I have always wondered why the USAF has been flying F-22s and F-35s on Russia's periphery, including their use in Syria. Now even the journalists at the Business insider have picked up on the same idea.
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-f-22- ... ia-2017-12

How nice of our air force to give the Russian radar operators actual USAF stealth fighters to practice on. Now they've even allowed the Ruskies to practice with their SU-25 airborne radars. And to top it all off, they have been playing bumper tag down low with SU-24s which will eventually leave pieces of an F-22 scattered all over the Syrian desert so that the Ruskies can get a better analysis of the stealth coating.

Note: this is the same airforce that "won" both the Iraq and Vietnam wars and is on an extended outing in Afghanistan.
The spirit of Curtis LeMay lives on.

salttee wrote:

How nice of our air force to give the Russian radar operators actual USAF stealth fighters to practice on.

The F-35 hasn't deployed to Syria yet but the F-22 has been there a number of times. As for the Russians detecting it, we don't know how the USAF are running ops over there and whether they have equipped the F-22 for full stealth. The F-22, and the F-35, can be fitted with a Lundberg lens that amplifies its RCS significantly denying an accurate RCS measurement.

salttee wrote:

Now they've even allowed the Ruskies to practice with their SU-25 airborne radars.

Relax, the radar on the Su-25 is a very basic unit, even the upgraded model. Given its limited A2A range I doubt it can even detect an F-22 within a couple of miles.

salttee wrote:

And to top it all off, they have been playing bumper tag down low with SU-24s which will eventually leave pieces of an F-22 scattered all over the Syrian desert so that the Ruskies can get a better analysis of the stealth coating.

I'm not aware of any collisions that have occurred. Several close intercepts but nothing beyond that.

The other side of the equation is exposure of the F-22 in that operational area may allow the USAF to collect intelligence on how well the Russian surface and airborne radars are at detecting the F-22.

I meant to say Now they've even allowed the Ruskies to practice with their SU-35 airborne radars.
You may have a point, if they have reflective devices mounted they may not be giving up their complete radar signature. But they can't be reflecting from all possible directions. They're still giving up more than I would want to give them. I see no need to put them under a magnifying glass for the Russians.

salttee wrote:

How nice of our air force to give the Russian radar operators actual USAF stealth fighters to practice on.

works both ways.

F-22 is save from S-400 for political reasons.

Note: this is the same airforce that "won" both the Iraq and Vietnam wars and is on an extended outing in Afghanistan.
The spirit of Curtis LeMay lives on.

US Air Force won nothing. They (senselessly) razed a couple of countries and did not achieve their objective.
i.e. actually win against the VietKong. Quite the contrary. Same in Korea or Afghanistan.

salttee wrote:

I meant to say Now they've even allowed the Ruskies to practice with their SU-35 airborne radars.
You may have a point, if they have reflective devices mounted they may not be giving up their complete radar signature. But they can't be reflecting from all possible directions. They're still giving up more than I would want to give them. I see no need to put them under a magnifying glass for the Russians.

I think the USAF would absolutely LOVE if an SU-35 lit up its radar in just about any mode. I doubt either side is tipping its hand much.

Forgive my ignorance if it is so, but my assumption is that pulses from the modern synthetic aperture radars don't give up much useful information once you already know where they are coming from. They have variable PRF and frequency, and we would already know about how much power they're putting out.

The operation of their receivers and processors would be helpful, but you can't glean any information about that from the output pulse analysis.

salttee wrote:

I meant to say Now they've even allowed the Ruskies to practice with their SU-35 airborne radars.
You may have a point, if they have reflective devices mounted they may not be giving up their complete radar signature. But they can't be reflecting from all possible directions. They're still giving up more than I would want to give them. I see no need to put them under a magnifying glass for the Russians.

Ha, fair enough. It did seem rather odd to worry about the Su-25. As already stated, I am sure the USAF has weighed the risks and is confident they know what they are doing.

Aren't F-22s stationed in Alaska anyway? They must have been scrambled to meet Russian flights multiple times?

The F22 is overkill unless things go way South and then you’ll need it to fly wi range of S400 systems.

That's how I see it too. In Syria the F-22 abandons it's two greatest strengths, its stealth and its BVR capability. And if things "went south" the SU-35s would have an advantage in that they could get their missiles off faster because they are hanging under the wings in the airstream already.

salttee wrote:

That's how I see it too. In Syria the F-22 abandons it's two greatest strengths, its stealth and its BVR capability. And if things "went south" the SU-35s would have an advantage in that they could get their missiles off faster because they are hanging under the wings in the airstream already.

You're making some assessments there that aren't supported by facts. We don't know if the F-22s are flying in a stealth configuration or not and there simply isn't any evidence to suggest either way. As for BVR capability, the F-22 would enjoy a radar advantage over the Su-35 as well as a BVR weapon superiority given the AIM-120C7 is probably longer ranged than similar Russian weapons.

For the weapon separate issue, I can't see any advantage to having pylon mounted missiles over internal carriage. The drag and stealth considerations alone make it worthwhile. For the time is takes to launch a weapon,

The entire launch sequence (door opening, AVEL ejecting the missile, missile ignition and flyout, door closing) takes just seconds.

http://www.hydraulicspneumatics.com/aerospace/hydraulics-efficiently-operate-weapon-bay-doors-f-22-raptor

If you look at this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-EHOXqTo-E of an F-22 launching an AIM-120 at supersonic speed the sequence to launch the weapon and close the door is short, perhaps 2-3 seconds. Add another second to open the door. That timeframe is inconsequential in the grand scheme of a long range intercept, especially given the Raptor is likely to be in a first shot opportunity or even not detected before launch.

JetBuddy wrote:

Aren't F-22s stationed in Alaska anyway? They must have been scrambled to meet Russian flights multiple times?

Yes they are but they almost always fly with long range drop tanks on those intercepts and there are almost never Russian fighters present. The range is just too great and most Russian fighters don't have A2A refuelling capability.



To preserve stealth the F-22 also has the ability to separate the drop tanks when necessary including the pylons.

In Syria, the intercepts are certainly within visual range, they occur when the Euphrates is crossed, and that would be by only a few miles. The weather above the Euphrates is almost always clear for forty miles or more. These intercepts also occur in an area that is well within SA-400 radar coverage, so the Russian pilots would be made aware exactly where to look for the American aircraft. They're probably also trying out their thermal imaging equipment while they're at it. In normal usage the internal carry is an advantage, but when you're eyeball to eyeball it seems to me that those "few seconds" can mean a lot.


IMO planeflyer picked the correct word for the F-22 over Syria: overkill. Like you, I respect the hardware, but I'm less impressed with the wetware directing things.

I don't really understand the admiration the F-22 and F-35. In my opinion, machines are quite overrated, and their total price is huge. However, regardless of other advantages and disadvantages not very clear concept of their application.
I mean to war with countries that do not have a layered air defense system of these aircraft is that overkill, but for war with countries like Russia or China they are meaningless.

In the age of modern radar and non-radar sensor technologies only Northrop's stealth know-how retains some residual value.
Lockheed Martin's stealth philosophy has been rendered obsolete and LM and USAF know that. That's why no worries exposing these platforms.
Specifically, the F-35 is a tremendously expensive joke, with LM management and shareholders laughing all the way to the bank.

Spacepope wrote:

salttee wrote:

I meant to say Now they've even allowed the Ruskies to practice with their SU-35 airborne radars.
[...]

I think the USAF would absolutely LOVE if an SU-35 lit up its radar in just about any mode. I doubt either side is tipping its hand much.

If I recall correctly, the Russians don't have any Su-35s in Syria, but Su-30SM.

FW200 wrote:

If I recall correctly, the Russians don't have any Su-35s in Syria, but Su-30SM.

The Russians have had both the Su-35 and the Su-30SM in country for over a year and a half.

virage wrote:

In the age of modern radar and non-radar sensor technologies only Northrop's stealth know-how retains some residual value.
Lockheed Martin's stealth philosophy has been rendered obsolete and LM and USAF know that. That's why no worries exposing these platforms.
Specifically, the F-35 is a tremendously expensive joke, with LM management and shareholders laughing all the way to the bank.

If there's any substance to all that, I'm sure you'll be right back with detailed explanations and links to sources to back your argument up.

virage wrote:

In the age of modern radar and non-radar sensor technologies only Northrop's stealth know-how retains some residual value.
Lockheed Martin's stealth philosophy has been rendered obsolete and LM and USAF know that. That's why no worries exposing these platforms.

The facts of the stealth on the F-35 don’t agree with your statements. I’m also not sure where this love for Northrop comes from. You do realise that the B-21, being built by Northrop, will re-use much of the technology, including the stealth coating, engines and sensor fusion engine developed for the F-35.

You also need to understand that the US Government owns the stealth technology from both manufacturers, not the respective companies, as the US Government funded the development of both platforms.

virage wrote:

Specifically, the F-35 is a tremendously expensive joke, with LM management and shareholders laughing all the way to the bank.

Do you happen to know what the government mandated profit is that LM gets from the F-35? It is 7%. It is a fixed profit margin and is significantly less than LM gets from pretty much the rest of its Government or foreign military business.

Did you also know that LM doesn’t even own the factory where the F-35, and the F-16, F-111, B-36 and B-32 before it, is manufactured? It is Air Force Plant 4 that is leased to LM.

Ozair wrote:

Do you happen to know what the government mandated profit is that LM gets from the F-35? It is 7%. It is a fixed profit margin and is significantly less than LM gets from pretty much the rest of its Government or foreign military business.

Did you also know that LM doesn’t even own the factory where the F-35, and the F-16, F-111, B-36 and B-32 before it, is manufactured? It is Air Force Plant 4 that is leased to LM.

I did not know this, so thank you for sharing.

Overkill is a lot better than underkill if shooting starts

Ozair wrote:

virage wrote:

Specifically, the F-35 is a tremendously expensive joke, with LM management and shareholders laughing all the way to the bank.

Do you happen to know what the government mandated profit is that LM gets from the F-35? It is 7%. It is a fixed profit margin and is significantly less than LM gets from pretty much the rest of its Government or foreign military business.

This is a naive argument if offered sincerely, and a misleading one otherwise. Corruption and fleecing don't have to be implemented through artificially high profit margins. An overinflated base program cost is far more lucrative in the final account. I'll take 7% of $2 trln over 20% of $200b any day.

virage wrote:

Ozair wrote:

virage wrote:

Specifically, the F-35 is a tremendously expensive joke, with LM management and shareholders laughing all the way to the bank.

Do you happen to know what the government mandated profit is that LM gets from the F-35? It is 7%. It is a fixed profit margin and is significantly less than LM gets from pretty much the rest of its Government or foreign military business.

This is a naive argument if offered sincerely, and a misleading one otherwise. Corruption and fleecing don't have to be implemented through artificially high profit margins. An overinflated base program cost is far more lucrative in the final account. I'll take 7% of $2 trln over 20% of $200b any day.

Look at the profit margins of defence companies.

Profit margins at defence contractors are actually fairly thin. For example, Lockheed Martin's operating margin for the past 5 years is around 11-12%, and most of that was achieved through significant layoffs (LM in one year was aiming to layoff 20% of its workforce). 11-12% is actually considered fairly good for a defence contractor's margin, as there are other lines of business where it is considerably more profitable. For example, Coca Cola's operating margin is in excess of 25%, Restaurant Brands International has a operating margin close to 40%, Union Pacific is around 22%, and Apple is at 25%.

Heck, one of the companies and business lines Lockheed Martin got out of, Martin Marietta Materials (one of the largest suppliers of crush rock and aggregates for construction), usually has a operating margin in excess of 20%.... so it is actually more profitable to supply gravel than it is to build fighter jets.

Planeflyer wrote:

Overkill is a lot better than underkill if shooting starts

That doesn't appear to be so in this case. In the situations described here, the F-22 has abandons it's greatest advantage (stealth), its number two advantage (longer range sensors), and in fact puts itself in the position of being outgunned as the SU-35 carries a much bigger load than an F-22 can carry if the F-22 depends on internal stores only.

And just guessing here, but I would bet money that the Russians have their SA-400 site on hair trigger while on the US side, any (US Army) Patriot sites are told to keep their nose out of the USAF's business.

ThePointblank wrote:

usually has a operating margin in excess of 20%.... so it is actually more profitable to supply gravel than it is to build fighter jets.

If true that'll more like indicate that "The Market" is not working.

virage wrote:

This is a naive argument if offered sincerely, and a misleading one otherwise. Corruption and fleecing don't have to be implemented through artificially high profit margins. An overinflated base program cost is far more lucrative in the final account. I'll take 7% of $2 trln over 20% of $200b any day.

You might not like the argument but I see nothing to refute it, nor do I see anything to support your original claim. If you want your comment to be taken seroiusly, provide some evidence that LM is rorting the Government on the F-35 program as you have claimed.

WIederling wrote:

If true that'll more like indicate that "The Market" is not working.

Most western supermarket chains run at a 3-6% profit margin and they and "the market" seem to be doing fine.

Ozair wrote:

virage wrote:

This is a naive argument if offered sincerely, and a misleading one otherwise. Corruption and fleecing don't have to be implemented through artificially high profit margins. An overinflated base program cost is far more lucrative in the final account. I'll take 7% of $2 trln over 20% of $200b any day.

You might not like the argument but I see nothing to refute it, nor do I see anything to support your original claim. If you want your comment to be taken seroiusly, provide some evidence that LM is rorting the Government on the F-35 program as you have claimed.

My point is that you erroneously attempt to use LM's F-35 profit margin as the proof of the programme's efficiency and cost justifiability.
The truth is that in the F-35 LM has produced a grossly overpriced and underperforming platform. Trump's administration has recognized this, thankfully.
There are numerous evidence and reports of that, I can't list them all. This is the worst kept secret in the military aviation community. The latest Russian A-G radars can pick it up. Its stealth methodology and technology are obsolete. Its payload in full stealth is woefully limited. Its current envelope limitations exceed the operators' requirements. Its life support systems remain unreliable. Its maintenance is very complex and expensive. LM's ALIS system and subsystems are unnecessarily overengineered and complex. The list goes on and on.
Here's the latest:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-f-35-will-cost-staggering-12-trillion-through-2060-23441

virage wrote:

the F-35 LM has produced a grossly overpriced

When the cost of its nearest competitor, the super hornet is at 70 million, the 85 million price tag of the F-22 seems reasonable. For 15 million you get more range, stealth and the advanced systems integration among other things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/ ... per_Hornet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... ghtning_II

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to.

salttee wrote:

virage wrote:

the F-35 LM has produced a grossly overpriced

When the cost of its nearest competitor, the super hornet is at 70 million, the 85 million price tag of the F-22 seems reasonable. For 15 million you get more range, stealth and the advanced systems integration among other things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_F/ ... per_Hornet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_ ... ghtning_II

The rest of your post isn't worth responding to.

You would be well advised to extend your knowledge base beyond the Mickey Mouse sources such as Wikipedia. I recommend public government committee findings, industry journals and magazines, and talking to the actual people on the ground. True, some of these sources are not directly quotable due to privacy and security reasons, but they do exist and do amount to the industry and operator opinion of the F-35 programme.

virage wrote:

My point is that you erroneously attempt to use LM's F-35 profit margin as the proof of the programme's efficiency and cost justifiability.

No, I used the profit margin to demonstrate that there is not a great amount of contractor fat within the program.

virage wrote:

The truth is that in the F-35 LM has produced a grossly overpriced and underperforming platform. Trump's administration has recognized this, thankfully.

So Saltee’s claim on cost holds true. The F-35, while still in low rate initial production, is now priced below US$100 million and with the increase in production will almost certainly hit its US75-80 million target at FRP.
If we look at total program costs, I have the following I posted on airlienrs.net previously.

How far is the F-35 over budget? Well the initial cost estimates were approximately US$200 billion for SDD and procurement in 2001 dollars. If we adjust that for inflation we get a total of US$259 billion in 2012 dollars. The SAR lists a total cost of SDD and Procurement at US$313 billion in 2012 dollars. Hence we arrive at a cost at 21% over budget. That 2001 procurement total factored in a greater number of aircraft though, approx 2900 compared to 2440 today, but that equates to an extra US$40 billion and adjusts the over budget calculation up towards 35%. While 35% is terrible and ugly and should never have happened, it could have been a lot worse and other programs have been a lot worse... For example, Typhoon and Rafale were both over budget more than that by percentage.

Additionally the F-35 SDD program has also been on time and on budget since the 2011 rebaseline and will be so when it closes early next year.

As for your Trump claims, you need to catch up with the latest news, he now loves the jet! Direct Trump quotes below

"With the Air Force we're ordering a lot of planes, in particular the F-35 fighter jet, which is almost you know like an invisible fighter. I was asking the Air Force guys how good is this plane, and they said 'well sir you can't see it,' I said yeah but in a fight, you know a fight, like I watch on the movies, the fight, they're fighting, how good is it? 'Well it wins every time because the enemy cannot see it, even if it's right next to it, it can't see it.' I said that helps, that's a good thing.

"Amazing job, and amazing job. So amazing that we're ordering hundreds of millions of dollars of new airplanes for the Air Force, especially the F-35. Do you like the F-35? I said how does it do it in fights, and how do they do in fights with the F-35. He says we do very well, you can't see it. Literally you can't see. It's hard to fight a plane you can't see right? But that's an expensive plane you can't see. And as you probably heard we cut the price very substantially, something other administrations would never have done, that I can tell you."

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16375/trump-just-provided-more-evidence-that-he-thinks-the-f-35-is-actually-invisible

virage wrote:

There are numerous evidence and reports of that, I can't list them all. This is the worst kept secret in the military aviation community.

How many of those reports are actually based in fact? Given you have quoted the National Interest I’m inclined to believe most of them have little to no intellectual rigour.

virage wrote:

The latest Russian A-G radars can pick it up.

And you know this because National Interest said so? How about you read a peer reviewed scientific paper published in the Journal of Computations and modelling to determine how it functions against low band radars. http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%204_1_9.pdf That takes a worse case analysis of F-35 RCS and shows that the F-35 still demonstrates a 90% reduction against engagement radars and a 50-70% reduction against low band early warning radars. Despite what Trump says, the F-35 is not invisible, nor is the F-22 or B-2 or any other stealth airframe. The point of stealth is to significantly reduce the detection distance and the above journal article correctly shows how much of an impact F-35 stealth features can have on detection.

virage wrote:

Its stealth methodology and technology are obsolete.

The above scientific journal disagrees with you.

virage wrote:

Its payload in full stealth is woefully limited.

Compared to what? The B-2, the F-22, the Su-57? The F-35 can carry up to a 2,000 lb weapon internally, as well as a A2A weapon, in each bay. The F-22 is limited to one 1,000lb weapon internally in eac bay. The F-35 currently can carry four AIM-120 internally but that will move to six in either blk 4 or blk 5 upgrades. The internal payload is fine, especially as we move towards smaller munitions such as SDB II (of which the F-35 will be able to carry 8 internally), and the external payload is terrific.

virage wrote:

Its current envelope limitations exceed the operators' requirements.

The current envelope restrictions are related to finishing the SDD program. The Blk 3F software load is now hitting the fleet and sees all restrictions for F-35 flight removed. The irony is that even restricted the F-35 has already demonstrated, as discussed by a Norwegian pilot, to be better WVR against the F-16. https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

virage wrote:

Its life support systems remain unreliable.

Not quite. While a number of US aircraft have had issues with OBOGS, that has not been verified on the F-35 and apart from a small spate in incidents at Luke AFB which is the training establishment, the F-35 life support systems have been rock solid. The Luke AFB incidents are likely to be the result of poor training, or attempts to shortcut tasks or refine or alter procedures within a training wing.

virage wrote:

Its maintenance is very complex and expensive. LM's ALIS system and subsystems are unnecessarily overengineered and complex.

I agree that ALIS is a complex system but the intent of ALIS has always been to spend the time up front to save the time, and money, later on. The system is approaching its promised potential and will allow the global partnership to better manage their fleets and maintain less local spares holdings, significantly reducing total ownership costs. even with the complexity of ALIS, the F-35 SDD program has remained on time and on budget since 2011.

WIederling wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

usually has a operating margin in excess of 20%.... so it is actually more profitable to supply gravel than it is to build fighter jets.

If true that'll more like indicate that "The Market" is not working.

More of, the the defence industry is a highly regulated industry with tons of oversight, meaning there's less chance and ability for the a contractor to have very deep contract margins.

The DoD actually has a very good idea of what a particular weapons system should cost to build, and negotiates very hard on that front to get it close to where it thinks a particular system can be produced with the contractor making a bit of money to compensate them for their time. The US DoD has this ability to estimate costs as they have their own team of economists, engineers, and procurement specialists that provide numbers to their negotiators.

Sometimes, the DoD can actually impose a contract with a set price based upon their own estimates of how something should cost; DoD was reported to have imposed their own price on the two production lots of F-35's on Lockheed Martin. The calculated value of an average F-35 (for all 3 variants) in Lot 9 was estimated to be around $131 million each, and the Lot 10 aircraft are estimated to be around $90 million each.

Another key thing; the US military actually owns the intellectual property rights to weapons systems that are developed for them and use US government funds to develop. They can easily turn around, and ask another contractor to sub in if they want another production line. The most famous example of this was when Pratt & Whitney was contracted by the US DoD to setup a parallel factory to produce General Electric F404 engines as a secondary provider of F404 engines.

General Electric was actually directed by the US DoD to transfer its manufacturing technology to Pratt to ensure that Pratt could build an exact copy of the F404 engine, and Pratt was paid a lot of money to setup and operate a parallel production line for the F404 engines.

Pratt actually built a few engines for the US DoD until the US DoD elected to cancel the contract because they no longer needed so many engines, and GE was severely spooked by the DoD's decision to source F404 engines from Pratt to the point where GE drastically cut the per unit price of the engines in exchange for a massive engine buy.

Ozair, let me start by saying that despite disagreeing with most of its points, I do appreciate your thoughtful and detailed response. Thank you.
Now to some of the points. I am sorry I can't - for a variety of reasons - address all of them.

Ozair wrote:

virage wrote:

My point is that you erroneously attempt to use LM's F-35 profit margin as the proof of the programme's efficiency and cost justifiability.

No, I used the profit margin to demonstrate that there is not a great amount of contractor fat within the program.

Again, the LM's game here is sheer volume, not the margins...

Ozair wrote:

As for your Trump claims, you need to catch up with the latest news, he now loves the jet! Direct Trump quotes below

"With the Air Force we're ordering a lot of planes, in particular the F-35 fighter jet, which is almost you know like an invisible fighter. I was asking the Air Force guys how good is this plane, and they said 'well sir you can't see it,' I said yeah but in a fight, you know a fight, like I watch on the movies, the fight, they're fighting, how good is it? 'Well it wins every time because the enemy cannot see it, even if it's right next to it, it can't see it.' I said that helps, that's a good thing.

"Amazing job, and amazing job. So amazing that we're ordering hundreds of millions of dollars of new airplanes for the Air Force, especially the F-35. Do you like the F-35? I said how does it do it in fights, and how do they do in fights with the F-35. He says we do very well, you can't see it. Literally you can't see. It's hard to fight a plane you can't see right? But that's an expensive plane you can't see. And as you probably heard we cut the price very substantially, something other administrations would never have done, that I can tell you."

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/16375/trump-just-provided-more-evidence-that-he-thinks-the-f-35-is-actually-invisible

Amusing Thanks for this info.

Ozair wrote:

virage wrote:

There are numerous evidence and reports of that, I can't list them all. This is the worst kept secret in the military aviation community.

How many of those reports are actually based in fact? Given you have quoted the National Interest I’m inclined to believe most of them have little to no intellectual rigour.

virage wrote:

The latest Russian A-G radars can pick it up.

And you know this because National Interest said so? How about you read a peer reviewed scientific paper published in the Journal of Computations and modelling to determine how it functions against low band radars. http://www.scienpress.com/Upload/JCM/Vol%204_1_9.pdf That takes a worse case analysis of F-35 RCS and shows that the F-35 still demonstrates a 90% reduction against engagement radars and a 50-70% reduction against low band early warning radars. Despite what Trump says, the F-35 is not invisible, nor is the F-22 or B-2 or any other stealth airframe. The point of stealth is to significantly reduce the detection distance and the above journal article correctly shows how much of an impact F-35 stealth features can have on detection.

Well.... the "scientific journal" you reference above is not admissible in the US civilian and military academic communities. Its contributors in vast majority come from unaccredited research organizations in third-world countries. The HAF report in question is certainly no more credible than the NI article I have quoted (which is in turn based on the POGO findings). The HAF were never (and unlikely ever) be able to see the actual USAF or Russian PVO/PKO numbers.

Ozair wrote:

virage wrote:

Its payload in full stealth is woefully limited.

Compared to what? The B-2, the F-22, the Su-57? The F-35 can carry up to a 2,000 lb weapon internally, as well as a A2A weapon, in each bay. The F-22 is limited to one 1,000lb weapon internally in eac bay. The F-35 currently can carry four AIM-120 internally but that will move to six in either blk 4 or blk 5 upgrades. The internal payload is fine, especially as we move towards smaller munitions such as SDB II (of which the F-35 will be able to carry 8 internally), and the external payload is terrific.

Sorry, I have no comment on that.

Ozair wrote:

virage wrote:

Its current envelope limitations exceed the operators' requirements.

The current envelope restrictions are related to finishing the SDD program. The Blk 3F software load is now hitting the fleet and sees all restrictions for F-35 flight removed. The irony is that even restricted the F-35 has already demonstrated, as discussed by a Norwegian pilot, to be better WVR against the F-16. https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

Oh yes, the Norwegian guy... When the report came out people in the know rolled their eyes and smirked.

Ozair wrote:

virage wrote:

Its life support systems remain unreliable.

Not quite. While a number of US aircraft have had issues with OBOGS, that has not been verified on the F-35 and apart from a small spate in incidents at Luke AFB which is the training establishment, the F-35 life support systems have been rock solid. The Luke AFB incidents are likely to be the result of poor training, or attempts to shortcut tasks or refine or alter procedures within a training wing.

I surely hope you are right, because my knowledge and understanding point to causes that go beyond any personnel training deficiencies.

Ozair wrote:

virage wrote:

Its maintenance is very complex and expensive. LM's ALIS system and subsystems are unnecessarily overengineered and complex.

I agree that ALIS is a complex system but the intent of ALIS has always been to spend the time up front to save the time, and money, later on. The system is approaching its promised potential and will allow the global partnership to better manage their fleets and maintain less local spares holdings, significantly reducing total ownership costs. even with the complexity of ALIS, the F-35 SDD program has remained on time and on budget since 2011.

Any attempt to build a future-proof complex system won't work when technologies develop rapidly. What you do is build a highly modular, logical and straightforward architecture, and replace modules as they approach obsolescence.

virage wrote:

Again, the LM's game here is sheer volume, not the margins...

And the sheer volume is because the USAF, USMC, USN, and other allied nations all require thousands of replacement jet fighters to replace aging, obsolete aircraft.

Ozair wrote:

As for your Trump claims, you need to catch up with the latest news, he now loves the jet! Direct Trump quotes below

"With the Air Force we're ordering a lot of planes, in particular the F-35 fighter jet, which is almost you know like an invisible fighter. I was asking the Air Force guys how good is this plane, and they said 'well sir you can't see it,' I said yeah but in a fight, you know a fight, like I watch on the movies, the fight, they're fighting, how good is it? 'Well it wins every time because the enemy cannot see it, even if it's right next to it, it can't see it.' I said that helps, that's a good thing.

Ozair wrote:

virage wrote:

There are numerous evidence and reports of that, I can't list them all. This is the worst kept secret in the military aviation community.

How many of those reports are actually based in fact? Given you have quoted the National Interest I’m inclined to believe most of them have little to no intellectual rigour.

virage wrote:

Well.... the "scientific journal" you reference above is not admissible in the US civilian and military academic communities. Its contributors in vast majority come from unaccredited research organizations in third-world countries. The HAF report in question is certainly no more credible than the NI article I have quoted (which is in turn based on the POGO findings). The HAF were never (and unlikely ever) be able to see the actual USAF or Russian PVO/PKO numbers.

It's editors are from major educational institutions or research organizations, and is a peer reviewed journal. Review the list of editors:

Ali Bulent Usakli, The NCO Academy, Turkey
Boris S. Verkhovsky, New Jersey Institute of Technology, USA
Chuming Chen, University of Delaware, USA
Daoxiong Gong, Beijing University of Technology, China
Dimitri Kanevsky, Watson Research Center, USA
George Kaimakamis, Hellenic Army Academy, Greece
Huiru Zheng, University of Ulster, N. Ireland
Ilie Marcel, University of Central Florida, USA
Innokentiy V. Semushin, Ulyanovsk State University, Russia
I-Shyan Hwang, Yuan Ze University, Taiwan
Ivan Ganchev Ivanov, Sofia University, Bulgaria
J. N. Singh, Barry University, USA
Jaime Lloret Mauri, Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain
Jose M. Barcelo-Ordinas, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, Spain
Lapo Governi, University of Florence, Italy
Marco Mussetta, Politecnico di Milano, Italy
Minea Alina Adriana, Technical University Gh. Asachi, Romania
Monika Neda, University of Nevada Las Vegas, USA
Rocco Furferi, University of Florence, Italy
Sultan Aljahdali, Taif University, Saudi Arabia
Tang Yi-Fa, Academy of Mathematics & Systems Science, China
Tzung-Pei Hong, National University of Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Youlian Pan, National Research Council Canada, Canada
Zoltan Adam Mann, Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Hungary

Are you telling me that the National Research Council of Canada is an illegitimate scientific organization, even though it is the primary national research and technology organization of the Canadian government? Are you also telling us that IBM's Watson Research Center is an illegitimate scientific organization?

virage wrote:

Oh yes, the Norwegian guy... When the report came out people in the know rolled their eyes and smirked.

Which people 'in the know' are they? Name names. Our Norwegian pilot is named, and has verifiable credentials.

And the recent performance at Red Flag earlier this year, and again at Checkered Flag 18-1 demonstrates the capabilities of the F-35 against the aircraft it is replacing in a realistic environment.

virage wrote:

I surely hope you are right, because my knowledge and understanding point to causes that go beyond any personnel training deficiencies.

And what is the other option? LOX bottles, which have endurance problems, especially for the long duration missions fighter jets are increasingly seeing.

virage wrote:

Again, the LM's game here is sheer volume, not the margins...

So what difference does sheer volume make? One of the defence contractors was going to win the award. All of them vied for it in the late 90s, LM won and yet now you claim they are rorting the US Government because the contract value is high?

The irony of the claim is the USAF owns the design, as with the F135, and can put the production and sustainment contracts out for general tender if they desire. We already see in the US LM being the primary integrator or sustainer for Boeing aircraft, and vice versa, so LM will still have to maintain a sharp pencil to be seen as value for money to the partners.

virage wrote:

Well.... the "scientific journal" you reference above is not admissible in the US civilian and military academic communities. Its contributors in vast majority come from unaccredited research organizations in third-world countries.

That is a claim not backed by evidence. As Pointblank pointed out the journal and the Editorial board is certainly credible.

virage wrote:

The HAF report in question is certainly no more credible than the NI article I have quoted (which is in turn based on the POGO findings). The HAF were never (and unlikely ever) be able to see the actual USAF or Russian PVO/PKO numbers.

I don’t agree. There are 104 separate references in that doc. While a large number of them come from news articles or blogs those are primarily from individuals who have advocated against the F-35 program, including POGO individuals such as Winslow Wheeler. The rest come fro respected academic publications. The point is the journal article has taken common claims made by so called sources, including Wheeler, APA and POGO, and used scientific and mathematical proof to clearly demonstrate the factual inaccuracy of their claims.

We also will never see actual USAF and Russian PVO/PKO numbers because such a discussion won’t happen, and shouldn’t, on an unclass internet forum. I disagree on your claim that HAF will never see those numbers because for starters the Greeks operate the US F-16 Blk 52 and therefore have access to USAF classified data they have released to the HAF. The Greeks also operate the S-300 PMU1 which is referenced in the journal article. I think we can be safe in assuming they have used a number that they are confident represents that threat system.

Finally, their math is good! There is nothing wrong with the calculations and the formulas they have used. While the base data may be unclassified in nature, and in the case of the F-35 represents a worst case analysis, the data is going to be within a close enough margin of error to real data to make the assessments valid.

POGO certainly has no access to any classified data, nor does NI, but I believe the scientific rigour applied to the journal article, and frankly the ethics of its authors, is of a higher standard than POGO or NI.

virage wrote:

Oh yes, the Norwegian guy... When the report came out people in the know rolled their eyes and smirked.

So now you want to make a claim that a verified source (and grad of the USAF weapons school) who has flown both jets doesn’t know what he is talking about but then claim an organisation like POGO does? I suggest you re-evaluate your assessments of source credibility.

virage wrote:

I surely hope you are right, because my knowledge and understanding point to causes that go beyond any personnel training deficiencies.

So state what they are. We can’t have a conversation if you don’t provide any actual evidence. Given we now have over 260 F-35s delivered to the respective partners, over 120k of flight hours, not a single loss to life support system failure and the only incidents reported are at the one joint training base, I think my assessment is sound.

virage wrote:

Any attempt to build a future-proof complex system won't work when technologies develop rapidly. What you do is build a highly modular, logical and straightforward architecture, and replace modules as they approach obsolescence.

The F-35 program has some very clear software standards that are applied to the aircraft’s code base. There is no reason that same rigour has not been applied to ALIS.
http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articl ... -f-35.html
http://www.stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf
Highly modular is always the goal but military software has the additional assurance of security that sits above, especially on a program as large as the F-35.

For those that believe that stealth cannot destroy the emitter before being detected why are the Russians, who know a fair bit about radar spending so much time and money developing their own 5 th gen AC?

Planeflyer wrote:

For those that believe that stealth cannot destroy the emitter before being detected why are the Russians, who know a fair bit about radar spending so much time and money developing their own 5 th gen AC?

And the Chinese, the Koreans, the Japanese, the Turks, the Indians and the new European aircraft being floated by Airbus all clearly exhibit stealth features.

Good points!

Ozair wrote:

...and most Russian fighters don't have A2A refuelling capability.

Care to explain that? Almost EVERY one has the capability.

checksixx wrote:

Ozair wrote:

...and most Russian fighters don't have A2A refuelling capability.

Care to explain that? Almost EVERY one has the capability.

No actually they don't. Neither the Su-27, the MiG-29 or the Su-30 in their initial variants had AAR probes fitted but many export Flankers and Fulcrums had AAR fitted. This has changed with new build Su-27/30/35 for the Russian Air Force, Su-27SKM upgrade, MiG-29SMT. MiG-31 had AAR from the start, MiG-25 didn't, Su-24 only had AAR added with the M version.

Russia also lack a decent sized fleet of AAR tankers and a tanker variant of the IL-476 is high on the priority list.

Ozair wrote:

Planeflyer wrote:

For those that believe that stealth cannot destroy the emitter before being detected why are the Russians, who know a fair bit about radar spending so much time and money developing their own 5 th gen AC?

And the Chinese, the Koreans, the Japanese, the Turks, the Indians and the new European aircraft being floated by Airbus all clearly exhibit stealth features.

I don't think it's because of stealth per se but rather updating their technology: fly by wire, new radars and engine technology. The Americans have really only just caught up with the Su's
performance now.

Ozair wrote:

virage wrote:

Again, the LM's game here is sheer volume, not the margins...

So what difference does sheer volume make? One of the defence contractors was going to win the award. All of them vied for it in the late 90s, LM won and yet now you claim they are rorting the US Government because the contract value is high?

By "volume" I meant the cost base, upon which the profit margin is bestowed. I have explained this in my earlier post. LM bilks us, American taxpayers, of hundreds of billions of dollars by designing a platform that was and is unnecessarily costly to develop, field and maintain.

Oh, and one more thing (apologies to Peter Falk): http://www.janes.com/article/76503/uk-b ... me-updates

virage wrote:

By "volume" I meant the cost base, upon which the profit margin is bestowed. I have explained this in my earlier post. LM bilks us, American taxpayers, of hundreds of billions of dollars by designing a platform that was and is unnecessarily costly to develop, field and maintain.

I understand the volume, I just don't agree that LM has rorted the American taxpayer to that extent. There is no hundreds of billions of dollars of excessive cost in the program. As I have already stated, the program was approximately 35% over budget from its 2001 predictions. Much of that extension can be attributed to two specific events, the decision by the JPO, and LM agreeing, to the change in requirement for the F-35B to carry a 2,000 lb weapon internally. That single error added approx 3 years and excessive cost. The other issue was the Obama administration reducing concurrent production, extending the testing program and taking dev money from the program to be spent in later years.

As for the F-35 being costly to field and maintain, that is not supported by evidence. The last four F-35 SARs have clearly stated the cost of the F-35 is approximately 16% more per hour to operate than the F-16. Given the F-35 flies twice as far with three times the payload, has an all aspect stealth design, significantly better sensors combined in a fusion engine and a larger engine the USAF is very satisfied they are getting value for money.

If you want to reference back to the NI report, then you need to understand what that 1.2 trillion number actually represents. The actual cost of the program looking ahead is estimated at approx US$600 or so billion dollars (which is well within the industry standard 2-3 times operation cost over its lifetime compared to acquisition cost). The difference is that to get to the final operating date of 2070, literally 53 years away from today, the CAPE estimate has to add inflation, fuel cost, spares cost, labour cost as well as some unrealistic assumptions in their cost model, including having the F-35B fly vertical for 90% of its operational life. If anyone of us could predict accurately what the inflation is going to be 10 years from now we would be very wealthy. Instead websites such as NI and War is Boring post these sensational numbers to generate hits and increase advertising.

That is before we digest the rest of the NI article, which bemoans the acquisition of the helmet while completely not understanding what the point of the helmet is, misunderstanding the misison set of ALIS, not understanding the reason for the spares shortage nor how soon it will be overcome, misrepresenting the cyber aspects of ALIS and the testing. We could go on.

Finally, we need to understand that NI didn't actually write this article, they just lifted it from the POGO website, that same great source that called for the cancellation of the M1 and claimed the F-15 was a waste of money.

virage wrote:

Oh, and one more thing (apologies to Peter Falk): http://www.janes.com/article/76503/uk-b ... me-updates

Read the other thread. There is a good number of British posters who have highlighted the issues with that report.

Virage your posts have been given far too much attention, you are just a malcontent attacking a sophisticated program with strawmen, hyperbole and ill thought out opinions which you try to present as facts.
Here's your entire argument so far:

virage wrote:

In the age of modern radar and non-radar sensor technologies only Northrop's stealth know-how retains some residual value. Lockheed Martin's stealth philosophy has been rendered obsolete and LM and USAF know that. That's why no worries exposing these platforms. Specifically, the F-35 is a tremendously expensive joke, with LM management and shareholders laughing all the way to the bank.

Nothing there except obviously misguided opinion decorated with hyperbole and none of it is substantiated anywhere.

virage wrote:

This is a naive argument if offered sincerely, and a misleading one otherwise. Corruption and fleecing don't have to be implemented through artificially high profit margins. An overinflated base program cost is far more lucrative in the final account. I'll take 7% of $2 trln over 20% of $200b any day.

Your attack on American business practices have no place in a discussion of the utility of stealth aircraft. If you want to take on the "military industrial complex" you need to start a thread of your own.

virage wrote:

You would be well advised to extend your knowledge base beyond the Mickey Mouse sources such as Wikipedia. I recommend public government committee findings, industry journals and magazines, and talking to the actual people on the ground. True, some of these sources are not directly quotable due to privacy and security reasons, but they do exist and do amount to the industry and operator opinion of the F-35 programme.

Pure insult with no rebuttal.

virage wrote:

Again, the LM's game here is sheer volume, not the margins...

More strawman talk

virage wrote:

Amusing Thanks for this info.

When one of your claims is flatly rebutted, you call the evidence "amusing". Add arrogance to your other less likable features.

virage wrote:

The latest Russian A-G radars can pick it up.

An empty phrase if I ever heard one, but it probably sounds brilliant to you.

virage wrote:

Well.... the "scientific journal" you reference above is not admissible in the US civilian and military academic communities. Its contributors in vast majority come from unaccredited research organizations in third-world countries. The HAF report in question is certainly no more credible than the NI article I have quoted (which is in turn based on the POGO findings). The HAF were never (and unlikely ever) be able to see the actual USAF or Russian PVO/PKO numbers.

Well you could always look at the footnotes at Wikipedia. maybe there will be something there that you'll accept (but only if it supports your position).

virage wrote:

Its payload in full stealth is woefully limited.

It'll put 2,000 lns of HE in your lap and be gone before you know its there.

virage wrote:

Its current envelope limitations exceed the operators' requirements.

Next you'll complain that there's no ashtray.

virage wrote:

Oh yes, the Norwegian guy... When the report came out people in the know rolled their eyes and smirked.

So you recommend "talking to the people on the ground", but reject the opinions of people who have flown it through the air?

virage wrote:

Its life support systems remain unreliable.

And you disagree with the recommended tire pressure?

virage wrote:

Its maintenance is very complex and expensive. LM's ALIS system and subsystems are unnecessarily overengineered and complex.

You sound like one of those guys who claim Ford blew it when they abandoned the flathead V8.

virage wrote:

Any attempt to build a future-proof complex system won't work when technologies develop rapidly. What you do is build a highly modular, logical and straightforward architecture, and replace modules as they approach obsolescence.

Unless the best solution to a particular problem is to build a highly integrated product.

salttee wrote:

virage wrote:

This is a naive argument if offered sincerely, and a misleading one otherwise. Corruption and fleecing don't have to be implemented through artificially high profit margins. An overinflated base program cost is far more lucrative in the final account. I'll take 7% of $2 trln over 20% of $200b any day.

Your attack on American business practices have no place in a discussion of the utility of stealth aircraft. If you want to take on the "military industrial complex" you need to start a thread of your own.

Only someone severely wanting in reading comprehension would misconstrue my argument as an "attack on American business practices".

salttee wrote:

It'll put 2,000 lns of HE in your lap and be gone before you know its there.

That's not a lot of payload, so just you know.

salttee wrote:

Next you'll complain that there's no ashtray.

First glimpse of automotive analogies. More to come...

salttee wrote:

So you recommend "talking to the people on the ground", but reject the opinions of people who have flown it through the air?

That's an opinion of one person from a secondary operator.

salttee wrote:

And you disagree with the recommended tire pressure?

Auto analogies continue...

salttee wrote:

You sound like one of those guys who claim Ford blew it when they abandoned the flathead V8.

The third car mechanic parable is the charm. Altogether, they help shed the light on the origin and depth of your knowledge.

salttee wrote:

Unless the best solution to a particular problem is to build a highly integrated product.

Functional and architectural integration are two different and frequently orthogonal approaches. How should I put it in car mechanic terms for you? How about this: you shouldn't have to replace half of the engine just to upgrade the alternator? Nah, that doesn't sound right. I give up.

virage wrote:

..............

All of which proves that its the bickering that interests you, not the F-35. Ozair is wasting his time treating you as a rational debater.

Virage, you seem sure of yourself so maybe you can explain why Russia is spending scarce resources on developing their own 5 th generation capabilities.

Planeflyer wrote:

Virage, you seem sure of yourself so maybe you can explain why Russia is spending scarce resources on developing their own 5 th generation capabilities.

Yes, I happen to know a bit about that. This started two decades ago as a part of Russia's government support for the aviation industry. It was both a matter a national pride and an economic necessity, as the Su-27/Mig-29 platforms were projected to run out of steam on the export markets such as India, South East Asia, and South America.

Ozair wrote:

checksixx wrote:

Ozair wrote:

...and most Russian fighters don't have A2A refuelling capability.

Care to explain that? Almost EVERY one has the capability.

No actually they don't. Neither the Su-27, the MiG-29 or the Su-30 in their initial variants had AAR probes fitted but many export Flankers and Fulcrums had AAR fitted. This has changed with new build Su-27/30/35 for the Russian Air Force, Su-27SKM upgrade, MiG-29SMT. MiG-31 had AAR from the start, MiG-25 didn't, Su-24 only had AAR added with the M version.

Russia also lack a decent sized fleet of AAR tankers and a tanker variant of the IL-476 is high on the priority list.

Yes, actually they do. You want to go back 20 years, by all means go ahead. They've had probes for many years now.

[quote="Ozair"As for the Russians detecting it, we don't know how the USAF are running ops over there and whether they have equipped the F-22 for full stealth. The F-22, and the F-35, can be fitted with a Lundberg lens that amplifies its RCS significantly denying an accurate RCS measurement.[/quote]

Don't be silly, of course we do...they're flying with luneberg lenses fitted. That's how you spell it btw...

checksixx wrote:

Ozair wrote:

checksixx wrote:

Care to explain that? Almost EVERY one has the capability.

No actually they don't. Neither the Su-27, the MiG-29 or the Su-30 in their initial variants had AAR probes fitted but many export Flankers and Fulcrums had AAR fitted. This has changed with new build Su-27/30/35 for the Russian Air Force, Su-27SKM upgrade, MiG-29SMT. MiG-31 had AAR from the start, MiG-25 didn't, Su-24 only had AAR added with the M version.

Russia also lack a decent sized fleet of AAR tankers and a tanker variant of the IL-476 is high on the priority list.

Yes, actually they do. You want to go back 20 years, by all means go ahead. They've had probes for many years now.

Happy to be corrected. As I indicated above all the new build flankers, 30/35 have such. Only the new MiG-29 SMT have AAR but none of the older fleet. I have my doubts on upgraded Su-27 though.