- every single defense analyst knows that comprimises had to be made in order to achieve a blend of cost effectiveness, stealth, agility, etc... in the F-22 and F-35. What's also clear is that once things get up close and personal things mightn't be as clear cut as we're being told. I was of the impression that the F-22 would basically outdo anything and everything in the sky all of the time. It's clear that based on training excercises that unless the F-22's have been backing off it may not be as phenomenal as we're being led to believe (some speculation says that it's kinematically similar to an upgraded F-15 (not certain how true this is though). One possible reason to deliberately back off is to not provide intelligence on max performance envelope to provide less of a target for near peer threats with regards to research and engineering). There are actually a lot of low speed manouvres that I've seen a late model 3D-vectored Sukhoi perform that a 2D-vectored F-22 has not demonstrated. The F-35 is dead on arrival in many areas (at the moment. Definitely from a WVR perspective) as many people have stated. My hope and expectation is that it will have significant upgrades throughout it's lifetime
F22 vs Rafale dogfight video
Dogfight: Rafale vs F22 (Close combat)
F-22 RAPTOR vs F-15 EAGLE
- in the past public information/intelligence regarding some defense programs/equipment have been limited to reduce the chances of a setting off arms race. That way the side who has disemminated the mis-information can be guaranteed an advantage should there be a conflict. Here's the problem though, while some of this may be such, I doubt that all of it is. My expectation that due to some of the intelligence leaks (many terabytes. Some details of the breach are available publicly) regarding designs of the ATF (F-22) and JSF (F-35) programs is also causing some problems as well. They need to overcome technical problems as well as problems posed by previous intelligence leaks. Some of what is being said makes no sense as well. Most of what we're being sold on doesn't actually work (yet) (fusion, radar, passive sensors, identification friend-or-foe, etc...)...
- if production is really as problematic as they say that it could be without possible recourse then the only thing left is to bluff. Deterrence is based on the notion that your opponent will not attack because you have a qualitative or quantitative advantage... Obviously, the problem if there is actual conflict we have a huge problem. We purportedly want to be able to defend ourselves should anything potentially bad occur. The irony is that our notion of self defense often incorporates force projection in far off, distant lands...
F22 Raptor Exposed - Why the F22 Was Cancelled
F-35 - a trillion dollar disaster
4/6 F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER IS A LEMON
JSF 35 vs F18 superhornet
- we keep on giving Lockheed Martin a tough time regarding development and implementation but we keep on forgetting that they have delivered many successful platforms including the U-2, the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird, the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, and the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
f-22 raptor crash landing
- SIGINT/COMINT often produces a lot of a false positives. Imagine listening to every single conversation that you overheard every single conversation about you. Would you possibly be concerned about your security? Probably more than usual despite whatever you might say? As I said previously in posts on this blog it doesn't makes sense that we would have such money invested in SIGINT/COMINT without a return on investment. I believe that we may be involved in far more 'economic intelligence' then we may be led to believe
- despite what is said about the US (and what they say about themselves), they do tell half-truths/falsehoods. They said that the Patriot missile defense systems were a complete success upon release with ~80% success rates when first released. Subsequent revisions of past performance have indicated actual success rate of about half that. It has been said that the US has enjoyed substantive qualitative and quantitative advantages over Soviet/Russian aircraft for a long time. Recently released data seems to indicate that it is closer to parity (not 100% sure about the validity of this data) when pilots are properly trained. There seems to be indications that Russian pilots may have been involved in conflicts where they shouldn't have been or were unknown to be involved...
- the irony between the Russians and US is that they both deny that their technology is worth pursuing and yet time seems to indicate otherwise. A long time ago Russian scientists didn't bother with stealth because they though it was overly expensive without enough of a gain (especially in light of updated sensor technology) and yet the PAK-FA/T50 is clearly a test bed for such technology. Previously, the US denied that that thrust vectoring was worth pursuing and yet the the F-22 clearly makes use of it
- based on some estimates that I've seen the F-22 may be capable of close to Mach 3 (~2.5 based on some of the estimates that I've seen) under limited circumstances
- people keep on saying maintaining a larger, indigenous defense program is simply too expensive. I say otherwise. Based on what has been leaked regarding the bidding process many people basically signed on without necessarily knowing everything about the JSF program. If we had more knowledge we may have proceeded a little bit differently
- a lot of people who would/should have classified knowledge of the program are basically implying that it will work and will give us a massive advantage give more development time. The problem is that there is so much core functionality that is so problematic that this is difficult to believe...
- the fact that pilots are being briefed not to allow for particular circumstances tells us that there are genuine problems with the JSF
- judging by the opinions in the US military many people are guarded regarding the future performance of the aircraft. We just don't know until it's deployed and see how others react from a technological perspective
- proponents of the ATF/JSF programs keep on saying that since you can't see it you can't shoot. If that's the case, I just don't understand why we don't push up development of 5.5/6th gen fighters (stealth drones basically) and run a hybrid force composed of ATF, JSF, and armed drones (some countries including France are already doing this)? Drones are somewhat of a better known quantity and without life support issues to worry about should be able to go head to head with any manned fighter even with limited AI and computing power. Look at the following videos and you'll notice that the pilot is right on the physical limit in a 4.5 gen fighter during an excercise with an F-22. A lot of stories are floating around indicating that the F-22 enjoys a big advantage but that under certain circumstance it can be mitigated. Imagine going up against a drone where you don't have to worry about the pilot blacking out, pilot training (incredibly expensive to train. Experience has also told us that pilots need genuine flight time not just simulation time to maintain their skills), a possible hybrid propulsion system (for momentary speed changes/bursts (more than that provided by afterburner systems) to avoid being hit by a weapon or being acquired by a targeting system), and has more space for weapons and sensors? I just don't understand how you would be better off with a mostly manned fleet as opposed to a hybrid fleet unless there are technological/technical issues to worry about (I find this highly unlikely given some of the prototypes and deployments that are already out there)
F22 vs Rafale dogfight video
Dogfight: Rafale vs F22 (Close combat)
F-22 RAPTOR vs F-15 EAGLE
- if I were a near peer aggressor or looking to defend against 5th gen threats I'd just to straight to 5.5/6th gen armed drone fighter development. You wouldn't need to fulfil all the requirements and with the additional lead time you may be able to achieve not just parity but actual advantages while possibly being cheaper with regards to TCO (Total Cost of Ownership). There are added benefits going straight to 5.5/6th gen armed drone development. You don't have to compromise so much on design. The bubble shaped (or not) canopy to aide dogfighting affects aerodynamic efficiency and actually is one of the main causes of increased RCS (Radar Cross Section) on a modern fighter jet. The pilot and additional equipment (ejector sear, user interface equipment, life support systems, etc...) would surely add a large amount of weight which can now be removed. With the loss in weight and increase in aerodynamic design flexibility you could save a huge amount of money. You also have a lot more flexibility in reducing RCS. For instance, some of the biggest reflectors of RADAR signals is the canopy (a film is used to deal with this) and the pilot's helmet and one of the biggest supposed selling points of stealth aircraft are RAM coatings. They're incredibly expensive though and wear out (look up the history of the B-2 Spirit and the F-22 Raptor). If you have a smaller aicraft to begin with though you have less area to paint leading to lower costs of ownership while retaining the advantages of low observable technology
- the fact that it has already been speculated that 6th gen fighters may focus less on stealth and speed and more on weapons capability means that the US is aware of increasingly effective defense systems against 5th gen fighters such as the F-22 Raptor and F-35 JSF which rely heavily on low observability
- based on Wikileaks and other OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) everyone involved with the United States seems to acknowledge that they get a raw end of the deal to a certain extent but they also seem to acknowledge/imply that life is easier with them than without them. Read enough and you'll realise that even when classified as a closer partner rather than just a purchaser of their equipment you sometimes don't/won't receive much extra help
- if we had the ability I'd be looking to develop our own indigineous program defense programs. At least when we make procurements we'd be in a better position to be able to make a decision as to whether what was being presented to us was good or bad. We've been burnt on so many different programs with so many different countries... The only issue that I may see is that the US may attempt to block us from this. It has happened in the past with other supposed allies before...
- I just don't get it sometimes. Most of the operations and deployments that US and allied countries engage in are counter-insurgency and CAS significant parts of our operations involving mostly un-manned drones (armed or not). 5th gen fighters help but they're overkill. Based on some of what I've seen the only two genuine near peer threats are China and Russia both of whom have known limitations in their hardware (RAM coatings/films, engine performance/endurance, materials design and manufacturing, etc...). Sometimes it feels as though the US looks for enemies that mightn't even exist. Even a former Australian Prime-Ministerial advister said that China doesn't want to lead the world, "China will get in the way or get out of the way." The only thing I can possibly think of is that the US has intelligence that may suggest that China intends to project force further outwards (which it has done) or else they're overly paranoid. Russia is a slightly different story though... I'm guessing it would be interesting reading up more about how the US (overall) interprets Russian and Chinese actions behinds the scenes (lookup training manuals for allied intelligence officers for an idea of what our interpretation of what their intelligence services are like)
- sometimes people say that the F-111 was a great plane but in reality there was no great use of it in combat. It could be the exact same circumstance with the F-35
- there could be a chance the aircraft could become like the B-2 and the F-22. Seldom used because the actual true, cost of running it is horribly high. Also imagine the ramifications/blowback of losing such an expensive piece of machinery should there be a chance that it can be avoided
- defending against 5th gen fighters isn't easy but it isn't impossible. Sensor upgrades, sensor blinding/jamming technology, integrated networks, artificial manipulation of weather (increased condensation levels increases RCS), faster and more effective weapons, layered defense (with strategic use of disposable (and non-disposable) decoys so that you can hunt down departing basically, unarmed fighters), experimentation with cloud seeing with substances that may help to speed up RAM coating removal or else reduce the effectiveness of stealth technology (the less you have to deal with the easier your battles will be), forcing the battle into unfavourable conditions, etc... Interestingly, there have been some accounts/leaks of being able to detect US stealth bombers (B-1) lifting off from some US air bases from Australia using long range RADAR. Obviously, it's one thing to be able to detect and track versus achieving a weapons quality lock on a possible target
RUSSIAN RADAR CAN NOW SEE F-22 AND F-35 Says top US Aircraft designer
- following are rough estimate on RCS of various modern defense aircraft. It's clear that while Chinese and Russian technology aren't entirely on par they make the contest unconfortably close. Estimates on the PAK-FA/T-50 indicate RCS of about somewhere between the F-35 and F-22. Ultiamtely this comes back down to a sensor game. Rough estimates seem to indicate a slight edge to the F-22 in most areas. Part me thinks that the RCS of the PAK-FA/T-50 must be propoganda, the other part leads me to believe that there is no way countries would consider purchase of the aircraft if it didn't offer a competitive RCS
- it's somehwat bemusing that that you can't take pictures/videos from certain angles of the JSF in some of the videos mentioned here and yet there are heaps of pictures online of LOAN systems online including high resolution images of the back end of the F-35 and F-22
- people keep on saying that if you can't see and you can't lock on to stealth aircraft they'll basically be gone by the time. The converse is true. Without some form of targeting system the fighter in question can't lock on to his target. Once you understand how AESA RADAR works you also understand that given sufficient computing power, good implementation skills, etc... it's also subject to the same issue that faces the other side. You shoot what you can't see and by targeting you give away your position. My guess is that detection of tracking by RADAR is somewhat similar to a lot of de-cluttering/de-noising algorithms (while making use of wireless communication/encryption & information theories as well) but much more complex... which is why there has been such heavy investment and interest in more passive systems (infra-red, light, sound, etc...)
F-35 JSF Distributed Aperture System (EO DAS)
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II- The Joint Strike Fighter- Full Documentary.
4195: The Final F-22 Raptor
Rafale beats F 35 & F 22 in Flight International
Eurofighter Typhoon fighter jet Full Documentary
Eurofighter Typhoon vs Dassault Rafale
DOCUMENTARY - SUKHOI Fighter Jet Aircrafts Family History - From Su-27 to PAK FA 50
Green Lantern : F35 v/s UCAVs