What is up with the F-35? Part II

[citanon]

F-35's stealth and the use of it is meant for first day strikes and to kick the door down, i.e., knock out radar coverages.

Absolutely. But when are the Marines going to be tasked for that mission?

Jimmy, how do you know the Marines didn't ask themselves the same question, and then thought: Damn we've got to get that F-35!!!

[Jimmy]

^ If they did, and it comes to light, then I'll blame them for the whole fiasco. It's an asinine idea.

Than you should know Swerling Models (all 4 of them) and how RCS fluctuates.

Now you're just trying to show off and I'm not sure why. Anyway, I don't have mathematical data on any of the aircraft in question and if I did I certainly wouldn't post it in here.

[rundown]

Now you're just trying to show off and I'm not sure why. Anyway, I don't have mathematical data on any of the aircraft in question and if I did I certainly wouldn't post it in here.

In red: to show off what?? I pointed out--I have very little understanding of design practices of aircraft, I expressed a narrow opinions on a specific operational issues of a specific aircraft--STOVL F-35B. I also pointed out some specific technical issue related to RCS, which translates into the tactical advantage. I got offered "insights" on a basics of "radar" by GGTharos--explanation which simply does not do, especially in the issues of comparison. I will reiterate issue again step by step, from the beginning:

1. F-35B is a full blown "stealth" aircraft: that makes it, even with the payload at external points, less "visible" for radar than conventional aircraft with the same payload. That translates into the "shortening" of the detection range. How large is this "shortening"--I don't know but it does exist.
2. Esteemed GGtharos offered his version of "mathematics" behind RCS and offered not to deal with formulas--I am sorry, but, although the target's RCS is estimated empirically and the RCS diagrams are created as such for different wave lengths (lambda) for a particular type of aircraft (or even ship), to state that behavior of RCS depending on aspect can not be predicted or analyzed--I am sorry, but that is not exactly the case. Reduction of radar signatures (as well as any other physical fields) has a solid mathematical apparatus behind it and detection ranges can certainly be calculated for a varied scenarios and that is not merely technical--it becomes a tactical parameter. In fact, the methodology for calculating lower case sigma (RCS) is explained in any radar course (textbook), so is the basic radar equation and so is the equation of the range. If there is interest where I get my data "for showing off", try excellent Air and Spaceborne Radar Systems: An Introduction. Philippe Lacomme, Jean-Philippe Hardange, Jean-Claude Marchais, Eric Normant.
3. As for the years of experience, which I mentioned. Those years tell number of simple things: apart from vast variety of issues such as attenuation due to a truck load of factors, refraction etc., smaller targets are detected closer, same goes for the "stealth" targets (Duh moment--I am Captain Obvious). And yes, aspect matters and with its fluctuation (maneuvering) detection range fluctuates. It also fluctuates with a bunch of other things. Signal processing algorithms (the mathematics, such as Furier Transformations as an example) also matters.

4. As for "showing off". I mentioned four Swerling models, which describe four models of typical targets, including formulas (here I go again) for their probability density functions (PDF).

As for mathematical data--in case of the machines such as F-35 or PAK FA this data constitutes highest level of state secret and it is better not to venture there on the open public forum or beyond it. Now allow me to politely bow out of this discussion, lest I "show off" again. I have no business in aviation thread anyway--not my forte.

[Jimmy]

The RCS of the aircraft is one piece of a larger picture, when we're also talking about external stores, until a viable low-observable external carriage or series of weapons is developed. My complaints on the viability of the F-35B are limited to the USMC only. I can very much understand why other countries with carriers would be interested. I can also understand why the USMC jumped onboard...they didn't have a choice, it was this or continue flying the Harrier for another 25+ years. But that doesn't make it the right plane for their mission.

Edit: Used the wrong word.

[Gun Grape]

Jimmy, how do you know the Marines didn't ask themselves the same question, and then thought: Damn we've got to get that F-35!!!

The Marines were told "Get your Ass on board cause this is the only game in town."

[chanjyj]

The Marines were told "Get your Ass on board cause this is the only game in town."

Gunny, hypothetically if they did not purchase any F35s do you think there would be a B option? I don't see anything viable.

That said, I don't fully understand the mentally of being "self-sufficient". You end up diverting funds all over the place and not really accomplishing anything. Wouldn't it be better to let the USN fly overhead in support while they build up the attack helos?

[Jimmy]

This is the same service that refused to allow anyone else to copy their (more effective) new camouflage out of a sense of pride, despite the possibility that it could have saved lives.

[TopHatter]

As for mathematical data--in case of the machines such as F-35 or PAK FA this data constitutes highest level of state secret and it is better not to venture there on the open public forum or beyond it. Now allow me to politely bow out of this discussion, lest I "show off" again. I have no business in aviation thread anyway--not my forte.

It's mostly your massive smugness that is irritating the hell out of people. Take it for what it's worth.

[Chogy]

I believe we're losing track of the current focus, which is the suitability of the F-35 STOVL variant for the USMC.

If hanging a couple of bombs on it makes it unsuitable for combat, then who in the hell are we going to be fighting? The Klingons? Cylons?

Yes, cross section changes, increases. So what? Are we afraid to fly aircraft that have a radar return now? Better ground everything except the F-22 and B-2. Even if the F-35 has the cross section of an F-16, it is still a superior aircraft, and necessary to replace an aging fleet.

[USSWisconsin]

The F35 plans have something else going for them, they are intended to be built in large numbers, that is a problem with the F22 and B2, there aren't enough of them. If they build 1000+ F35's, they will have an aircraft that can be used without hesitation.

[Gun Grape]

This is the same service that refused to allow anyone else to copy their (more effective) new camouflage out of a sense of pride, despite the possibility that it could have saved lives.

And that was something that DoD should have "B*&ch slapped them for.

I had no problem, during peacetime, with the reason we designed our own camo pattern. Not a problem when we had it copyrighted. But once bullets started flying, and our pattern was the best one out there, then we had an obligation to pass it on.

Not a good day for the Marine Corps.

[Jimmy]

I believe we're losing track of the current focus, which is the suitability of the F-35 STOVL variant for the USMC.

If hanging a couple of bombs on it makes it unsuitable for combat, then who in the hell are we going to be fighting? The Klingons? Cylons?

Yes, cross section changes, increases. So what? Are we afraid to fly aircraft that have a radar return now? Better ground everything except the F-22 and B-2. Even if the F-35 has the cross section of an F-16, it is still a superior aircraft, and necessary to replace an aging fleet.

So why are we spending $150M per copy for an airplane that can't take advantage of it's #1 priority capability?

I don't really begrudge the F-35 in general, although I think we should've bought more F-22s, fewer F-35As, and maintained a larger fleet of F-16s for bomb trucks. The F-35C I agree with. The F-35B shouldn't wear US roundels at all.

Can it get the CAS job done? Absolutely, although I still think a medium-high altitude multirole fighter is a poor replacement for a mission-specific platform. I think the Marines could have gotten a better-suited aircraft for less money. We're buying F-16s for the price of F-22s and using them as A-10s.

[Gun Grape]

Gunny, hypothetically if they did not purchase any F35s do you think there would be a B option? I don't see anything viable.

Boeing was pitching an improved design AV-8. And I think there was another proposal from a European company. But those were just "feelers" before the big "Jointness" monster hit in the mid 1990s.

That said, I don't fully understand the mentally of being "self-sufficient". You end up diverting funds all over the place and not really accomplishing anything. Wouldn't it be better to let the USN fly overhead in support while they build up the attack helos?

Anyone that thinks that the Corps is going to do a big op alone suffers from wishful thinking. But there are plenty of smaller missions that the Corps gets tasked with that requires a their own air support.
But it doesn't require, super stealthy planes either.

As Jimmie said, We would love to have a A-1 that could fly off a LHD.

[USSWisconsin]

Boeing was pitching an improved design AV-8. And I think there was another proposal from a European company. But those were just "feelers" before the big "Jointness" monster hit in the mid 1990s.


Anyone that thinks that the Corps is going to do a big op alone suffers from wishful thinking. But there are plenty of smaller missions that the Corps gets tasked with that requires a their own air support.
But it doesn't require, super stealthy planes either.

As Jimmie said, We would love to have a A-1 that could fly off a LHD.

This "jointness" thing stinks, it reminds me of another meaning for "joint" - what are they smoking? I could probably use it to control my cancer pain.

I couldn't agree more - what appears to be needed is a CAS aircraft, intended specifically for this role and optimized specifically or it - not a limited availability (due to its massive cost) jack of all trades - master of none - which appears to be what we're getting into. Using F35's for first strikes against advanced AD makes sense and its Air to Air capability is warranted in this role. Once the enemy's effective AD is suppressed, a more observable platform with large weapons capacity and economy of operation would probably be more suited to the mission. In most CAS missions flown today, the enemy AD threat level is relatively trivial and doesn't require a hyper expensive gen V solution at the cost of not having a large payload or enough operational aircraft in the inventory.

[chanjyj]

This "jointness" thing stinks, it reminds me of another meaning for "joint" - what are they smoking? I could probably use it to control my cancer pain.

I couldn't agree more - what appears to be needed is a CAS aircraft, intended specifically for this role and optimized specifically or it - not a limited availability (due to its massive cost) jack of all trades - master of none - which appears to be what we're getting into. Using F35's for first strikes against advanced AD makes sense and its Air to Air capability is warranted in this role. Once the enemy's effective AD is suppressed, a more observable platform with large weapons capacity and economy of operation would probably be more suited to the mission. In most CAS missions flown today, the enemy AD threat level is relatively trivial and doesn't require a hyper expensive gen V solution at the cost of not having a large payload or enough operational aircraft in the inventory.

I wouldn't totally agree with you. I am a proponent of joint acquisitions. I did a stint in logistics, though not for major equipment purchases. My area of scope was for the ground logistics of an airbase (which covered everything from vehicle engines to A4 paper, less the weapons and ammunition which was handled by a separate command).

In many of my purchases when I called for a tender I would consider the implications - because being the Air Force, we tend to buy more than we use. What extra we had, I would endeavour to transfer it to the nearby naval base at no charge. Before integration of the 3 services we also had separate stock numbers. The Air Force had its own, the Navy its own, you got the gist. This highly complicated things (aka 3 numbers for the same thing?). When they started to merge everything and use NSNs, things got a lot easier. And when electronic warehousing came along, logisticians celebrated (of course, making a big hoo-hah with grumbles first)

Bottom line is if there is co-operation between services, life is much easier. I am a supporter of centralised procurement if done properly. The US seems to be getting big on centralised procurement on paper aka "jointness" but their implementation is terrible. They need to understand that different services have different needs, then work from there. They have instead taken a reverse approach, getting a common platform and then trying to modify it.

In addition, service rivalries are getting to the point of ridiculousness (I'm not referring specifically to the F35 here). This is exacerbated by the way funding is allocated. It is my personal opinion that they are being forced to "show their hand" and this leads to compromises in ways we do not want to see. I do not know if the politicians are to blame or the military arms are to blame. It seems a mixture of both.

Regarding Jimmy's post on MARPAT, I do not even agree with Gunny. From my understanding Gunny is saying that they should have copyrighted the uniform, and distributed it only when needed. Negative. It wouldn't have worked that way. The complexities of the US Military would ensure it took 5 years to see the uniform finally working its way around to the ground soldiers. But I'll refrain from derailing this topic further.