine casings.
Last edited by UlanBatori on 02 May 2015 03:17, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8757
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 02 May 2015 03:15

Yup and they are still limited to 19 degrees AOA ;)

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 02 May 2015 03:52

can't fly fast enough, can't turn,


Can't drop a bomb, can't fire the gun, ........................ The helmet is a disaster. Data fusion is a joke.

The complains are cyclical. The frequency has reduced tho'.

However, the very good news is that I have not seen a new -ve for some time now. All that is being posted is old stuff. And addressed.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 02 May 2015 04:29

That may be because they are systematically eliminating the critics, not addressing the criticisms..... 8)

I think by 1942 all criticism of the Third Reich had ceased inside Germany.
By 1990 all cricitism of Saddam had ceased inside Eyerak.
I don't hear hardly anyone criticizing the Jeep Wrangler any more.. it just happens to be available new for $10K.
And no one criticizes the F-22 any more..
Last edited by UlanBatori on 02 May 2015 04:33, edited 1 time in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8757
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 02 May 2015 04:31

Yup...the bodybags are piling up all over the place ;) Of course addressing developmental issues , or rectifying issues discovered during testing is out of the question . Why the heck would they do that? Its not like that is the expectation from the testing phase or anything !

I see the Russians in the same boat. Last year the T-50/PAKFA caught fire. They are now busy suppressing information, and systematically eliminating critics..They are doing everything but rectifying the issue that caused the fire because that would be such an absurd thing to do..

Image

Of course the biggest cover up has been the decades worth of cover up of the testing issues discovered on the F-16. They never really rectified the FCS, but just covered it up and continued to produce thousands of aircraft and kept suppressing all the information by eliminating -ve information (there are Veteran F-16 pilots over at f16.net, that will attest to first hand problems with the early built F-16's and how painful it was to get to the level of reliability, performance it eventually obtained by block 30 - But again, what do they know!!) . SAAB did that successfully as well on the Gripen. Rather than fix the FCS (which the whole world KNOWS they did, except you perhaps), they merely suppressed all criticism and voila...Its an export success much loved by its operators (those that remain anyway) .. :eek: :eek:

Image

Image

Image

Its very easy to forget the GROWING PAINS in the development of the F-16, and F/A-18 when discussing the F-35. Same goes for every other advanced project out there. Most non-increment type projects are hard to design, build , test and sort out the issues discovered in testing. PAKFA has flamed out, caught fire, has had its canopy cracked etc and they are in the process of fixing that. One can go and dig up the NUMBER OF CLASS A incidents on the F-16 development, and how many aircraft were lost developing it, and what the pilot loss ratio was. Its easy to forget all that. Its also easy to be naive enough to think that they won't find ANY ISSUES in development. Developmental testing is there for a reason - FIND SHORTCOMINGS and FIX THEM. Thats what they do and thats what the RDT&E budgets are for. It doesn't mean that because the F-16 had FCS issues in its development it still has them today.

Similarly, because the F-35 had a class A incident in June of last year, and some temporary restrictions were placed at the time on it (As per the SOP) - it doesn't mean that those restrictions would exist FOREVER. They were first relaxed as per the air-worthiness-authority's clearance and eventually lifted. As the fixes were installed flight envelope was cleared and as you yourself have discovered through your link (Which incidentally had been shared with you on at least 3 earlier occasions - but you kept on ignoring it) the pilots themselves have said that they have opened the entire envelope and reached AOA's of 110 and plan to wind up 2b envelope testing and move on to 3F testing.

With the full flight envelope now opened to an altitude of 50,000 ft., speeds of Mach 1.6/700 KCAS and loads of 9g

Why is the same argument not used on the Su-30 and PAKFA threads? Heck the Su-30 fleet was grounded because its ejection seat was at fault. Why not develop conspiracy theories claiming that they hushed up everything and even though it is cleared to fight it clearly is still at fault? Why not go to the PAKFA thread and claim that every PAKFA/Su-50 and FGFA produced will be prone to catching fire because one aircraft in testing did so? that grounded the fleet??? Why no armchair - Root Cause Analysis? in that thread?? The F-35 FMS price is being attacked even though it is at par with what nations around the world are paying for advanced aircraft purchases (Rafale, Tyohoon etc) One would have hoped that before looking into these two things (Acquisition and LCC) one could have done some basic market background research to see what operators around the world are paying for 4+ generation fleets! Take the IAF as an example and find out what it is expected to pay for 100 odd Rafales, and 180 odd FGFA's.

And no one criticizes the F-22 any more..


Perhaps because its testing completed, it received its OT&E clearance and with the increment 3.1 the pilots that fly it love it? Is that a possibility? But then what do they know! The F-22, much like the F-16 and other fighters went through its share of troubles...but when you pick issues you do go out and address them and then get the appropriate clearances once those are done..But then again, the raptor must be crap because you say so, lets just forget that little performance that has been made available through the SAR is unmatched at the moment anywhere in the world (Mach 1.76 Supercruise, Sustained 5.5 G @ Mach 1.5 , 5 G sustained @ Mach 1.7 with 50% fuel and 6 missiles, sustained AOA, Mach 1+ without afterburner @ sea-level, stealth and how it has performed at RED FLAG..etc etc etc) !! But of course much like Hitler, all of it is being suppressed !! Its all one big conspiracy as most of it is.....

What the world really needs is an out of the box cheap solution. Immediate mach 7 hypersonic air-air missiles, and $5 Million dollar supersonic UCAV's. Folks will be running to start something on kickstarter after reading that ;)...
Last edited by brar_w on 02 May 2015 17:42, edited 5 times in total.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 02 May 2015 05:30

Cool videos! I'd hate to be the one having to hose down the cockpit after the events.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 02 May 2015 06:19


UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 02 May 2015 06:47

Posted b4. That is the Turkey Branch of the JSF (no pun intended) PR campaign, talking about how the F-35 MIGHT even fly as well as the F-4 Phantom. Or the P-51 Mustang. Tough call, replacing those classics of the Turkey/ISIS Air Fauj.

The tone leaves no doubt about the lifafa nature of the writeup. Salivates at the prospect of Joint Training and Conferences between the pilots of the Israeli (F35) and Saudi Arabian (F35) and Iranian (F35) and Turkish (F35) and Greek (F35) and Cypriot (F35) and ISIS (F35) and Jordanian (F35) and Syrian (F35) and North Korean (F35) and Venezuelan (F35) and Cuban (F35) Air forces in a grand MidEast Convention. All training to fight The Common Enemy: Gravity.

Boko Haram and Al Shabaab and the Somali Pirates and the Beastly Boyz of Sierra Leone invited as Prospective Buyers.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4380
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Cain Marko » 02 May 2015 06:50

^ROTFL - ridiculous

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8757
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 02 May 2015 09:30



Its a rather poorly written article which makes little sense. Turkey is replacing the F-4 and F-16 with TF-X and F-35A. The B is nothing but a rumor at the moment and is likely to stay that until the turn of the decade. The 100 F-35's cover the F-4 fleet and the oldest F-16's and since it is a paper plane at the moment, the TF-X would take possibly a decade to 15 years to materialize. . TF-X covers the youngest F-16's in their fleet. At the moment they are soliciting offers from engine proposals for the TF-X with both GE (414) and EJ200 in the running...Depending on what path they take going forward with the TF-X, they can add considerable timeframe to the development if they aim for a very high capability, although given propulsion choices their choices vis-a-vis specifications are rather limited (medium-heavy is not looking good)...
Last edited by brar_w on 02 May 2015 16:45, edited 1 time in total.

chaanakya
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9513
Joined: 09 Jan 2010 13:30

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby chaanakya » 02 May 2015 14:08

Mort Walker wrote:It is being report 36 Rafale for $6 billion for IAF. The order must be cancelled and four squadrons (72) of F-35 should be ordered immediately!

F-35 is out of question. But if India gets F-36 then Pakistan can get F-69....

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 02 May 2015 17:29

Clarification: This is strictly commentary on the Article from Ankara projecting how Warfare in the Middle East will evolve with the acquisition and deployment of the F-35. :shock:

I think the F-35 will be the best thing to happen to the Middle East. They dig up their oil and sell it, make $$$T and hand it over to LMC at $200M + 1B maintenance per shiny Turkeymonument. ALL ME nations (OPEC and OTEC and OMEC) buy F-35s. Then all will be too broke to even buy fuel, let alone spare parts, for these, so their main Military activity will be to conduct those Joint Conferences. Since they won't have $$ to buy IEDs, RDX, RPGs, M-1s, HumVees, Toyotas, Bazookas and SAMs and TOWs, there will be only two classes of Warriors: The F-35 Pilots and the Camel-back swordsarabs. Everyone will worship the F-35 Pilots because they can throw around words like

Beta-Test Version 6.666 of MILSPEC000.333 MS-BOG-ESOBRF in ETA 414 LSPEC v.6 Acquisition schedule LMAO ROTFL with POGO-NOGO-Stage III.24 Procurement Option 5.


The F-35 Pilots will be a tightly-knit fraternity because no one else can understand what they say, and they don't understand what they say either, but they need each other to inspire pride in their own knowledge of jargon. Sort-of like Sandhurst-trained Indian and Pakistani Generals were on back-slapping terms even in 1971.

Result: What 500 years of the world's best camel-traders and diplomats have stepped on their own little Cheneys trying to achieve: PEACE IN THE HOLY LAND. The Pilot Course can include such fine subjects as holding hands and dancing, singing

Round and round we go
Round the Mulberry Tree, Mulberry Tree..


So the F-35 should properly be re-named The PeaceMaker-III. PeaceMaker-I was the Cold 45 revolver that brought peace to the American West. PeaceMaker II was the MX missile that ended the Cold War. Now PeaceMaker III will end the MidEast violence.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 02 May 2015 17:55


TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 02 May 2015 18:01

not sure why about this idee fixe of the middle east concerning the camel shepherds and mud huts? will jsf be used against them? probably since it is replacing the f-16, a-10, etc....but the jsf is however designed for hotly contested air space such as iran which will have s300's and s400's avidly awaiting the jsf. serious business there.... it must be that if you can't adequately belittle the technical aspects of the plane then one must belittle its possible enemies in order to taint the program. whutever strikes yer fancy....

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8757
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 02 May 2015 18:09



The UK has already embedded their test-pilots into the USMC F-35B STOVL DT testing. RAF Squadron Leader Jim Schofield was on the Wasp the last time it went to testing although since the current round that starts in a couple of weeks now, is more operational prior to IOC I am not sure whether british pilots will be there this time. OT testing starting May 18th will involve frontline squadron aircraft and pilots so no RAF/RN pilots will be there. Do note that the RAF/RN have begun their own unique test program at PAX River, in support of clearing the envelope for the F-35B in the ski ramp testing for their QE carriers.

Image

http://globalaviationreport.com/2015/02 ... ompletion/

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 02 May 2015 18:19

Meanwhile, Canada also considers joining the F-35 PeaceMaker-III Initiative

F-35 and the Future of Canadian Security
By Richard Shimooka, Nov. 2012. Canadian Defense and Foreign Affairs Lifafa Institute.

Based on these recommendations the government of Canada should:
• Remain engaged as a partner in the JSF program and continue to participate in its development;
• Closely observe and consider the fighter’s progress in order to better inform its final decision to purchase the fighter after 2016;
• Ensure that the unique features of the F-35 operation are fully understood by all levels of government and implemented properly if purchased.


In summary, this is like what I was told when I wanted to buy a shiny new bicycle to herd yaks on the Mongolian Steppe:
The bicycle has Low Observables (no dung-stink, no bleating sounds) and High Speed Dash on smooth roads like they have in the Yoo Essay. It can enter Contested Roadspace where yak-wagons are not allowed. It doesn't eat the flower garden where you park it. But it won't negotiate gravel slopes or swamps, can carry only one passenger at most, the frame will break (not to mention ur musharraf) if you ride through a pothole and if you get a flat tire u r out of luck since we won't have enough money left to buy a pump or a patch kit. And it's really not worth $10,000. And I don't trust the fellows who did the welding of the frame - it looks kinds flimsy and is not really made of metal, just shiny metal-painted PVC pipes.


The filler in the report is impressive-sounding:

During the late 1950s and 1960s, the Soviet Union launched an extensive surface-to-air missile (SAM) development effort. While used to good effect during the Vietnam War, they emerged as a near decisive weapon during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In that conflict they downed approximately 15% to 25% percent of the Israeli pre-war air force and mitigated their ability to influence ground operations (Nordeen 2010, 143). By the end of the 1970s, The Soviet Union fielded a variety of lethal systems that could challenge Western air dominance over Europe as they had over Israel. In response, the Lockheed Corporation undertook pioneering work that resulted in the development of the first true low-observable aircraft, the F-117 Nighthawk (Rich 2003, 17). The Nighthawk’s unique shape greatly diminished its detection range by radars, but at a very high cost. The F-117 effectiveness was also magnified by the increasing use of precision-guided munitions. A single bomber equipped with laser-guided bombs could complete missions that previously required hundreds of aircraft. The ease at which they bypassed Iraq’s vaunted Soviet-supplied air-defence network and destroyed key targets... In spite of the F-117’s impressive performance, its revolutionary technology was adopted sparingly. Declining defence spending after the Cold War slowed the Pentagon’s aircraft acquisition. Moreover, the complexity and cost of low-observable aircraft became painfully obvious during the Navy’s A-12 program in the early 1990s. The program attempted to incorporate a number of revolutionary technologies, which resulted in major cost overruns, performance downgrades and eventual cancellation (Stevenson 2001). This colossal failure pushed the Navy to develop a low-risk derivative of the Hornet, the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Although initially criticized for mediocre performance, the Super Hornet became the USN’s primary multi-role fighter.

(blah-blah)

The F-35 is considered to be an important response to the threat these aircraft pose. While it does not possess the speed, manoeuvrability and range of the F-22, the JSF should nonetheless be a lethal air-to-air fighter. The F-35’s aerodynamic performance is roughly equal (i.e., may come close when the other pilot is drunk) to that of an F-16 or an F/A-18 carrying an equivalent air superiority loadout (Majumar 2011). All three aircraft excel in the transonic flight envelope, or speeds between 0.5 to 1.2 Mach, where the majority of air-to-air engagements occur. However, unlike the Falcon and the Hornet the F-35’s low-observable design and advanced avionics offer it superior situational awareness and decision-making abilities (combined with the high-G U-turn and supersonic dash, this becomes a highly attractive option for the PAF, KSAF and Egyptian AF). An F-35 should “see” an adversary with its sensors and data-sharing capabilities well before it is itself detected and determine where and how an engagement will occur. The development and proliferation of next generation Russian SAMs, such as the S-300 and S-400 families, has become a particular concern for the operational capability of existing generations of fighter aircraft. It is one of the few areas where national investment has remained high (IISS 2012, 190). SAMs are comparatively cheaper to field than aircraft and require less training and infrastructure to operate. These strategic air defence systems are highly mobile and are noted for their long range and lethality (Gunzinger 2010, 22). They are well adapted to shoot and scoot tactics that would be central to any asymmetric strategy. Their long-range kill capability also presents a serious challenge for support aircraft that have long facilitated Western air superiority...


The F-35’s low observable technology diminishes the effectiveness of these systems, but they should not be considered a panacea; the Russian Federation and others have invested considerable resources into improving their detection systems against low observable technologies. Thus F-35s are unlikely to operate virtually unchallenged

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 02 May 2015 18:22

Kopin to supply additional SXGA displays for F-35 programme

F-35 HMDS

Kopin has been awarded a series of follow-on production orders for high brightness SXGA displays in support of the F-35 Lightning II joint strike aircraft (JSF) programme.

The $1.8m contract was awarded by Rockwell Collins to support continued deliveries of the F-35 helmet mounted display system (HMDS).

Kopin president and chief executive officer Dr John Fan said: "These follow-on orders from Rockwell Collins support two initial production phases (LRIP 7 and 8 ) and are a testament to the quality, performance and reliability of our display products.

"As you would expect, the system requirements for such a helmet are very demanding and Kopin's SXGA, which is based on our new 8in wafer process and NanoJet technology, was chosen to as an integral part of the F-35 HMDS."

Kopin Government Programmes vice-president Bill Maffucci said: "Our high brightness (>5,000fL) display is used during all operational conditions, including bright daytime conditions."

Claimed to be world's highest resolution transmissive liquid crystal microdisplay, the SXGA display offers a full-colour 1,280px x 1,024px resolution in a 0.97in-diagonal package, and has power consumption of less than 40mW, which extends battery life of portable, battery operated systems.

Deliveries under the contract are scheduled to take place over a 15-month period.

Designed to provide pilots with enhanced situational awareness, the F-35 HMDS projects all the data pilots need to complete their missions, such as airspeed, heading, altitude, targeting information and warnings on the helmet's visor, rather than on heads-up display, reducing the pilot's workload and increasing responsiveness.

In addition, the F-35's distributed aperture system streams real-time imagery from six infrared cameras mounted around the aircraft to the helmet, enabling pilots to 'look through' the airframe.

Compatible with eye glasses and laser protection devices, the system provides weapons targeting by looking at and designating targets, and target verification when receiving steering cues from onboard sensors or through datalink.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8757
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 02 May 2015 18:23

UB, check the date of the report. Even in 2015 Canada has not decided about its procurement. Accept the SAAB Gripen (which I am not sure whether it is still on offer to them or not) the alternatives in the Eurofigher Typhoon, Dassault Rafale and the F-18E/F are priced pretty much equally.

For reference you can see the size and cost of the Dassault Rafale deals to Egypt and Qatar and what is being rumored about the value of the deal for 36 aircraft to India. Compare those prices to that of the F-35A FMS Sale to South Korea. Only the Super-Hornet will be considerably cheaper to buy, but then again Boeing claims a 20% price premium for its "Advanced version" that is yet to clear any form of testing (cockpit and avionics architecture certification, new engine certification and CFT certification including full flight envelope clearance for the pod) and as the F-15 SA has shown they do run into some issues with the certification authorities when they as a company look to circumvent the procedures in an attempt to do it on the cheap.

The advanced/International Super Hornet that Boeing is offering only has a flight simulator for the cockpit concept, avionics architecture that exists only on paper, and engine upgrade proposal that as of today remains unfunded, and CFTs and weapon pods that have only flown to show and validate the concept. All of this and other such upgrades have yet to clear the entire flight envelope something that Boeing must do either out of its own pocket, or have a customer fund it - in order to fully certify the International/Advanced Super Hornet.

If it doesn't, it will continue to compete with its F-18E/F against aircraft such as the F-35A, Dassault Rafale and EF Typhoon..And despite being cheaper than all three of these the F-18 E/F hasn't won a SINGLE competition where it was pitted against them.
Last edited by brar_w on 02 May 2015 18:35, edited 2 times in total.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 02 May 2015 18:27



This is exactly representative of the wonders of this program. They needed a road with a hump in it. Instead of putting a small 'portable' ramp on an existing road, they built this Mark-XIII Simulated British Small-STOVL Carrier Deck Facility, probably at a cost of AT LEAST $1M, to conduct maybe 100 tests.

Could have come to Malloostan for a small visit: there are many such ramps on the National Highway that end with precipitous drops of 40 feet. They use these to kill drunken drivers at night who veer off onto these oh-so-empty, smooth roads.

vasu raya
BRFite
Posts: 1658
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby vasu raya » 02 May 2015 18:28

Mort Walker wrote:
UlanBatori wrote:(Thanks, pragnya 8) )
Mort: The other issue lurking underneath is that of the Stealth cost. IMO, the reports from first Russia and now China indicate that they are getting over the shock of the radar stealth issue. Of course defeating radar is not the only Stealth, but it is the costliest one. The whole idea AFAIK is minimizing RCS --- tuned to a certain frequency range. The range is pretty broad, but is centered around a few GHZ. What would I do if faced with this? I would bite the bullet and invest in 'radars' that include very low and very high frequencies, as expensive as that may be. Millimeter wave radar is already known, but not nearly high enough in frequency. Going to the extreme of millimeter wave and into the optic is one avenue, while going down to very long wavelength radio waves, ultrasonics and then even plain acoustics is the other.


This is correct, but it becomes an issue of do you have the technical resources and money to overcome stealth? In the case of Russia and China, yes, but they've actually got to deploy these modern radar systems over a large area by 2030. In radar you're faced with a few physical problems regarding frequencies. One, high frequencies near 10 GHz are subject to water vapor attenuation and velocity resolution, two, low frequencies are subject to interference and jamming. So this limits which frequencies can be best used. RCS is a description of how much energy is reflected back to your receiver. There has been considerable improvement in receiver sensitivity and with the implementation of modern Analog to Digital Converters (ADCs), FPGAs, and very precise (and cheap) atomic clocks. The Chinese are spending money on radar for ornithology, ground sensing, and weather, but what does that have to do with stealth? They are technical lessons learned on how much energy is reflected back to your receiver when trying to detect something which has a very low RCS. DRDO is also learning the same lessons hence they've decided to do their large scale AWACs. Which, I would bet be able to detect butterflies stealth aircraft.


the article on E-2D Hawkeye states that just by increasing power, one cannot double the radar return or detection range because the noise floor increases as well, keeping the noise floor low is still important. Maybe they are talking in the A2G sense.

what if the aircraft is doing active cancellation of the reflected radar return? the lower the reflected energy the easier it is, if it is overwhelmed with emitters across RF spectrum it may not work but single aircraft approach even if it is an AWACS, not so sure

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 02 May 2015 18:32

Brar-ji:
Pls consider that if we all accept that the F-35 is a Super Wonderful Aircraft where all the small issues are being effectively dealt-with by Highly Trained, Expert Technical People and Where Necessary The Supari, this thread could have been closed after Post 1. So let us have some fun, hain?

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8757
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 02 May 2015 18:33

This is exactly representative of the wonders of this program. They needed a road with a hump in it.


The Program did not fund this. It was funded by the UK since its a unique UK requirement and the design reflects their QE ramp. I think that the purpose was not solely to get it certified for the ski ramp (as they did for the harrier) but also conduct the deck handling clearance as well before sending it out to the UK for integration on the QE. The purpose of this ramp is to validate the ski-testing modeling they have been conducting for a few years now and collect all the necessary data to declare the aircraft operational on the QE carrier. I think its an upgrade to the existing PAX RIVER Ski ramp and incorporates the materials and construction from the QE carrier in order to full simulate performance onboard the carrier. Since the carrier is still in development, the Royal Navy cant park it off of the US coast and do initial Developmental testing like the USMC does with the WASP.

For more details go through this thread -

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php ... 2&start=30

Pls consider that if we all accept that the F-35 is a Super Wonderful Aircraft where all the small issues are being effectively dealt-with by Highly Trained, Expert Technical People and Where Necessary The Supari, this thread could have been closed after Post 1. So let us have some fun, hain?


Of course, fun is good!
Last edited by brar_w on 02 May 2015 19:50, edited 2 times in total.

Mort Walker
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8422
Joined: 31 May 2004 11:31
Location: The rings around Uranus.

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Mort Walker » 02 May 2015 18:40

vasu raya wrote:the article on E-2D Hawkeye states that just by increasing power, one cannot double the radar return or detection range because the noise floor increases as well, keeping the noise floor low is still important. Maybe they are talking in the A2G sense.

what if the aircraft is doing active cancellation of the reflected radar return? the lower the reflected energy the easier it is, if it is overwhelmed with emitters across RF spectrum it may not work but single aircraft approach even if it is an AWACS, not so sure


The reference to the E-2D is to transmit power. Doubling your transmission power does not equate to doubling the reflected energy or range. What I'm talking about is a more sensitive receiver design and lowering the noise floor.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 02 May 2015 18:44

vasu rayaji:

Consider that the F-35 is not invisible in the visible spectrum - or else it would cost $1B per copy and be touted as The Invisible Plane, like The Emperor's Clothes.

So it can be detected in some parts of the spectrum. Air defense ppl are in danger of being kicked out of their jobs all over the world. After Gulf War 1990 and the Revelation of the F-117, there was a huge cut in Radar R&D in certain parts of the Duniya that shall remain unnamed (they couldn't cut b4, because that would have been a giveaway). So these ppl have been scrambling like Archimedes on Day 39, to find other detection means. What I am saying is that such labors will have resulted in a range of solutions.
Today they may not be available in large numbers. But 10 years from now? 20 years from now? Would you ride in a Stealth Aircraft whose design was frozen in 2004, over a hostile land with desperate people?
The detection and response paradigms would probably be nothing like what we see or read today (except of course if we read UBC News..)
This is the danger in these massive treasury-emptying investments in One-Size-Fits-All 'solutions'. Just like the Maginot Line or the Iraqi Imperial Guard lines across the Kuwait/KSA borders. One day we could find that the F-35 is just a fine target in a turkey-shoot, and have no options other than launch nuclear strikes. If I had to do it today, I would use a massive distribution of acoustic sensors all over the borders, accompanied with mobile SAMs that can be launched to catch up after the F-35 has passed overhead. The engine noise HAS to be unique, because there are few other counter-rotating turbomachines.

Billy Joel in 'Goodnight Saigon':
And they were sharp, as sharp as knives
They heard the hum of our motors
They counted the rotors
And waited for us to arrive


But I am sure that there are a lot of ppl much sharper than me in this bijnej, and their lives are on the line, as well as their whole national futures. I am sure their minds work pretty clearly and fast.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16814
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby NRao » 02 May 2015 18:58


brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8757
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 02 May 2015 19:09

The future upgrade path had been in development since they began the program. Notional Block 4 capability, and notional block 5 capability was always being defined. In 2015 Budget however, they began issuing contracts for some of the long-lead-development work in support of the block 4 that is set to be operational by 2021-2022 timeframe. The USN in its FY15 budget (and FY16 budget) have already begun funding improvements such as the the 5% engine fuel consumption reduction, and begun defining and developing the software block 4. Furthermore, they also began funding in FY16, the AARGM-ER, a ramjet powered 150-200nm Anti Radiation/GPS weapon that uses the seeker of the existing ARGM and builds the missile further for internal carriage on the F-35C. Norway's JSM and Turkey's SOM will also be incorporated in this phase.

Additionally, the cyber/EW pod being designed by an unknown OEM (my guess is Northrop grumman since it showed up in the NGJ early on with a stealthy-pod EW solution which was deemed as to risky for the Growler - but would make perfect sense for the F-35) has now been disclosed and reported by Janes. Every fighter gets upgrades as it matures although unlike the F-16A , the JPO did not declare IOC with a vanilla WVR/daytime capability and does not expect to take 10+ years to get a multi-role capability. The JSF is multi-role from the start and 2-3 years from IOC will get its entire SDD configuration declared operational.

Also UB_Ji, modern stealth concepts aren't purely about RCS although that drives design. They are built to be able to combat a wide threat base and have capability growth planned over its life. Modern stealth aircraft (Be it F22, F35, Su-50, AMCA, KF-X, TF-X etc) are designed to balance RCS, with very high situational awareness, EA/EW and other components and capabilities (weapons). The object is to degrade the enemy air defenses and squeeze through to drop your payloads or conduct the mission. RCS breaks kill chains at certain frequencies, and does so quite well at the most common frequencies at the FCR level (for maneuvering aircraft such as fighters). You deploy your strike packages with Stealth, EA/EW payloads (stand off and stand in) and your decoys (MALD's, MALD-j's etc). You also keep your weapons up to date in order to maintain survivability. If your ARM, is a 50nm weapon and your RCS allows you to get within 50nm to deploy it you are FINE. But for the future you need to develop perhaps a 100nm ARM because thats how close you may be able to get despite of your stealth and sensor fusion. So you develop the roadmap to get that capability. Stealth shrinks SAM engagement envelopes and those of the Integrated air defenses, the embedded Antenna Farm that these aircraft possess allow them to keep very high level Situational Awareness on emitting threats at all frequencies (google F-22, and F-35 EA concepts and also the B-2 DAIRS), its up to your other components (weapons mainly) to make use of those shrunk envelopes and high SA and destroy or suppress those defenses further. Thats the purpose of having it in the first place...You don't get brownie points for overflying IAD's and not being detected or targeted..You put stealth in there so that you can deploy your aircraft and defeat those IADs and SAM's or avoid them on your way to accomplishing your mission objectives..Designers all around the world be it those working on the F-35, B-3 bomber, AMCA, KF-X, PAKFA, PAKDA are confronted with the same challenges (although the extent may be unique to each) and therefore must find best way to balance their own technical knowledge and capability with the threat and how to accomplish the planned mission objectives. If you don't have the stealth knowhow of one organization you may wish to up the altitude? or seek a Mach 3-4 design. Or perhaps you live with a lot of jamming and the compromise that comes with that (you can't jam everything as the USN's VAQ's will attest, and similarly you can't "hide" from everything as you also point out). Stealth, advanced situational awareness, and EA/EW together squeeze the IAD's from different sides in order to provide you the access. Once you have that access and the freedom to maneuver in that densely defended environment, you then need weapons that can get the job done. This is even more important in the air-to air domain where analysis of fighter_kills over the last 4 decades or so has shown that a very large percentage of them took place when there was a lack of information and breakdown in Situational Awareness, or when the opponent had greater SA then you did - The pilot simply had very very little information on the jet that was shooting at it - and at times wasn't even aware of its existence.

2:58 onwards


UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 02 May 2015 21:29

Mantri-e-Phrogistan Andre Maginot gives a presentation on JSF Jointe Securite de Francoiseculminating in F-35 (France '1935)
Image

Joint Services Defense Plan

As head of the armed forces, Marshall Petain commissioned a number of teams to come up with a solution to the French dilemma.
(So get yerself a Task Force, well-skilled in all the arts. And call them all together and watch them flip their charts)
Three schools of thought developed:

1) a policy of offence as opposed to defence. Charles de Gaulle wanted .. an army based on speed, mobility and mechanised vehicles (to run faster..). few supported his ideas as many in the military saw them as aggressive and likely to provoke a response as opposed to guard against a German one.

2) France should base its military in a line of small heavily defended areas from which a counter-attack could be launched if required. Marshall Joffre favoured this idea.

3) France should build a (ONE) long line of fortifications along the whole French/German border which would be both long and deep into France. Marshall Petain favoured this idea.

Petain had come out of World War One with a degree of credit and with his backing the idea of a long and deep defensive barrier gained political support. In this,
Petain was supported by Andre Maginot, the Minister of War.


Maginot was Minister of War. In 1926, Maginot and his successor, Paul Painleve, got the funding for a body that was known as the Committee of Frontier Defence (CFD) ( :eek: ). The CFD was given the funding to build three sections of an experimental defence line – based on what Petain had recommended - which was to develop into the Maginot Line. (wow! even today they use CFD to generate expensive nonsense on the F-35!!)

In 1929, Maginot .. gained more money from the government to build a full-scale defence barrier along the German border. He overcame any opposition to his plan very simply – the fortification, he argued, would end any chance there was that France would suffer the terrible bloodshed of 1914 -1918 should there ever be another war...

Maginot had a number of sound military arguments on his side:
Ø The Line would hinder any German attack for so long that the bulk of the large French army would be fully mobilised to counter the attack.
Ø The troops stationed in the Line would also be used to fight against the invading Germans should they get through any one part of the Line and attack them from the rear.
Ø All the fighting would take place near to the French/German border so that there would be minimal damage to property.
Ø The Ardennes in the north would act as a natural continuation of the man-made Line as it was considered impenetrable, so the Line need not go all the way to the Channel.

Work on the Maginot Line proper started in 1930 when the French government gave a grant of 3 billion francs for its building. The work continued until 1940 (when France surrendered..) :roll: . Maginot himself died in 1932, and the line was named after him in his honour.

..The Line comprised of over 500 separate buildings but was dominated by large forts (known as ‘ouvrages’) which were built about nine miles from each other. Each ouvrage housed 1000 soldiers with artillery. Between each ouvrage were smaller forts which housed between 200 to 500 men depending on their size. There were 50 ouvrages in total along the German border. Each one had the necessary fire power to cover the two nearest ouvrages to the north and south. They were protected by reinforced steel that was inches deep and capable of taking a direct hit from most known artillery fire.

The smaller forts were obviously not as well armed or protected as the ouvrages but they were still well built. They were further protected by minefields and anti-tank ditches. Forward defence lines were designed to give the defenders a good warning of an impending attack (Sensor Suite). In theory, the Maginot Line was capable of creating a massive continuous line of fire that should have devastated any attack.

The Maginot Line was such an impressive piece of construction that dignitaries from around the world visited it. (Turkey, Arabia, Korea,Netherlands,Canada..)

However, the Maginot Line had two major failings – it was obviously not mobile and it assumed that the Ardennes was impenetrable. Any attack that could get around it would leave it floundering like a beached whale. Blitzkrieg was the means by which Germany simply went around the whole Line.



Pretty impressive too... Stealth, Signature Suppression, Awesome Weapons Suite, Firepower..
The 2 major failings just happened to be what transpired. There were many, many more: a simple parachute regiment landing behind the Maginot Line would have cut the supply lines. With their supplies of Le Champagne avec le Fromage and Cafe au Lait running low, they would have surrendered immediately.

The real lesson relevant to the Deja Vu Model F-35 -2 is that investing too much in ONE defense system simply induces the opposition to think up a way around that - and where there is a will, there is ALWAYS a way. The French poured 3 BILLION (in those days!!) francs into building it, another BILLION into further strengthening it. As a result, their tanks, planes, AA systems and civil defense systems were all hopelessly underfunded. The bottom line is that they completely failed to think of the enemy's brains. And those who did think did not have the funding or the authority to do anything about it.

Exactly the 'thinking' behind the F-35.
Last edited by UlanBatori on 02 May 2015 21:59, edited 1 time in total.

TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby TSJones » 02 May 2015 21:49

except that the maginot line was static defense not offense. there were not even any reserves behind the line to protect from a end around attack. finally, the line did not extend all the way to the end of the border allowing the Germans to go around it in the ardenne forest.

the jsf will not be the only tool in the US skill set in going on the offense in highly contested skies.

we've done it before, the enemy won't be plucking any cherries.

UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby UlanBatori » 02 May 2015 22:01

Ah, yes, we're so much smarter than those French, of course. Of course! Their best brains - the Victors of WW1- didn't see anything wrong with what they did. They had Real-Life Combat Experience (like those who won Desert Storm). Who was going to argue with that?

The biggest weakness of the F-35 is that it carries a human pilot - but only one, who is hugely overworked. Changes and constrains all your thinking and drives your cost into orbit.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8757
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 02 May 2015 22:35

The biggest weakness of the F-35 is that it carries a human pilot - but only one, who is hugely overworked


The pilots claim that the workload is reduced. But then again what do they know its not like they actually fly the aircraft or anything or are competent to talk on the matter. I am sure they can be so much more enlightened if only they visit the thread. In fact it should be made a part of their training.

All 5th generation fighter including Russian designs are single seaters (F-22, F-35, J-20, J-31, T-50/PAKFA, KFX) ! Perhaps they know a tad bit more..But then again, perhaps they do not! If only they followed this thread instead of flying fighters for a living!!

Also do keep us updated on the Mach 7 Hypersonic Missile and the $5 Million supersonic UAV ;)
Last edited by brar_w on 02 May 2015 23:08, edited 4 times in total.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8757
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby brar_w » 02 May 2015 22:39

UlanBatori wrote:Mantri-e-Phrogistan Andre Maginot gives a presentation on JSF Jointe Securite de Francoiseculminating in F-35 (France '1935)
Image

Joint Services Defense Plan

As head of the armed forces, Marshall Petain commissioned a number of teams to come up with a solution to the French dilemma.
(So get yerself a Task Force, well-skilled in all the arts. And call them all together and watch them flip their charts)
Three schools of thought developed:



WOW!! The discussion hasn't been about the F-35 for a while now (Converting it to INR, dividing it per Indian taxpayer etc etc) but this takes the cake!! Lets talk about other issues that have nothing to do with the topic at hand while we are at it.

Lets pick a topic since its derailed already. Weather?


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests