Your Nation's Air Force Mark II:

[San-Silvacian]

Also,

(Image)

best french aircraft evar.

needs more french tbh

94th Fighter Squadron doesn't have time to.

[Kassaran]

So, what does everyone think of the sudden revealing of the extent of Russian Radar Tech proving the F-22 and F-35 actually are plainly visible to Russian radar?

[Lyras]

So, what does everyone think of the sudden revealing of the extent of Russian Radar Tech proving the F-22 and F-35 actually are plainly visible to Russian radar?

Likely horsedung.

[Kassaran]

By Craig Skehan and Tom Allard
March 14, 2006
The Sydney Morning Herald

THE ability of Australia's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to evade detection and enemy attack has been substantially downgraded by the US Defence Department.

And a Liberal MP and former senior defence analyst, Dennis Jensen, warns that the fighters - at $15 billion the most expensive defence purchase in Australia's history - will be unable to maintain air combat dominance.

"Do we really want our pilots to be caught in a knife fight in a telephone booth with an aircraft that, aerodynamically, is incapable of mixing it with the threat?" he said in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry.

A crucial aspect of the fighter's "stealth capability" - radio frequency signatures - has been downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", according to the US Defence Department website.

Peter Goon, a former RAAF flight test engineer, said that would mean the difference between it appearing as a "marble and a beach ball" on enemy radar. The problem with the fighter, Dr Jensen says, is that it can be relatively easily detected from the rear.

A Federal Government source conceded yesterday that the stealth capability definitions had been changed, but maintained that the "design requirements" for the fighter to "avoid detection" had not.

Signs that the stealth capability had been lowered first emerged last year, when key performance indicators on the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter

website changed. The manufacturer of the aircraft, Lockheed Martin, insisted repeatedly to the Herald that the reported shift was an error. Australia's Defence Department also maintained there had been no change.

But those assurances have proven false. When the Herald contacted the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter program office in Washington, a spokeswoman said the latest table on its website was correct. "There is no reason to pull it from there," she said.

A Lockheed Martin spokesman said yesterday: "We will have to defer to our clients, the US Government, if that is their decision."

The downgrading in the stealth capability is only one issue that concerns Dr Jensen, who has a doctorate in applied physics and used to work at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation.

He said the Joint Strike Fighter could not match the Russian-built Sukhoi strike jets operated by air forces around the region in important respects.

It falls well short of the F-111 jet it is replacing in its long-range strike ability and would require air-to-air refuelling that would leave it and support aircraft vulnerable to enemy missiles and aircraft, he said.

He also said the fighter would almost certainly be more expensive than the Defence Department admits.

"[The Joint Strike] is essentially a second tier bomb truck. It lacks the necessary aerodynamics to defeat the [Sukhoi] Flankers, never mind future aircraft that may proliferate," he told the parliamentary inquiry into Australia's regional air superiority.

The Sukhoi family of Russian aircraft are, or will be, operated by most Asian air forces, including China, Indonesia, Malaysia and India.

It is understood Dr Jensen's concerns are shared by another Liberal MP, David Fawcett. Before he entered politics at the last election, Mr Fawcett was the commander of the Defence Force's flight test and evaluation centre.

Dr Jensen and Mr Fawcett raised their concerns with the Minister for Defence, Brendan Nelson, last month. Dr Jensen told the Herald yesterday he agonised before breaking with the discipline of the Howard Government to lodge his submission, but the issue was too important.

There's just one of the articles on the topic...

[Lyras]

By Craig Skehan and Tom Allard
March 14, 2006
The Sydney Morning Herald

THE ability of Australia's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to evade detection and enemy attack has been substantially downgraded by the US Defence Department.

And a Liberal MP and former senior defence analyst, Dennis Jensen, warns that the fighters - at $15 billion the most expensive defence purchase in Australia's history - will be unable to maintain air combat dominance.

"Do we really want our pilots to be caught in a knife fight in a telephone booth with an aircraft that, aerodynamically, is incapable of mixing it with the threat?" he said in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry.

A crucial aspect of the fighter's "stealth capability" - radio frequency signatures - has been downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", according to the US Defence Department website.

Peter Goon, a former RAAF flight test engineer, said that would mean the difference between it appearing as a "marble and a beach ball" on enemy radar. The problem with the fighter, Dr Jensen says, is that it can be relatively easily detected from the rear.

A Federal Government source conceded yesterday that the stealth capability definitions had been changed, but maintained that the "design requirements" for the fighter to "avoid detection" had not.

Signs that the stealth capability had been lowered first emerged last year, when key performance indicators on the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter

website changed. The manufacturer of the aircraft, Lockheed Martin, insisted repeatedly to the Herald that the reported shift was an error. Australia's Defence Department also maintained there had been no change.

But those assurances have proven false. When the Herald contacted the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter program office in Washington, a spokeswoman said the latest table on its website was correct. "There is no reason to pull it from there," she said.

A Lockheed Martin spokesman said yesterday: "We will have to defer to our clients, the US Government, if that is their decision."

The downgrading in the stealth capability is only one issue that concerns Dr Jensen, who has a doctorate in applied physics and used to work at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation.

He said the Joint Strike Fighter could not match the Russian-built Sukhoi strike jets operated by air forces around the region in important respects.

It falls well short of the F-111 jet it is replacing in its long-range strike ability and would require air-to-air refuelling that would leave it and support aircraft vulnerable to enemy missiles and aircraft, he said.

He also said the fighter would almost certainly be more expensive than the Defence Department admits.

"[The Joint Strike] is essentially a second tier bomb truck. It lacks the necessary aerodynamics to defeat the [Sukhoi] Flankers, never mind future aircraft that may proliferate," he told the parliamentary inquiry into Australia's regional air superiority.

The Sukhoi family of Russian aircraft are, or will be, operated by most Asian air forces, including China, Indonesia, Malaysia and India.

It is understood Dr Jensen's concerns are shared by another Liberal MP, David Fawcett. Before he entered politics at the last election, Mr Fawcett was the commander of the Defence Force's flight test and evaluation centre.

Dr Jensen and Mr Fawcett raised their concerns with the Minister for Defence, Brendan Nelson, last month. Dr Jensen told the Herald yesterday he agonised before breaking with the discipline of the Howard Government to lodge his submission, but the issue was too important.

There's just one of the articles on the topic...

Without going too far into it, it's a simplistic approach to an issue that every man and his dog has an opinion on, with a fair sprinkle of naysayers and anti-JSF know-nothings beating it up.

[Imperializt Russia]

By Craig Skehan and Tom Allard
March 14, 2006
The Sydney Morning Herald

THE ability of Australia's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to evade detection and enemy attack has been substantially downgraded by the US Defence Department.

And a Liberal MP and former senior defence analyst, Dennis Jensen, warns that the fighters - at $15 billion the most expensive defence purchase in Australia's history - will be unable to maintain air combat dominance.

"Do we really want our pilots to be caught in a knife fight in a telephone booth with an aircraft that, aerodynamically, is incapable of mixing it with the threat?" he said in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry.

A crucial aspect of the fighter's "stealth capability" - radio frequency signatures - has been downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", according to the US Defence Department website.

Peter Goon, a former RAAF flight test engineer, said that would mean the difference between it appearing as a "marble and a beach ball" on enemy radar. The problem with the fighter, Dr Jensen says, is that it can be relatively easily detected from the rear.

A Federal Government source conceded yesterday that the stealth capability definitions had been changed, but maintained that the "design requirements" for the fighter to "avoid detection" had not.

Signs that the stealth capability had been lowered first emerged last year, when key performance indicators on the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter

website changed. The manufacturer of the aircraft, Lockheed Martin, insisted repeatedly to the Herald that the reported shift was an error. Australia's Defence Department also maintained there had been no change.

But those assurances have proven false. When the Herald contacted the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter program office in Washington, a spokeswoman said the latest table on its website was correct. "There is no reason to pull it from there," she said.

A Lockheed Martin spokesman said yesterday: "We will have to defer to our clients, the US Government, if that is their decision."

The downgrading in the stealth capability is only one issue that concerns Dr Jensen, who has a doctorate in applied physics and used to work at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation.

He said the Joint Strike Fighter could not match the Russian-built Sukhoi strike jets operated by air forces around the region in important respects.

It falls well short of the F-111 jet it is replacing in its long-range strike ability and would require air-to-air refuelling that would leave it and support aircraft vulnerable to enemy missiles and aircraft, he said.

He also said the fighter would almost certainly be more expensive than the Defence Department admits.

"[The Joint Strike] is essentially a second tier bomb truck. It lacks the necessary aerodynamics to defeat the [Sukhoi] Flankers, never mind future aircraft that may proliferate," he told the parliamentary inquiry into Australia's regional air superiority.

The Sukhoi family of Russian aircraft are, or will be, operated by most Asian air forces, including China, Indonesia, Malaysia and India.

It is understood Dr Jensen's concerns are shared by another Liberal MP, David Fawcett. Before he entered politics at the last election, Mr Fawcett was the commander of the Defence Force's flight test and evaluation centre.

Dr Jensen and Mr Fawcett raised their concerns with the Minister for Defence, Brendan Nelson, last month. Dr Jensen told the Herald yesterday he agonised before breaking with the discipline of the Howard Government to lodge his submission, but the issue was too important.

There's just one of the articles on the topic...

Soundly ignores the point and capabilities of the F-35, and further the point of stealth capability.

[San-Silvacian]

So, what does everyone think of the sudden revealing of the extent of Russian Radar Tech proving the F-22 and F-35 actually are plainly visible to Russian radar?

Its pretty LOL.

By Craig Skehan and Tom Allard
March 14, 2006
The Sydney Morning Herald

THE ability of Australia's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to evade detection and enemy attack has been substantially downgraded by the US Defence Department.

And a Liberal MP and former senior defence analyst, Dennis Jensen, warns that the fighters - at $15 billion the most expensive defence purchase in Australia's history - will be unable to maintain air combat dominance.

"Do we really want our pilots to be caught in a knife fight in a telephone booth with an aircraft that, aerodynamically, is incapable of mixing it with the threat?" he said in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry.

A crucial aspect of the fighter's "stealth capability" - radio frequency signatures - has been downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", according to the US Defence Department website.

Peter Goon, a former RAAF flight test engineer, said that would mean the difference between it appearing as a "marble and a beach ball" on enemy radar. The problem with the fighter, Dr Jensen says, is that it can be relatively easily detected from the rear.

A Federal Government source conceded yesterday that the stealth capability definitions had been changed, but maintained that the "design requirements" for the fighter to "avoid detection" had not.

Signs that the stealth capability had been lowered first emerged last year, when key performance indicators on the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter

website changed. The manufacturer of the aircraft, Lockheed Martin, insisted repeatedly to the Herald that the reported shift was an error. Australia's Defence Department also maintained there had been no change.

But those assurances have proven false. When the Herald contacted the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter program office in Washington, a spokeswoman said the latest table on its website was correct. "There is no reason to pull it from there," she said.

A Lockheed Martin spokesman said yesterday: "We will have to defer to our clients, the US Government, if that is their decision."

The downgrading in the stealth capability is only one issue that concerns Dr Jensen, who has a doctorate in applied physics and used to work at the Defence Science and Technology Organisation.

He said the Joint Strike Fighter could not match the Russian-built Sukhoi strike jets operated by air forces around the region in important respects.

It falls well short of the F-111 jet it is replacing in its long-range strike ability and would require air-to-air refuelling that would leave it and support aircraft vulnerable to enemy missiles and aircraft, he said.

He also said the fighter would almost certainly be more expensive than the Defence Department admits.

"[The Joint Strike] is essentially a second tier bomb truck. It lacks the necessary aerodynamics to defeat the [Sukhoi] Flankers, never mind future aircraft that may proliferate," he told the parliamentary inquiry into Australia's regional air superiority.

The Sukhoi family of Russian aircraft are, or will be, operated by most Asian air forces, including China, Indonesia, Malaysia and India.

It is understood Dr Jensen's concerns are shared by another Liberal MP, David Fawcett. Before he entered politics at the last election, Mr Fawcett was the commander of the Defence Force's flight test and evaluation centre.

Dr Jensen and Mr Fawcett raised their concerns with the Minister for Defence, Brendan Nelson, last month. Dr Jensen told the Herald yesterday he agonised before breaking with the discipline of the Howard Government to lodge his submission, but the issue was too important.

There's just one of the articles on the topic...

A few points:

1. Its from 2006, meaning that JSF wasn't even fully conceptualized. So the designers made changes to a model that wasn't even in pre-production yet. Holy shit end of the world Russia wins everything fuck were fucked man America sucks.
2. The EW package makes up for ANY slack given in its RCS limiting design. When you can jam up the fuck out of the F-22As radar, you have a jet that can fuck some shit up. Easily, your average Russian radar isn't going to have any fun with the F-35s EW package.
3. Why are they on about the merge? This isn't 1940 people.
4. "[The Joint Strike] is essentially a second tier bomb truck. It lacks the necessary aerodynamics to defeat the [Sukhoi] Flankers, never mind future aircraft that may proliferate," he told the parliamentary inquiry into Australia's regional air superiority." k Australia you can design and build your own fighter aircraft from now on.

[New Vihenia]

So, what does everyone think of the sudden revealing of the extent of Russian Radar Tech proving the F-22 and F-35 actually are plainly visible to Russian radar?

Natural advancements. But that doesn't mean era of low RCS vehicle is over.

The Russians worked on such "Counter Stealth" means for decades.. It's only natural if they were able to come up with something. Their VHF Radar technology are credible. What remains to see is how they deal with clutter and multipath problem in VHF band or higher. The metrics for this is so called "Improvement Factor" Or "MTI improvement factor" or "Clutter Attenuation" High value indicating good resistance toward clutter.


Another conquest for Low RCS vehicle is material.. Since shaping is impractical for long wave radar, material is the "New world" For Low RCS..Conventional ferrite based RAM are impractical due to mass. Alternate material such as carbon nanotubes and recently emerging meta-material have its potential Though they're unproven at best So far no figure cites comparison between those new mats with already existing materials.

RAM have metrics too called as "Attenuation coefficient" determined by Permeability and Permittivity, in both imaginary and real part of the material. The higher the better, standard chart to determine what property needed for RAM exist But that does not indicate the material with such property does exist.

Unfortunately many ppl with cold war mentality unable to grasp the stuff... Instead forming two factions.. One is over enthusiastically embrace the revelation, while another faction is the opposite with disgusting sarcasm turned down the revelations without looking further.

I spit on both factions.. They sick, abomination, disgusting, deserved to be stoned to death

[Triplebaconation]

I spit on both factions.. They sick, abomination, disgusting, deserved to be stoned to death

Sounds like you need a girlfriend.

F-35 blows, end of story. Capability doesn't have anything to do with it.

[Organized States]

So, tankers. What do you think would be better for me the KC-46 or A330 MRTT?

I spit on both factions.. They sick, abomination, disgusting, deserved to be stoned to death

Sounds like you need a girlfriend.

F-35 blows, end of story. Capability doesn't have anything to do with it.

How can it "blow" if it hasn't seen combat?

[Triplebaconation]

Read the second sentence.

[Pharthan]

Working on a multirole cargo-plane. It takes a heavy lesson from the C-130 but could use some vetting. .

[Imperializt Russia]

Twin-engine or four?

[Crookfur]

So, tankers. What do you think would be better for me the KC-46 or A330 MRTT?

A330 MRTT all the way.

[New Vihenia]

Sounds like you need a girlfriend.

Maybe.

One sick sight whenever i read news or browse forum.. is there always two factions for that kind of news.. One was overenthusiastic... Russian can do this..ther radar can do that... Failing to take account some or lots of stuff... Another factions are the opposite.. Saying cold war relic..etc..

When both factions meet.. Shittileries and Bitchshelling take place..a really disgusting sight.

Working on a multirole cargo-plane. It takes a heavy lesson from the C-130 but could use some vetting. .

(Image)

Stealth unmanned hercules ?

[Pharthan]

Twin-engine or four?

Four.

Working on a multirole cargo-plane. It takes a heavy lesson from the C-130 but could use some vetting. .

(Image)

Stealth unmanned hercules ?

It's meant to be stealthier than the Herc, but obviously it's not going to excel at stealth. It's more for looks and the body is meant to be a bit more lift-producing. If it lowers it's RCS a bit, great.
It'll be manned. Like I said, it's a work in progress. Haven't drawn the cockpit yet.

[Oaledonia]

Twin-engine or four?

Four.

Stealth unmanned hercules ?

It's meant to be stealthier than the Herc, but obviously it's not going to excel at stealth. It's more for looks and the body is meant to be a bit more lift-producing. If it lowers it's RCS a bit, great.
It'll be manned. Like I said, it's a work in progress. Haven't drawn the cockpit yet.

That nickname made me cringe.

[Organized States]

Read the second sentence.

The Capability is great on the F-35, it can go farther and around the same speed as the F-16 with a full combat load.

[NewLakotah]

I spit on both factions.. They sick, abomination, disgusting, deserved to be stoned to death

Sounds like you need a girlfriend.

F-35 blows, end of story. Capability doesn't have anything to do with it.

Dat logic....

[Anemos Major]

Read the second sentence.

The Capability is great on the F-35, it can go farther and around the same speed as the F-16 with a full combat load.

The Fighter Mafia would weep to read this.

Or anybody in the GAO, for that matter.

[Kampala-]

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/653 ... ngalla.png

owns f35

[Purpelia]

Does anyone know a quick and dirty way I could compare with a reasonable degree of accuracy jet and propeller engines. Basically I want some way to say: Jet engine X is comparable to propeller engine Y in terms of driving the same aircraft. And if you swap them out the aircraft would work just the same.

The data would be for rough comparison purposes only.

[Triplebaconation]

The Capability is great on the F-35, it can go farther and around the same speed as the F-16 with a full combat load.

The Fighter Mafia would weep to read this.

Or anybody in the GAO, for that matter.

The ultimate goal of a fighter (or any other weapons system) is to further national interests.

Even if the F-35 performs as advertised the few hundred that will realistically be built will gut...I was going to say the USAF but it's really every Western air force that buys into it.

[Purpelia]

Motorjet engines on a 50's era Gyrodyne helicopter. Possibly attack helicopter.

Yes? No? Why?

[Anemos Major]

The ultimate goal of a fighter (or any other weapons system) is to further national interests.

Even if the F-35 performs as advertised the few hundred that will realistically be built will gut...I was going to say the USAF but it's really every Western air force that buys into it.

You say that as though 'national interests' correspond with optimised, cost-efficient defence capabilities in the minds of lawmakers. Welcome to the neoliberal policymaking environment, I suppose.