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.
Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20177
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Philip » 10 Nov 2011 07:02

Perfect for the Turkish AF.Ha!Ha! Good one mate.

Now here comes the "Hangar Queen" according to Bharat Karnad.
We already know that the "Death Rattler" cant't out-turn,out-climb and out-run its 4+ gen opponents,according to Rand,costs as much as Australia (!),and can't fly say some.(Liar) Karnad explains why this turkey is best left in the hangar...

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/columnis ... ngar-queen

Why is US peddling a hangar queen?
November 10, 2011 a a a Shareemail print

A multi-role combat aircraft is one of those things air forces the world over love for no good reason other than the desire to fly a plane that can do everything. Some 30 years ago, when the Indian Air Force selected the Jaguar as an MRCA (Multi-Role Combat Aircraft) when plainly it was only a low level short range strike plane, I had pointed out that the trouble with aircraft designed for multiple missions is that they cannot perform any particular role very well. Nothing has changed, except now “medium range” is added to the Air Staff Quality Requirements, two planes have been shortlisted, and the US is trying to scramble the competition by offering the Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35 Lightning-II just as the bids by Dassault Avions for its Rafale fighter and by the European consortium EADS for its Typhoon warplane were being opened. This offer, while sudden, was not entirely unexpected, and has a whiff of the spoiler even though there’s a more substantive reason behind it. In any event, if aircraft quality and performance is what matters, scrutinising the JSF makes sense.

JSF can, at best, be considered a work in progress, and at worst an enormously expensive failure, that has already racked up 89 per cent cost-over-run and time delays of several years, with no end in sight to major design and technology problems confronting it. Winslow Wheeler, a combat aviation expert formerly with the US’ government accountability office (GAO) and ex-staff adviser to several US senators, deems this aircraft “a bad idea that shows every sign of turning into a disaster as big as the F-111 fiasco of the 1960s.”

The serious nature of F-35’s troubles is not a secret. According to news reports, the Pentagon’s director of operational test & evaluation earlier this year pointed to a raft of problems afflicting the JSF, among them, the “transonic wing roll-off (and) greater than expected sideslip during medium angle of attack testing”, unreliability of the components, the after-burner on the Pratt & Whitney F-135 engine disrupting the air flow causing severe vibrations and preventing realisation of maximum power, helmet-mounted display that has restricted testing to the preliminary Block 0.5 and Block 1 mission systems software, and the inability of the on-board inert gas generation system to obviate the buildup of oxygen in fuel tank that can result in fire and explosion. A news story additionally revealed significant structural weakness in the “forward root rib” providing “core strength of the wings”, and a recent GAO report referred to the faulty manufacturing of the outer mould of the aircraft that has undermined its stealth characteristics, rectifying which, it said, has major cost and time impacts.

JSF, it turns out, is an over-weight (49,500 pounds at takeoff in air-to-air role), under-powered (with an engine rated at 42,000 pounds of thrust) aircraft with a relatively small wing span (460 square feet), rendering it, in Wheeler’s words, “appallingly unmaneuverable” and in the same league as the short-lived F-105. Worse, it has only two tons of ordnance carrying capacity in its internal bays; loading additional bombs and weapons on outer wing stations will light up the aircraft like a Christmas tree on enemy radar, making nonsense of its vaunted stealth qualities. And in ground support mission, it is seen as a “non-starter” — “too fast to independently identify targets, too fragile to withstand ground fire”, and too lacking in payload capacity, including fuel, to pull useful loiter time over battlefield. The crux of the problem, according to Wheeler, is that the JSF “has mortgaged its success on a hypothetical vision of ultra long-range (air-to-air) radar… that has fallen on its face many times in real war”, eventuating in performance that is “embarrassing in the air-to-air role” even when compared to “elderly” A-10.

But that’s not the half of it! The F-35, when it enters service, will be the least test-proven of any new aircraft. In this regard, the GAO report mentions that “Open air testing (is) constrained by range limitations that are incapable of providing realistic testing of many key (Block 3 systems software-driven) capabilities” that are available, but mostly on paper. What this means, according to Wheeler, is that 97 per cent of “flight testing (is) still unflown” and eventually only 17 per cent of JSF’s flight characteristics will be physically tested and proven. Dismayed as much by the sub-standard aircraft in the offing and the escalating costs as by the unwillingness of the US to share “critical technologies”, many of the Nato partners have reduced their requirement of this aircraft. Britain, for instance, has cut back to 40 F-35s from its initial order of 138 aircraft, and Israel, which contracted for 20 JSFs, is seeking refurbished F-16s and F-18s instead, as a near and middle-term solution.

The F-35 has been pushed into a virtual death spiral also by the seemingly insurmountable difficulties facing its vertical take-off variant, compelling the Royal Navy to junk it. Costly attempts to rectify design flaws and to meet performance criteria amidst slashed domestic and foreign sales have raised the programme expenditure to the one-trillion-dollar level and the unit price of this platform to a “catastrophically high” $200 million, leading the US Congress to threaten a cut-off in funding.

It is the imperative to save the JSF programme that has prompted US to offer this plane to IAF. Delhi has to decide which combat aircraft industry it will play the white knight to. Lockheed will flourish even if India rejects the F-35. But failure to sell Rafale or the Eurofighter will respectively put the survival of future combat aircraft development and production in France

The writer is a professor at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi



PS:Best advice for Lockheed-Martin.With such an expensive turkey to buy and maintain if it can fly,the best nation to operate this beauty is across our border! Gift the " death rattler" to the Mad Hatter Pakis! That way we will assuredly kick their ass time and again and even if they sell the secrets to the Dragon,it will screw up their happiness too!

GopiD
BRFite
Posts: 139
Joined: 18 Jul 2011 14:57

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby GopiD » 10 Nov 2011 07:29

People, one question to ponder over....

When a country like US which has more than two decades of experience in designing, developing and maintaining a 5th gen jet and suddenly finds itself in a tight corner over designing another 5th gen jet, just imagine the case of J20 for a sec. No wonder the doc and other mullas here are questioning the premise of J20s superiority over other 4th gen birds....... that leaves a lot to be desired :rotfl:

And I think we can learn a thing or two of what not to do from the JSF saga....i.e., for our AMCA. :mrgreen:

Just a thought....

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby SaiK » 10 Nov 2011 07:50

I don't think so GoI(indirectly voters)is foolish enough to scrap AMCA for JSF.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Singha » 10 Nov 2011 08:04

for me the lesson is not that US is bad at aerospace , avionics or stealth (they are the proven best), but that sw intensivity, sensor fusion, budget and a vast mixed range of goals (mission creep) can cause trouble even for the LM A-team which no doubt did the JSF.

F22 faced fewer issues because its goals were far more limited - just focus on a2a and ignore everything else including cost. it was also not constrained by having to make the airframe work for carrier ops too.

we must keep this in mind for AMCA. if that means it will not be a great a2a bird but replace all the Mig27 , m2k and Jags in strike role so be it - the Pakfa, MKI, Tejas and MRCA can do the a2a. its also obvious we need to think of small size new munitions given the limited size of internal bays on small a/c and also stealthy underwing carriers from day1.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby shiv » 10 Nov 2011 08:23

Singha wrote:
F22 faced fewer issues because


F 22s were also hand built like LCA prototypes with no plan for standardization and switchable mass produced parts. Each F-22 was a one-off. Unlike JSF which is planned for mass production.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby SaiK » 10 Nov 2011 08:46

per wiki whoever updated, they are planning to make about 3000 odd jsfs:
While the United States is the primary customer and financial backer, the United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada, Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark have agreed to contribute US$4.375 billion toward the development costs of the program.[235] Total development costs are estimated at more than US$40 billion (underwritten largely by the United States), while the purchase of an estimated 2,400 aircraft is expected to cost an additional US$200 billion.[236] The nine major partner nations plan to acquire over 3,100 F-35s through 2035.[237]

There are three levels of international participation. The levels generally reflect the financial stake in the program, the amount of technology transfer and subcontracts open for bid by national companies, and the order in which countries can obtain production aircraft. The United Kingdom is the sole "Level 1" partner, contributing US$2.5 billion, which was about 10% of the planned development costs[238] under the 1995 Memorandum of Understanding that brought the UK into the project.[239] Level 2 partners are Italy, which is contributing US$1 billion; and the Netherlands, US$800 million. Level 3 partners are Turkey, US$195 million; Canada, US$160 million; Australia, US$144 million; Norway, US$122 million and Denmark, US$110 million. Israel and Singapore have joined as Security Cooperative Participants (SCP).[240][241][242]

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Singha » 10 Nov 2011 11:36

JSF looks like JF17 that has been eating a lot of protein whey shakes from plastic bins and bulked up big.

if its concept of high wingloading bird being a superb a2a performer using 'over the shoulder shots' actually works , will overturn decades of exp leading upto the f22 and pakfa and ef that big engines, slim fuselage and very low wing loading are the enabler for a2a fights.

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Christopher Sidor » 10 Nov 2011 11:37

^^^^
Among these levels of participation. Let us look at the financial conditions of the countries involved
Level 1
UK = Bad. They have cut defense expenditure massively along with all the other entitlements.
Level 2
Italy = Extremely bad, next to Greece only in troubles. Unlike Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland, Italy truly fits the description of too-big-to-fail.

Let us do some math on the figures quote in the second para
contributions of UK + Italy = 3.5 billion USD.
Contributions of Netherlands+Turkey+Canada+Australia+Norway+Denmark = 1.5 billion USD.
Total external contributions = 3.5+1.5 = 5 billion USD.

What happens to a program in which some 70% of external funding expected from countries (UK+Italy) all of a sudden becomes doubtful or their orders just get slashed ?

Imagine the quantum jump that would be made available to India if it fills in the funding gap. Add to this we get exposure from the Russians plus the Americans, which helps us to design and build our own 5th gen fighter, incorporating the best of both the worlds. Currently there are only three 5th generation fighters in development, and only one in service. The Europeans have no plan or the financial muscle to build one. And if we manage to get AMCA timelines right, then we will be the only country on this planet able to field three 5th generation fighters. Capable of handling anything that the PLAAF or Chinese air defense system throws at us for at least a decade.

Unfortunately there is fly on the ointment. The ill conceived and ill timed MRCA tender. If this tender goes through, I do not foresee IAF/MoD/GoI being able to finance F-35A and F-35B for Indian Defense Forces.

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3859
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Cain Marko » 10 Nov 2011 11:56

Based on Wiki and back of envelope calculations, the JSF seems like a v.formidable bird - not to mess with. For one, it is rather maneuverable if it can match an F-16 - not a joke. Two, it has outstanding range/endurance - a result of carrying gobs of fuel internally. The TWR despite the amount of internal fuel carried is rather high - can be better than the MKI for example.

F-35A: internal fuel - 8300kg, empty weight - 13300kg, max thrust - 20000kgf
MKI: internal fuel - 10000kg, empty weight - 18000kg, max thrust - 25000kgf

F-35A: TWR @ 70% fuel (~ 5800kg + 13300kg + 4 AAM/600kg) > 1.00
MKI: TWR @ 70% fuel (~ 7000kg + 18000kg + 4 AAM/600kg) < 1.00

And those 4 AAMs will be carried internally. Plus, it has an excellent fuel fraction, so it will probably have similar range/endurance.

Three, it has possibly the best sensors around in the EOTs and Apg-81?. Four, it is purely VLO, yes there were compromises made to achieve last bit, but imvho, unless against some rather specific threats, it is likely to blow everything else out of the sky.

Apart from other VLO a/c, one bird that might stand a better chance is the Su-35 thanks to its rather exceptional radar aperture and endurance. It could probly detect the JSF early enough to prevent the latter from taking a shot without being aware of its presence. Whether it could retaliate though is doubtful. However, it could thanks to its large fuel resources, and better kinematics, certainly run away to fight another day.

Being VLO, and equipped with outstanding EW, I think it probly also has the best chance of surviving against an S300 type defence, while making a kill.

Despite Kopp's tirade vs. the JSF, I think it will be impressive when it comes online, whatever else it might be, performance wise, this bird won't be a turkey.

CM.

nits
BRFite
Posts: 993
Joined: 01 May 2006 22:56
Location: Some where near Equator...

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby nits » 10 Nov 2011 13:29

Does Gurus Agrees with below... :?:

Having said all that, one can imagine a few scenarios in which the F-35, even with all its problems, would serve a useful purpose in the IAF. For years, the IAF maintained a handful of high-maintenance MiG-25R Foxbats for a niche profile: reconnaissance of enemy territory, out of reach of interceptors or SAMs. Likewise, the IAF could consider one or two squadrons of the Lightning II, for the simple purpose of “kicking the door down” in the first few days of the war, taking out vital air defence nodes, logistics nodes, or AEW&C and tanker aircraft before handing over the heavy lifting to other aircraft that can announce their presence....

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Singha » 10 Nov 2011 13:40

No. the F22/Pakfa or JASSM-ER / Storm Shadow / Nirbhay types far more suited for that.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby shiv » 10 Nov 2011 13:58

Christopher Sidor wrote:Imagine the quantum jump that would be made available to India if it fills in the funding gap. Add to this we get exposure from the Russians plus the Americans, which helps us to design and build our own 5th gen fighter, incorporating the best of both the worlds. .


What quantum jump? By the time we get to design 5th gen we will have to set money aside to buy 7th gen from America. How about trying to make 4th gen MMRCA at home?

When was the last time an S-300 actually shot down a Rafale or a Eurofighter?

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Austin » 10 Nov 2011 15:52

Shiv , there was never a time in any recent combat when the S-300 ever met a Rafale or Eurofighter or for that matter F-16.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Austin » 10 Nov 2011 15:57

Cain Marko wrote:Despite Kopp's tirade vs. the JSF, I think it will be impressive when it comes online, whatever else it might be, performance wise, this bird won't be a turkey.

CM.


CM there are other factors too that make an aircraft not just Thrust or Fuel , The F-35 suffers from high wing loading and other issues.
http://f35insouthburlington.blogspot.co ... -buck.html

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Singha » 10 Nov 2011 16:00

out of curiosity, due to the lift fan, has the VSTOL jsf deleted or shrunk the internal weapons bay?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby shiv » 10 Nov 2011 16:01

Austin wrote:Shiv , there was never a time in any recent combat when the S-300 ever met a Rafale or Eurofighter or for that matter F-16.

:D Proves my point.

I suppose you would agree the S-300 is not known to be more effective against the Rafale or EF than it is against the F-35. I would not like anyone to be making the S-300 argument in favor of the F-35. Would you?
Last edited by shiv on 10 Nov 2011 16:03, edited 1 time in total.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby shiv » 10 Nov 2011 16:02

Singha wrote:out of curiosity, due to the lift fan, has the VSTOL jsf deleted or shrunk the internal weapons bay?


Shrunk the fuel tank I think.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Austin » 10 Nov 2011 16:14

shiv wrote:I suppose you would agree the S-300 is not known to be more effective against the Rafale or EF than it is against the F-35. I would not like anyone to be making the S-300 argument in favor of the F-35. Would you?


Ofcourse this argument is baseless unless you want to look at Lockheed PR ;)

A S-300 or Akash SAM is as dangerous to Eurofighter/Rafale or F-35 as long as its in effective kill range of SAM.

Also the whole stealth thing of F-35 ( and PAK-FA,F-22 ) is equally hyped as well , in that you dont need another 5th Gen Fighter or 5th Gen SAM to deal with 5th Gen fighter , even 4th Gen fighter will be very effective as long as you can employ with AWACS ,Datalinks and Weapons to back up.

A Eurofighter , Rafale or Su-35 is as dangerous to PAK-FA or F-22 as the latter is to them when they face in many to many combat backed by AWACS more so in WVR engagement.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20177
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Philip » 10 Nov 2011 17:26

As EU nations go bankrupt by the day,the chances of these cash-strapped nations,allies of the US buying the exceptionally expensive JSF recedes even further into the dustbin,one wag puts its price at now $200m,nearing F-22 costs!
IN such ascenario,the minimum needs of their air forces will have to be met by buying homegrown birds-that too if they can afford to do so,in other words more EFs,Gripens,and Rafales.US allies in NATO,the Far East and Oz,using legacy fighters like the F-16 and F-18s,may buy upgraded versions of these fighters as interim assets,or even the F-15SE if they want an air-domination bird.The demand for the US to sell its key allies the F-22 (as the "death rattle" and death spiral of the JSF continues to worsen ) thus far refused to Japan,etc.,is going to grow.

Therefore,most combat in the air in the future will be mainly between legacy 3+, 4,4+ and a few 4++ fighters for the better part of the decade,almost upto 2020,when in the last few years of this decade,the first 5th-gen fighters other than the F-22 start arriving.With the advent of more sophisticated AESA radars and IRST sensors on current-gen upgraded fighters,new anti-dtealth tech devlopment maturing, SAMs like the S-400 and S-500,LR AAMs from Novator,etc. of 200+KM,and munitions like stand-off PGMs and LR ASMs and cruise missiles,even CW legacy fighters with life left in them will still have a role to play when top cover is provided by the heavy-weight 4++ and 5th-gen aircraft and AWACS.A mix of high and low calibre aircraft will be the mainstay of most of the world's air forces.

Where the JSF is going to be by 2020 is a moot Q.Orders are declining by the day and thus increasing the costs.The tech problems still resonate and the STOVL version is likely to be dumped,along with the demand for a simpler alternative engine.Barring the US,Israel and a few key allies who might buy a handful to assess its capability and practical worth,LM is going to find it almost impossible to access new markets like India,who are now very well placed to drive the hardest of hard bargains with the Europeans for the MMRCA.

PS:AWST on the USAF's "plan B"! The "turkey" is going to be on the Thanksgiving table for the Yanquis only in 2020!

USAF To Extend F-16s To Cover F-35 Delays.Dated....yesterday!

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... 5%20Delays

Nov 9, 2011
By Graham Warwick

The U.S. Air Force plans to upgrade more than 300 Lockheed Martin F-16s and potentially additional Boeing F-15s to fill the gap caused by delays to the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

The service shortly will announce plans to extend the service life and upgrade the avionics on 300-350 late-model Block 40 and 50 F-16s, Lt. Gen. Herbert Carlisle, deputy chief of staff for operations, plans and requirements, told Congress last week.

The structural and avionics upgrades are projected to cost $9.4 million per aircraft, he said. Extending airframe life to 10,000 hr. from 8,000 will add about eight years of service life and extend the capability of the F-16 fleet to 2030.

The service life extension is required because of delays in developing and fielding the F-35. Initial operational capability (IOC) of the Air Force’s F-35A variant was planned for 2018 but has slipped by about two years, Carlisle said.

The new IOC date will be determined once an updated F-35 integrated master schedule is completed. This is expected “fairly shortly,” Carlisle said. Built on a technical baseline review that extended JSF development by two years, the new schedule will detail how the F-35 will be fielded to replace F-16s and other aircraft in the active Air Force, Air National Guard and Reserve.

Although the Air Force has enough Block 40 and 50 F-16s to upgrade as many as 600 aircraft to cover any fighter shortfall should there be further F-35 delays, “we do not believe we will have to go there,” Carlisle said.

The Air Force is already upgrading 176 F-15C/Ds to operate through at least 2025 and fill the gap left by termination of Lockheed Martin F-22 production after 187 aircraft. “We may extend ‘long-term’ status to the entire 250-aircraft inventory based on requirements of the future force structure,” Carlisle testified.

The F-15s are receiving active, electronically scanned array radars, and both Northrop Grumman and Raytheon have responded to a prior Air Force requests for information to install similar high-performance radars in the F-16.
Last edited by Philip on 10 Nov 2011 18:56, edited 1 time in total.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Singha » 10 Nov 2011 18:25

its scary to think the IOC for the simplest variant (F35A) of a plane thats flying in numbers for a few years now is still 9 years away!! and FOC will be when nobody knows.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby SaiK » 10 Nov 2011 18:50

8% here feel JSF is more capable than FGFA. So, we need to find if they considered fgfa-stol version?

Christopher Sidor
BRFite
Posts: 1435
Joined: 13 Jul 2010 11:02

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Christopher Sidor » 10 Nov 2011 19:10

shiv wrote:
Christopher Sidor wrote:Imagine the quantum jump that would be made available to India if it fills in the funding gap. Add to this we get exposure from the Russians plus the Americans, which helps us to design and build our own 5th gen fighter, incorporating the best of both the worlds. .


What quantum jump? By the time we get to design 5th gen we will have to set money aside to buy 7th gen from America. How about trying to make 4th gen MMRCA at home?


:roll: :roll:
Seriously you want us to consider a 4th gen fighter when 5th gen fighters are coming online and are already in service. Name a single 4th gen fighter that any European nation or Russian or american or Japanese considering building? I would rather send Indian fighter pilots to fight in a 5th gen fighter, than in a 4th gen one, especially when we might face a numerically superior foe.

Call about learning yesterday's technology.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby shiv » 10 Nov 2011 20:42

Christopher Sidor wrote:Seriously you want us to consider a 4th gen fighter when 5th gen fighters are coming online and are already in service. Name a single 4th gen fighter that any European nation or Russian or american or Japanese considering building? I would rather send Indian fighter pilots to fight in a 5th gen fighter, than in a 4th gen one, especially when we might face a numerically superior foe.

Call about learning yesterday's technology.


Sure sure. I am sure you are right. I am sure India can just copy Japan and Europe and just start building a 5th gen. I guess you must be well aware of the technologies of 4th gen and know for sure that India has mastered mass manufacture of those 4th gen tech so the confidence you have about India's ability to match Japan and Europe in staying neck and neck witgh them is very heartening to me.

I just have a few doubts and I guess you will be able to answer my queries. What exactly is this 4th gen/5h gen business? I have some ideas which I have posted earlier but I must be way way off - seeing how confident you are.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Singha » 10 Nov 2011 21:31

a guy with no grounding in data structures and algorithms, with a shaky knowledge of C, being asked to design and build a unix like operating system. that would be india's situation if we tried to make a 5th gen fighter without developing / properly mass making a 4th gen one first (tejas , su30, mrca)

manum
BRFite
Posts: 604
Joined: 07 Mar 2010 15:32
Location: still settling...
Contact:

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby manum » 10 Nov 2011 21:34

Christopher Sidor wrote: :roll: :roll:
Seriously you want us to consider a 4th gen fighter when 5th gen fighters are coming online and are already in service. Name a single 4th gen fighter that any European nation or Russian or american or Japanese considering building? I would rather send Indian fighter pilots to fight in a 5th gen fighter, than in a 4th gen one, especially when we might face a numerically superior foe.

Call about learning yesterday's technology.


I've a personal query...you need not answer it...what exactly is your age?

rajanb
BRFite
Posts: 1945
Joined: 03 Feb 2011 16:56

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby rajanb » 10 Nov 2011 21:43

@Christopher Sidor

You are sadly way off mark.

Everyone else is building a 5th Gen. Shouldn't we have started on the 6th Gen by now? (Whatever these Generations mean? Marketing and sales BS)

pgbhat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4081
Joined: 16 Dec 2008 21:47
Location: Hayden's Ferry

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby pgbhat » 10 Nov 2011 22:10

Singha wrote:a guy with no grounding in data structures and algorithms, with a shaky knowledge of C, being asked to design and build a unix like operating system. that would be india's situation if we tried to make a 5th gen fighter without developing / properly mass making a 4th gen one first (tejas , su30, mrca)

:) Add to that, ability to use a system and ability to design one are two very different things.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby SaiK » 10 Nov 2011 22:44

Gone are the days, where systems are designed without Usability Engineering.

Aditya_M
BRFite
Posts: 166
Joined: 01 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: Blighty
Contact:

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Aditya_M » 10 Nov 2011 22:49

nits wrote:Does Gurus Agrees with below... :?:

Having said all that, one can imagine a few scenarios in which the F-35, even with all its problems, would serve a useful purpose in the IAF. For years, the IAF maintained a handful of high-maintenance MiG-25R Foxbats for a niche profile: reconnaissance of enemy territory, out of reach of interceptors or SAMs. Likewise, the IAF could consider one or two squadrons of the Lightning II, for the simple purpose of “kicking the door down” in the first few days of the war, taking out vital air defence nodes, logistics nodes, or AEW&C and tanker aircraft before handing over the heavy lifting to other aircraft that can announce their presence....


Please give credit when you quote from articles, or at least link to them. Thanks :)

Cain Marko
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3859
Joined: 26 Jun 2005 10:26

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Cain Marko » 11 Nov 2011 00:13

Austin wrote:CM there are other factors too that make an aircraft not just Thrust or Fuel , The F-35 suffers from high wing loading and other issues.
http://f35insouthburlington.blogspot.co ... -buck.html


Austin, thx for the link - all I will say is that those who don't like the bird, really hate it; and those who tend to like it, really praise it. Too extreme.

also, I realize that there are other factors to a/c performance, however, the F-35 is not as poor as some might make it out to be. For e.g. using the config I gave above, it has a v.similar wingloading to an F-16 blk60 or Shornet- around 460kg/msq. Not great vs. perhaps Ecanards, but then the bird makes up for it via a very low RCS airframe. More importantly, it is still not the production variant, there is likely to be further weight reduction, and refinement.

The F-35 in many ways, can be thought of as a somewhat so-so fighter ala F-16/60 or F-18E in terms of kinematics, it can perform well enough, but not as good as say, an EF 2000 or Su-35. Does not mean that an F-18E/F-16blk60/F-35 can't cause trouble for the more agile birds, just that in the supersonic regime, it is not as topnotch.

But the biggest difference bet say the Shornet/F-16IN and the F-35 is the fact that it more than compensates for this mediocre aerodynamic capability with all aspect stealth, and a very uber sensor package.

So imho, while I would always prefer the Ecanards over the Shornet or F-16IN, I'll take the F-35 over the Ecanards, the stealth option clearly gives a winning edge. Look at it this way, would an F-16IN be more effective with VLO features? If yes, then please select JSF from Table LM. :)

CM.

dipak
BRFite
Posts: 198
Joined: 31 Dec 2008 19:18

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby dipak » 11 Nov 2011 01:04

I have selected 'No' for both the questions.

First, why the JSF being offered now. Why was it not offered right at the outset, at the start of the MMRCA saga by LM?
They probably calculated that they can get away by offering their teens, satisfying the IAF about the ASQR etc ..pocketing a handsome amount, keeping their constituencies in their home state happy.
Or, they thought that their teens are more than a match for other contenders in the fray and those were just for the procedural requirements ..ultimately IAF would be falling over each other for the teens ..coz they come from legendary khanland ..

Its clear that they are neither want to offer their best tech to IAF, nor want to accept the defeat in the open competition with grace. Clearly odds are high that this JSF offer is to scuttle, delay and confuse the current MMRCA process. Its like, if I can't have it - I won't let others have it too!

Second, IMHO the JSF can't be superior to FGFA simply because JSF as a project was conceived much earlier than FGFA. Its design parameters had been frozen much earlier than FGFA.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby SaiK » 11 Nov 2011 01:10

well.. I disagree in taking extreme views to unkill bashing too. why not consider they failed to read the requirements clear or it was vague enough for them to understand it. now, they realized it better, so jumping up with a new gun.

as a marketing person, I would do the same as unkill did.. we have only issues with unkill regarding cismoa, end user veri, intentional bugs, and reduced technology offer.. this is what I think unkill wants to change as well. they are reading us, and understanding us.. apache for example is a game changer deal for offensive systems.

I am pretty positive, that unkill will do a great job in tech-sharing if we have a good khan-english specific documentation of agreements that is tailored for India specific needs.

If they can't do that, then it is entirely a different game to bash JSF offer. [I hope this bashing is political and offer based]

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby SaiK » 11 Nov 2011 02:16

explain source code.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1919
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby PratikDas » 11 Nov 2011 03:03

SaiK wrote:----
I am pretty positive, that unkill will do a great job in tech-sharing if we have a good khan-english specific documentation of agreements that is tailored for India specific needs.

If they can't do that, then it is entirely a different game to bash JSF offer. [I hope this bashing is political and offer based]

This is precisely the problem. The US was willing to bend or change laws for the monumental nuclear deal because it suited their nuclear industry. Now that Indian nuclear liability requirements are proving to be a sore point, all of a sudden the hands aren't shaking any more.

Let them come out and say that CISMOA and the other acronyms are not relevant to India and then a lot changes from the Indian perspective. I still think the JSF is going to be disdvantageous in terms of schedule, cost, ability to integrate non-US or non-NATO weapons, access to code, etc., but if the US is willing to build the bridge, I think India would cross it.

Outlook India, July 15, 2011: CISMOA, LSA Not on Table of Indo-US Strategic Dialogue
The defence pacts, including CISMOA and LSA, are "not on the table" during the second round of the Indo-US strategic dialogue to be held here on July 19.

"We don't think that at this stage, there is any need for what is called the foundation agreements (CISMOA, BECA and LSA). They are not on the table at the moment and, in any case, they don't come in the way of the expansion of our defence cooperation," sources said here.

Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-spatial Cooperation (BECA), Logistics Support Agreement (LSA) and Communications Interoperability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) are the US arrangements for enhancing defence ties with other countries.

CISMOA and BECA are required by US law for providing another country with the most advanced electronics on US weapons platforms. In the absence of these, the C-130J Super Hercules transport aircraft has been delivered to India without communication equipment.

Without the "most advanced electronics" the JSF is a 4th generation fighter ++, stealth or no stealth.

VinodTK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2252
Joined: 18 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby VinodTK » 11 Nov 2011 03:15

India's military purchases: Only the best should do
However, there is perhaps not much hope for the JSF unless the Indian government cancels its agreement with Russia for the nascent Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) or decides to go in for both the options, which sounds difficult if not unlikely. have a tremendous weakness in electronics warfare systems compared to both the Americans and Europeans, and the FGFA's engines are also yet to be developed. At present, the prototypes are using Sukhoi Su-30 engines.

Even with these, the cost for 148 single seat and 48 twin seater FGFAs, now called Perspective Multirole Fighters (PMF), is estimated to be a huge $35 billion.
:
:
For India, there is an opportunity, if the country chooses to go forward in acquiring a quantum jump in technologies.
:
There is no way that New Delhi would give up its friendly ties with Moscow, but then Russia has limitations. Moscow does not have the sophistication in many systems, it is not able to ensure near-future or lifetime support, and has the negative capability to go back on its own words as it did in the case of aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov.

Reports emanating from Moscow already indicate that India's 2009 proposal to develop a Multi-role Transport Aircraft (MTA) in cooperation with Russian expertise is also in jeopardy with the Russians already demanding more money and less involvement.

India would need to balance friendship with Russia and the latter's inability to support India's modernisation programmes. Russia has to accede to its weaknesses and admit them in all fairness. And thanks to the need to phase out the large Soviet-vintage inventory in the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force, India can still continue to buy some systems from Russia and some highly sophisticated equipment from the west, the US included.

SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36393
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby SaiK » 11 Nov 2011 03:55

Instead of GUBOing for unkill's requirement, Get our requirements straight, and go per that. We want these.. can you satisfy? and don't mess up with the words. He is clever. This is the reason many lawyers survive.

unkill will not come out and say cismoa or end user monitoring agreements are void for India sake. I agree our stand point, but to establish a stronger robust vision, we need to describe our requirements in very clear terms. Don't state as a rule, but keep it as a standards document.

our standards are these:-
...
.. must be able to integrate home grown stores and weapons and other country of origin.
.. all integration will be done India with Indian citizens
.. seller must provide software, documents, and all necessary details and blueprints for this.

Just a small note.

The list could go on.

If Unkill or Aunty likes it.. he will supply. Money will not be paid till the last integration happens.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Victor » 11 Nov 2011 04:20

The source code issue is way overblown and irrelevant to us. Chief among the scare-mongers are the pakis and chinese who don't want us getting these planes. Even the mention of Shornet-AESA gave them shivering shalwars. But sadly, some of our own people believe "paki pilots" who darkly suggest in public forums that the yeevil AmirKKKhans can make their rigged fighters fly to Gitmo even if they only want to go to Pindi. And presumably shoot bananas instead of bullets. :rotfl:

The codes allow the aircraft to talk to its weapons and there will be no restrictions on what weapons we can use, where and when. We can get new codes incorporated anytime we want for a new weapon of our choice. The Americans simply don't want their codes to fall into chinese hands and don't trust anyone else (rightly, IMO) to keep them secret. If they wanted to ground our jets or restrict our operational autonomy, they could simply withhold spare parts like they did with the Sea Kings. The Ruskies have grounded our jets by simply being untidy with their parts supply chain. Nobody likes their candy intake to be supervised but the best way out of the problem is to have their own fighter with their own code.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1919
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby PratikDas » 11 Nov 2011 04:51

Victor, the Indian issue is a lot bigger than just the codes.

SaiK, I completely agree, but you know that such changes would constitute a huge concession from the US side. Just like after the Indo-US nuclear deal, there will be in an uproar in the US that they let India get too much out of the deal, which is bogus in some respects, but delving into the nuclear liability fallout is OT. Nevertheless, enjoying the afterglow of a good GUBO seems to be a pre-requisite. All this talk of strategic partnership is just fluff unless they commit to the kind of things you've listed.

As things stand now, If India doesn't GUBO to the acronym laws, you can pretty much toss out the best things about the JSF, like it's communications, navigation and identification (CNI) system. So you might find:
  • You have stealth but your radar doesn't have a better range to capitalise on your stealth, or
  • Your radar is good, which lets you spot the target before the target spots you, but you don't have BVR IFF, so you must make an educated guess (I like this one the most), or
  • You're sure the target is a Chipakhanastani, but you don't have a BVR missile that you can lock on at max range, or
  • You can lock and fire a missile, but you don't have the data link to provide mid-course corrections, which seems like a mighty good idea if you're going to fire missiles from max range, with missiles having much smaller radars than your aircraft's.

As things stand now, if we don't sign up to the acronym laws, we shouldn't even dream of EW or "intraflight data link (IFDL) exchanges, [and] synchronizing the displays of multiple aircraft".

So, all you're left with is stealth, thanks to the shape and materials. Not 5th generation by any standard. This is why I'm not hesitant in describing the proposition as it stands today as a shitty one.

Victor
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2628
Joined: 24 Apr 2001 11:31

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby Victor » 11 Nov 2011 05:44

..if we don't sign up to the acronym laws, we shouldn't even dream of EW or "intraflight data link (IFDL) exchanges, [and] synchronizing the displays of multiple aircraft".

:roll:

Let me elaborate on these "acronym laws" with mysterious yeevill powers:

CISMOA: communications compatibility between US and Indian forces. The comm equipment we use nowadays need to be in sync if any cooperative action is called for and this is all CISMOA is. American special forces calling for Indian choppers, Indian jawans calling for Predator support etc. are situations that we have simply delayed for now. We have NOT rejected them.

LSA: Logistics support. Ie. you fuel my jet, I fuel your's. You land in my airport, I land in your's.

End User Verification Agreement: if we ever give the BrahMos to one of our friends, I hope to hell we have a similar agreement to make sure it does not end up with pakis.

Please note that the IAF has no problem with any of these agreements but doesn't need them either--yet. GoI simply wanted to pacify the weirdos in government who felt we would become associated with "evil American actions" in Muslim countries and disturb the Dragon unnecessarily. Again, these agreements could very well become valuable to India at some time in the future and we have left the door open.

To the best of my understanding, none of the stealthy, secret, hidden electronics that come with these agreements can make our C-17s fly to Diego Garcia against our wishes or drop flowers on pakanastan.

PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1919
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: JSF,"turkey or talisman"?

Postby PratikDas » 11 Nov 2011 06:16

Victor wrote:
..if we don't sign up to the acronym laws, we shouldn't even dream of EW or "intraflight data link (IFDL) exchanges, [and] synchronizing the displays of multiple aircraft".

:roll:

Let me elaborate on these "acronym laws" with mysterious yeevill powers:

CISMOA: communications compatibility between US and Indian forces. The comm equipment we use nowadays need to be in sync if any cooperative action is called for and this is all CISMOA is. American special forces calling for Indian choppers, Indian jawans calling for Predator support etc. are situations that we have simply delayed for now. We have NOT rejected them.


Then why DID we reject it for the C130J? :roll:

LiveFist: No CISMOA? Here's What They're Pulling From The Indian C-130J
Last edited by PratikDas on 11 Nov 2011 06:23, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “Trash Can Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests