It does not serve their purpose. Much easier to say we are on track and doing well.Ask them to release their problem punch list to the public.
^ This is the only mention of downgrading of RF frequency signatures I can find on the net. Could you share the original DoD document/reference. All this article says is 'according to DoD's website'. And also quotes Kopp colleague Peter Goon at the same time. One imagines a public DoD statement should have been picked up by other media sources (UK & Canada in particular).
'Horse's mouth'?!! No mention of downgrading here that I can see here. How do you know that this ^ isn't to secure the aircraft, prevent software source code extraction/modification or something similar? The reference here appears to be to address information/data disclosures/leaks.Not believable? Okay, let's hear it from the horse's mouth
Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Ft. Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $134,188,724 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-award-fee contract (N00019-02-C-3002). This modification is to continue the design, development, verification, and test of Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Partner Version Air System development under the JSF Delta System Development and Demonstration Effort (Delta SDD). The purpose of the Delta SDD is to develop a version of the JSF Air System that meets U.S. National Disclosure Policy, but remains common to the U.S. Air System, where possible.
2006.This is the only mention of downgrading of RF frequency signatures
That quote is from:CRS wrote: Marine Corps STOVL Version (F-35B)
The Marine Corps is procuring the F-35B, a short takeoff and vertical landing (STOVL) version of the aircraft. F-35Bs are to replace Marine Corps AV-8B Harrier vertical/short takeoff and landing attack aircraft and Marine Corps F/A-18A/B/C/D strike fighters, which are CTOL aircraft. The Marine Corps decided to not procure the newer F/A-18E/F strike fighter and instead wait for the F-35B in part because the F/A-18E/F is a CTOL aircraft, and the Marine Corps prefers aircraft capable of vertical operations. The Department of the Navy states that “The Marine Corps intends to leverage the F-35B’s sophisticated sensor suite and very low observable, fifth generation strike fighter capabilities, particularly in the area of data collection, to support the Marine Air Ground Task Force well beyond the abilities of today’s strike and EW [electronic warfare] assets.”
Sir, once you do away with the Pentagonese and obfuscation (oh, it will be a stealth fighter, that's all you need to know; now go play with your toys while we grown ups decide what to do), that is exactly what the report says.'Horse's mouth'?!! No mention of downgrading here that I can see here. How do you know that this ^ isn't to secure the aircraft, prevent software source code extraction/modification or something similar? The reference here appears to be to address information/data disclosures/leaks.
Some reading:NRao wrote:
* Secondly, as it relates to the F-35, the best I have come across (from LM) is that the F-35 is slightly better than a loaded 4/4.5 gen plane and will beat any plane. And, the latest from Gen. Bogdan states it very clearly (I find this very funny and strange that when he had so much -ve to state people were quoting him all the time and now that the tables have turned that he is no longer quotable) stated that others will be beat. Now, what it this makes this plane so good - I can only guess (beyond what both of us can read). But, one thing seems to be for sure, the F-35 was *not* designed using the "traditional" things in mind: TW ratios, turning stuff, etc. (Which is why I ask what is a 5th Gen plane and what is India thinking - what is publisable in open source)
This is going to be one hell of a task with AESA. I wonder how long will it take for them to walk the talk on this one considering first AESA has not yet been fielded by them.The surfaces of the PAK FA's own five radar arrays are also angled off from the vertical plane, helping to 'deflect' enemy radar signals. The covers of the radar arrays are selective, letting through their own signals, but blocking other frequencies.
Why go that far?brar_w wrote:Some reading:NRao wrote:
* Secondly, as it relates to the F-35, the best I have come across (from LM) is that the F-35 is slightly better than a loaded 4/4.5 gen plane and will beat any plane. And, the latest from Gen. Bogdan states it very clearly (I find this very funny and strange that when he had so much -ve to state people were quoting him all the time and now that the tables have turned that he is no longer quotable) stated that others will be beat. Now, what it this makes this plane so good - I can only guess (beyond what both of us can read). But, one thing seems to be for sure, the F-35 was *not* designed using the "traditional" things in mind: TW ratios, turning stuff, etc. (Which is why I ask what is a 5th Gen plane and what is India thinking - what is publisable in open source)
A Backgrounder on Energy-Maneuverability
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.in/2013 ... ility.html
The F-35 and the Infamous “Sustained G” Spec Change
http://elementsofpower.blogspot.in/2013 ... -spec.html
This is part 1, also read part 2-4 if possible.
Like I said the contract does not mention 'downgrading' anywhere.Mihir wrote:Sir, once you do away with the Pentagonese and obfuscation (oh, it will be a stealth fighter, that's all you need to know; now go play with your toys while we grown ups decide what to do), that is exactly what the report says.
Quoting Peter Goon doesn't not help the article's credibility anymore than quoting Carlo Kopp would. It clearly comes off as a hit piece.Between that, Peter Goon's assessment, and the statement by the US Ambassador to the Australian Parliament ("We have given assurances to Australia that we will give you the absolute maximum that we can with regard to that technology ... Having said the airplane will not be exactly the same airplane as the US ... it will be a stealth fighter, it will have stealth capabilities.") and statement by Lockheed's international programs director, you truly need to be a convert to the F-35 cause to not understand what is being said.
Mihir, I can debate your opinion. I cannot debate your gut feeling.If you think that "version of the JSF Air System that meets U.S. National Disclosure Policy" is as innocent as it sounds, I have a bridge to sell to you.
^^^NRao wrote:A few thoughts:Vis S sir, the US is still a very very reluctant and unreliable supplier and this i know from experience. They don't sell what you want but push down your throat what you already have.
* Seems from your two posts this US vendor behavior is during a sales cycle. Is there not a mechanism to escalate the matter (to the "Carter" level). I would hope there is something to address such issues
* Secondly, a year or so ago, the US was saying the gates are open and India that nothing was flowing. So, somethings is flowing, but the process is not mature enough to make a good deal of difference - it seems. ?????
I am sure that there is a huge gap there. There is distrust, which needs to be overcome.
Again, "Carter".
But, India has to do what is in her best interests.
So, what is an "5th Gen" plane? Has India got a definition of sorts?Coming to the avionics, i always felt between avionics and the platform's dynamics, the dynamics always comes first. Avionics can always be retrofitted. The MiG-21 today is almost as capable as the F-16 blk30. Getting an AESA or MAWS is not as difficult as getting the aircraft to meet or exceed physical performance requirements. An F-35 can never attain a higher alpha and better STR or a higher mach than what it does at FOC(whenever that happens) but a PAK-FA(or even an F-22) can be retrofitted with an LPI AESA, EODAS,..... while still retaining a much better kinematic performance as compared to the F-35.
Cheers!
A couple of observations on the point you have made:
* One can try and convert a donkey into a horse, but one can only go so far. You have a better feel for such matter (I would think), but a plane needs to be designed for certain features - so unless it is designed to accept a LPI AESA/EODAS , it will still retain some of its old donkey features. It will do better than what it was, but it will not compete with a plane that was designed ground up. (My layman logic for not attempting a LO LCA.)
* Secondly, as it relates to the F-35, the best I have come across (from LM) is that the F-35 is slightly better than a loaded 4/4.5 gen plane and will beat any plane. And, the latest from Gen. Bogdan states it very clearly (I find this very funny and strange that when he had so much -ve to state people were quoting him all the time and now that the tables have turned that he is no longer quotable) stated that others will be beat. Now, what it this makes this plane so good - I can only guess (beyond what both of us can read). But, one thing seems to be for sure, the F-35 was *not* designed using the "traditional" things in mind: TW ratios, turning stuff, etc. (Which is why I ask what is a 5th Gen plane and what is India thinking - what is publisable in open source)
I was reading up on the PAK_FA articals and all I could find is that the PAK-FA can fly faster, has a much shorter take-off, TW is great (even greater with a "definitive" engine), nimble as a butterfly (which is is).
But, is that what a "5th gen" plane is? Can I hang a LPI AESA/EODAS on a LCA and expect it to be in the class of a F-35? May be it can, I happen to think it cannot, but open to being educated.
On the contrary, the most critical factor in air combat, BVR & WVR both, has always been situational awareness. In that context, the F-35A will see more and discern more.VarunS wrote:Very concept of BVR engagements involves primarily high sustained flight speed & concept of LO tech.An aircraft which has high sustained flight speed covers more airspace against opponents low flight speed, hence chances are that PAKFA when engages a F-35A like aircraft, the no-escape zone for F-35 falls shorter against Russians R-77 AAM which are highly kinematic & has bulk seeker heads.
Is there a non-basic definition? Or a complex one?If you are talking about a basic definition for a 5th generation aircraft, yes it should fly faster & must sustain a super-cruise without after-burners.
If there is a "no-escape zone for F-35".Well you might be wondering what PAKFA's faster flight speed has got do with it's 5th Generation tag ?
Very concept of BVR engagements involves primarily high sustained flight speed & concept of LO tech.An aircraft which has high sustained flight speed covers more airspace against opponents low flight speed, hence chances are that PAKFA when engages a F-35A like aircraft, the no-escape zone for F-35 falls shorter against Russians R-77 AAM which are highly kinematic & has bulk seeker heads.
The first time such a definition appeared was during the early 90's as the programs like the ATF were in early phases. I guess the modern use became common due to the f-22 and the yf 23 programs where stealth, speed and sensor fusion was kept as a priority for development of a 5th gen fighter from the ATF studies.Is there a non-basic definition? Or a complex one?
Is there a definition by nation? Or Air Force?
Russians are hell bound on trying to match or exceed performance of the F-22, a fighter that by all means was flying with a full mission system set in the early 2000's. The F-35 does not benchmark itself against the F-22, but tries to take modern air combat to the next level by taking stealth and strapping it onto the a design that allows for a bulk purchase that is affordable.One data point we have is the difference between Indian and Russian "expectations" (for lack of a better word for the time being). Indians IDed 40 changes to the PAK-FA (they have made nearly as many to the MKI "to make it fly better"). So, what is that the Russians - who by their own admission "think" that the PAK-FA is equal to a "F-22" - consider a "5th Gen" to be that the Indians are not so happy with.
I am afraid much of the above is conjecture, there is very little in terms of pure data points to point out that the JSF will have better SA than a PAKFA esp considering that the latter has a much bigger radar with even better FOV. To surmise that the JSF will automatically have better sensors or EW is a leap of faith esp when based on dubious reasoning that the US invests a lot more (or arguably has more experience) so it automatically will have a better product. taking such reasoning to conclusions such as jsf > pakfa is fraught with errors, esp in a non American and Indian context.Viv S wrote:On the contrary, the most critical factor in air combat, BVR & WVR both, has always been situational awareness. In that context, the F-35A will see more and discern more.VarunS wrote:Very concept of BVR engagements involves primarily high sustained flight speed & concept of LO tech.An aircraft which has high sustained flight speed covers more airspace against opponents low flight speed, hence chances are that PAKFA when engages a F-35A like aircraft, the no-escape zone for F-35 falls shorter against Russians R-77 AAM which are highly kinematic & has bulk seeker heads.
Coming to a head-to-head engagement, the F-35A will retain its first-look-first-shoot advantage.
- Most recent info suggests that the APG-81 will out-range the Byelka, if not jam it outright.
- The ASQ-239 Barracuda over the PAK FA's Himalaya suite is an easy bet as well. The ASQ-239 is based on the ALR-94, the 'most complex piece of equipment' on the F-22, which was operational back when HAL was swapping out Russian kit on the Su-30MKI's with BEL supplied RWRs under Project Vetrivale.
- The F-35 will obviously have a lower RF and IR signature. Aside from making it harder to for enemy radars to detect and track, the R-77 shot will have a lower kill probability because of a reduced effective seeker range.
- The Aim-120D and Meteor will outrange the R-77. Will also have correspondingly large NEZs.
- WVR range; DAS, HMDS & Aim-9X is a dominating combination.
And that's without going into strike/SEAD missions.
__________________________________
I'm not familiar with 'bulk seeker heads'. Could you please explain?
Sez who?one KPP involving the 5gen fighter is that of sustained supercruise
Again, so what?has a much bigger radar with even better FOV
That's based on the respective industries' actual record.Cain Marko wrote:I am afraid much of the above is conjecture, there is very little in terms of pure data points to point out that the JSF will have better SA than a PAKFA esp considering that the latter has a much bigger radar with even better FOV. To surmise that the JSF will automatically have better sensors or EW is a leap of faith esp when based on dubious reasoning that the US invests a lot more (or arguably has more experience) so it automatically will have a better product. taking such reasoning to conclusions such as jsf > pakfa is fraught with errors, esp in a non American and Indian context.
Well.. carrying that further you could call a supercruising F-15SE, a fifth generation aircraft.More importantly,
What is established and assured, and far from conjecture is that the PAKFA will certainly outperform the JSF in terms of key flight performance parameters.
From what I gather, one KPP involving the 5gen fighter is that of sustained supercruise, something that the JSF does not have. No speculation here, purely factual.
Israel was very successful in attacking Syria. With all those def radars.the latter has successfully jammed fourth gen AESAs during testing
They do all that then I'll want he US to buy it as their main jet fighter. And do we ever have a superb suite of weapons for it also. Sweet, sweet, sweet!However, I WILL concede that the PAK FA has another three prototypes to go. As improbable as it may be, the PAK FA could still theoretically field F119-like LO exhausts, uber-sophisticated radar blockers, AESA tech that has leapfrogged ahead by a decade, a next gen EW system and corresponding sensor fusion, a recessed IRST, higher fit tolerances, durable RAM, a stealthy conformal fourth gen LDP, an SDB analogue, an improved HMDS, high reliability and an affordable life-cycle cost.
^ Just internet gossip. And silly gossip at that.vishvak wrote:However, Russia did shot down missiles launched from Spain by USA/NATO. http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1510684 . Of particular interest is how international treaties have been neglected (Spain stationing IRBMs http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 9#p1510689 ) as well. As also another comment from Lilo ji http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 9#p1510699 . Says much about international relations and importance of being independent.
Thanks, would make some bad ass picturestushar_m wrote:External stores for now , captive trials were going on for sometime
To make a long story really short, based on what I am reading in open source (not the David Axe and Sweetman variety) there is a huge difference between the Russian technologies and that the US fields. And, it will take Russia at least 5-10 years to catch up to where the US is today (by which time the US will advance further).As for practicality, I dont think the Ruskie fighters will need mascara and lipstick applied to them for hours before and after flights and stay away from rain lest the facial foundation wash off. This is PRACTICAL and a lesson most other nations observing the raptor have watched and learnt. All that hangar maintenance of the queen ADDS to the cost of the plane. That needs to be considered as well as against just the initial procurement. The pak-fa wont have this.
My read is that the Russians seem to be making two mistakes:We would need to wait quite a bit even to get the basic T-50 cost with a full missions system and propulsion set up. What we have now are a few prototypes flying and there is a long road to getting each mission system ready, getting the airframe and the components produced at an industrial pace/setup and then the big work begins on integrating the mission system with the fighter and doing a full mission system and weapons testing.
