An Interesting Interview on the F-35

[Ben]

An interview with one of the designers of the F-16 regarding the F-35. Spoiler alert- he doesn't like it. :)

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-designer-of-the-f-16-explains-why-the-f-35-is-such-1591828468

[geronimotwo]

as I recall, not many cared for the f-16 when it came out.........

[Sergeant Bob]

as I recall, not many cared for the f-16 when it came out.........

However, the F-16 has proven itself over the years as a capable air to air fighter and as a ground attack aircraft. The utility of the F-35 remains to be seen.

[BobR]

P5M sailors hated the P2, the P2 guys hated the P3 and now the P3 guys really hate the P8. Time marches on.  Eventually the P8 guys will hate their replacement platform. 


bob

[230RN]

That business about the "stealthiness" bothers me.  

He's saying (at ~6:00 and following) that the low frequencies (<200MHz) of the radar used by the British in WWII will detect stealth aircraft and that the Russians are or were re-developing radar systems in that frequency range for this purpose.



Terry, 230RN

[HankB]

That business about the "stealthiness" bothers me.  

He's saying (at ~6:00 and following) that the low frequencies (<200MHz) of the radar used by the British in WWII will detect stealth aircraft and that the Russians are or were re-developing radar systems in that frequency range for this purpose.



Terry, 230RN

Will the low frequency radars localize stealth aircraft precisely enough to provide a good fire control solution or provide terminal guidance for a missile?

[AJ Dual]

However, the F-16 has proven itself over the years as a capable air to air fighter and as a ground attack aircraft. The utility of the F-35 remains to be seen.

The F35 has better payload, range, speed, and can go Mach for a longer distance. IIRC, the F16 only comes close in some of the performance envelope when it's unloaded with no external fuel. Plus there's a void in the fueselage and a turboshaft meant for the VTOL variants, which in the non-VTOL ones, could be used to power a tactical laser, giving the F35 nearly 360 degree ability to engage or blind targets no matter which direction it's travelling.

It's not so much if the F35 isn't "better", seems to me like it is by almost every measure except for cost, the price-performance ratio is so awful.

[BobR]

Will the low frequency radars localize stealth aircraft precisely enough to provide a good fire control solution or provide terminal guidance for a missile?

That's a good question, everything I found says probably not, for now. But then again, the literature usually lags real world, so at this point in time, that may be a toss up on whether or not the low frequency radars can localize to a firing solution. I did find quite a few articles on low frequency radar and stealth technology. Pretty interesting.

bob

[zahc]

Stealth technology and advanced radar is its own little arms race.  One where the  planes are doomed to fail, because the  development cost and cycle time is much shorter for radar than for airplanes.

[Sergeant Bob]

The F35 has better payload, range, speed, and can go Mach for a longer distance. IIRC, the F16 only comes close in some of the performance envelope when it's unloaded with no external fuel. Plus there's a void in the fueselage and a turboshaft meant for the VTOL variants, which in the non-VTOL ones, could be used to power a tactical laser, giving the F35 nearly 360 degree ability to engage or blind targets no matter which direction it's travelling.

It's not so much if the F35 isn't "better", seems to me like it is by almost every measure except for cost, the price-performance ratio is so awful.

Good points all.  Yeah, if it weren't for the P/P ratio, we'd all be flying F-22's.

[230RN]

  Re: An Interesting Interview on the F-35
« Reply #7  by BobR:

Quote from: HankB on Today at 08:12:17 AM
Will the low frequency radars localize stealth aircraft precisely enough to provide a good fire control solution or provide terminal guidance for a missile?

That's a good question, everything I found says probably not, for now. But then again, the literature usually lags real world, so at this point in time, that may be a toss up on whether or not the low frequency radars can localize to a firing solution. I did find quite a few articles on low frequency radar and stealth technology. Pretty interesting.

bob

That's what I was wondering about, but according to what I've read and seen "in the movies" on the Battle of Britain, at least it gave information on range and bearing for large metallic objects, which was at least enough to scramble the right defensive forces in the right direction.  But I don't really know enough about radar and a brief search does not yield specifics about the frequencies used except by code-letter designation and that it was probably below the 200 MHz I mentioned.  So that's why I wondered about the interviewee's "stealth being a scam" remarks.

The only thing I can think of that would favor low frequencies for stealth aircraft detection is the possibility that the longer waves would penetrate the coatings, and reflect off the gross metallic objects inside the plane, like the bombs and the engine and the like.  This might at least give the "range and direction" needed for a warning --as in the Battle of Britain --if not the precision information for gun-laying purposes.

BobR, please PM me some citations for  "I did find quite a few articles on low frequency radar and stealth technology. Pretty interesting."

I'll lay off that aspect of the F-35's merits/faults now for lack of better understanding of the stealth technology in terms of the interviewee's remarks.

Terry

[AJ Dual]

Generally speaking, the lower the frequency of the radar, the more clutter and static or whatever you'll get. Get much below 1Ghz, and it's almost unusable. And radars with a frequency that low starts to step on frequencies used for comms, and the actual size of the dish and emitters gets unwieldy.

As computing power advances, the ability to weed through the garbage returns in real-time will improve.

And with 1Ghz or lower, the targeting you get won't be accurate enough for missiles, although it might be good for saturation AAA, which is how the Serbs got that F117 of ours back in the 90's.

I'm going to guess that that current implementations of low freq. radar are to get a "blip" off of a stealth aircraft, and then target it directly in a narrow angle search with very powerful high frequency radar powered up high enough it overcomes the stealth qualities of the aircraft. And then I'm guessing our Wild Weasel guys would be sending back a bunch of anti-radiation missles along their beams.

Back and forth it goes.

[birdman]

bob

.

The only thing I can think of that would favor low frequencies for stealth aircraft detection is the possibility that the longer waves would penetrate the coatings, and reflect off the gross metallic objects inside the plane, like the bombs and the engine and the like.  This might at least give the "range and direction" needed for a warning --as in the Battle of Britain --if not the precision information for gun-laying purposes..
[/quote]

The longer wavelengths don't reflect off the stuff inside, that would be prevented by the RAM, they work because the whole plane itself becomes a scattering center when the wavelength is comparable to the aircraft (eg about 10m or 30Mhz) or other critical dimensions (eg other straight edges, so low frequency in this case is 30-300Mhz)

As for accuracy, well, I'm not commenting on that.

[KD5NRH]

That's what I was wondering about, but according to what I've read and seen "in the movies" on the Battle of Britain, at least it gave information on range and bearing for large metallic objects, which was at least enough to scramble the right defensive forces in the right direction.

But realistically, how critical is remote terminal guidance anymore?  Missiles are getting pretty good at being dispatched to the area and finding the target on their own now too, and there are a few usable ways to detect an aircraft that we haven't gotten too good at hiding from.

[birdman]

But realistically, how critical is remote terminal guidance anymore?  Missiles are getting pretty good at being dispatched to the area and finding the target on their own now too, and there are a few usable ways to detect an aircraft that we haven't gotten too good at hiding from.

You are correct, kinda, but the search capability is extremely limited, so you still need to know where to shoot.  Also, those terminal radars are invariably X-band or higher, meaning stealth works great.

[bedlamite]

The F35 has better payload, range, speed, and can go Mach for a longer distance. IIRC, the F16 only comes close in some of the performance envelope when it's unloaded with no external fuel. Plus there's a void in the fueselage and a turboshaft meant for the VTOL variants, which in the non-VTOL ones, could be used to power a tactical laser, giving the F35 nearly 360 degree ability to engage or blind targets no matter which direction it's travelling.

It's not so much if the F35 isn't "better", seems to me like it is by almost every measure except for cost, the price-performance ratio is so awful.

One item there is wrong, speed. The f-35 has a top speed of Mach 1.6 with a T/W ratio of .84, the F16 can reach Mach 2 with a T/W ratio of 1.09

[birdman]

One item there is wrong, speed. The f-35 has a top speed of Mach 1.6 with a T/W ratio of .84, the F16 can reach Mach 2 with a T/W ratio of 1.09

The F-16 can only reach that speed clean, which gives it a really small radius and no weapons.  The F-35 can reach 1.6 clean but that gives a 70% larger radius AND weapons.

Also, at max T/O their T/W's are identical at max AB, but at dry thrust, the F-35 wins.
For equal load outs (same radius, same weapon load) the F-35 has both a higher T/W and a higher speed.

[KD5NRH]

Also, those terminal radars are invariably X-band or higher, meaning stealth works great.

They are now, but if you're making a stealth-seeking guidance package, you'd want to think outside the box a bit.

[230RN]

^ Scanning lasers?  There's no reason a laser has to be focused into a narrow beam.  They just can be, which makes this their major role.

[dogmush]

^ Scanning lasers?  There's no reason a laser has to be focused into a narrow beam.

Stealth tends to be optically stealthy as well.  clear long distance returns I suspect would be problematic.

Some very fancy sonic or thermal scanner might work.  I know that the F-117 and B-2 took measures to cool their exhausts, but cool enough an AIM7 won't lock on doesn't necessarily mean undetectable.

[KD5NRH]

Stealth tends to be optically stealthy as well.

Seems to reflect enough light for the reporter's digital camera to work fine on it.

[dogmush]

Seems to reflect enough light for the reporter's digital camera to work fine on it.

In daylight, with no relative motion, from within 1/4 mile. 

None of those conditions tend to be met at the times you are trying to get tracking data for a weapon.

[Sergeant Bob]

Seems to reflect enough light for the reporter's digital camera to work fine on it.

I guess we should duct tape reporters to our missiles!

[onions!]

I guess we should duct tape reporters to our missiles!

Politicians then lawyers,and then the reporters.
Priorities!

[Sergeant Bob]

Politicians then lawyers,and then the reporters.
Priorities!