NationStates Jolt Archive

I just read that the British have been having doubts because the Americans aren't making vital info available to them, and that Dennis Jensen from the Australian government reckons that future Sukhois will be superior to the JSF.

That comes after the revelation that the stealth capabilities of the F-35 won't be as great as was assumed.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/itar-fallout-britain-to-pull-out-of-f35-jsf-program/index.php
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1902806,00.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10001062&sid=a_DiEG3P6thw&refer=movers_by_index
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/not-so-stealthy-the-15b-fighters/2006/03/13/1142098404532.html

So...is this for real? What should and can be done about it?
And are the British right to complain if the Americans are unwilling to actually share the vital software and other things, thus making Britain's F-35s dependent on US maintenance and upgrades?

Surely someone cares.

Here's a picture, maybe that'll spark some interest.

http://www.defence.gov.au/raaf/images/for_site/corporate/f35.gif

Go read this month's Popular Mechanics.

As a whole article about the cool new expensive equipment and those in the Pentagon who get wet dreams over war with China. I do too mainly because it would be a real war for a change, not these pussy type of wars. I want a war where I can go to China and have the barrel of my rifle melt because one million China men are running towards me.

I love their plan to use the F-22 to stop IEDs.....ah crazy military people. Sometimes they can be crazier then anti-military people, but rarely in my opinion.

Advice to the USA:

Do NOTget into a war with China.

Advice to the USA:

Do NOTget into a war with China.

Oh your no fun.

China aside for a moment...if the British pull out, the Australians probably will too.

Which is two major partners in the F-35 project gone, leaving the Americans to go it alone. They probably will, but if these concerns are true, and costs will blow out as they did with the F-22, this whole stealth fighter thing might have turned out to be one of the silliest procurement decisions ever made.

Bump one last time.

Maybe the British have a view on this. It's their money, afterall.

Australia ordered some of those F35/JSFs and well, we'd might as well get our money back and buy some F22s.

Go read this month's Popular Mechanics.

As a whole article about the cool new expensive equipment and those in the Pentagon who get wet dreams over war with China. I do too mainly because it would be a real war for a change, not these pussy type of wars. I want a war where I can go to China and have the barrel of my rifle melt because one million China men are running towards me.

I love their plan to use the F-22 to stop IEDs.....ah crazy military people. Sometimes they can be crazier then anti-military people, but rarely in my opinion.
LOL

LOL
Look out Libya?

We (Brit talking here) put millions if not Billions into the JSF Program because we need them for our new carriers (HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales) If we do not get around 70 of these fighters by 2010 our carrier project seriously is messed up!

I'm having serious doubts as to whether the F-35 is a good investment anymore, the news just seems to get worse and worse.

Perhaps Australia should reconsider it's order and purchase some F-22s instead?

Heres an Idea, being as Australia is surrounded by potential hostile Nations (excluding NZ) why doesn't Britain, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa, Canada and all the other rich Commonwealth Nations pool there resources into designing, building and testing a new series of fighters build only for Commonwealth nations which have all the best features from Asian Fighter design, European Fighter Design and American fighter Design. That way we all get a Fighter to be proud of except India will have a lot more than anybody else.

China aside for a moment...if the British pull out, the Australians probably will too.

Which is two major partners in the F-35 project gone, leaving the Americans to go it alone. They probably will, but if these concerns are true, and costs will blow out as they did with the F-22, this whole stealth fighter thing might have turned out to be one of the silliest procurement decisions ever made.
It's certainly a good idea that they pull out. Let the Yankees do their crap by themselves.

It's a waste of money.

The Eurofighter Typhoon is already taking a decade longer than expected to enter service, and has had to be adapted at the last moment from an air superiority fighter to a fighter-bomber to reflect the fact that all future enemies will lack an effective air force. Plus the delay has wasted a huge amount of money, and the UK is ordering fewer aircraft than it had planned.

Regarding the aircraft carriers, they are already considering reducing their size from the already mediocre 40,000 tonnes, because even as early as the design phase the project looks like it's going to run over budget too. The JSF may therefore find itself designed out of the system.

And considering the cost of the JSF project, if on top of that the US does not give the UK an independent capability, then the deal is very poor value. Frankly, as far as aircraft design strategies go, the UK would be far better off buying Sukhoi airframes and building a new generation of fighter around that.

There's rumours the UK will be getting Rafales for the carriers. Personally I think Russian designs will probably do us much as well as American ones, especially the the US decides to be wankers about letting us do things like, say routine maintainance...

Actually I've always had a soft spot for Swedish designs so I'd vote for the Saab Gripen but hey.

I don't think Sweden allows sales of their latest planes, but they are nice...

I think it's a little early to be writing off the JSF. It may not be the God of Warplanes, but did anyone REALLY expect it to be? It will still be low-visibility, have a broad and powerful weapons capacity, and be capable of dealing with anything short of a dedicated Air Superiority fighter (that's what the F-22s for).

Oh, and I doubt that Aus will pull out if Britain does. Our defensive requirements are so different that British needs really don't overlap ours, as witness the fact that we haven't used the same planes for at least forty years.

I just read that the British have been having doubts because the Americans aren't making vital info available to them, and that Dennis Jensen from the Australian government reckons that future Sukhois will be superior to the JSF.

That comes after the revelation that the stealth capabilities of the F-35 won't be as great as was assumed.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/itar-fallout-britain-to-pull-out-of-f35-jsf-program/index.php
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1902806,00.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10001062&sid=a_DiEG3P6thw&refer=movers_by_index
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/not-so-stealthy-the-15b-fighters/2006/03/13/1142098404532.html

So...is this for real? What should and can be done about it?
And are the British right to complain if the Americans are unwilling to actually share the vital software and other things, thus making Britain's F-35s dependent on US maintenance and upgrades?


The program is not in trouble. This thing with us not sharing information has gone on since the beginning of the project and it hasn't stopped the project yet. The design phase is basically 100% done so this will continue. The first production model F-35A will be flying in September (that was personally told to me by the #3 man on the F-35 project when he spoke to our NROTC battalion.) The F-35B will follow the next year with the F-35C then following the next year. The F-35A will go into service in 2007. This project is fine even with the lack of sharing here.

As for the fighter itself, the Sukhoi doesn't have a reduced RCS. The USAF released info in December stating that the F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and B-2. The Sukhoi wouldn't stand a chance as he would be killed by an AMRAAM long before hew knew an F-35 was near him.

Australia ordered some of those F35/JSFs and well, we'd might as well get our money back and buy some F22s.
forget it, not allowed for sale. All stealth aircraft legally can't be sold, but I'm still trying to wonder how the hell they can seel JSF then.

Oh and other nations are involved. Turkey, Italy, Israel, Canada, and some others I'm forgetting. Italy abandoned Eurofighter for the F-35 recently.

Britain won't pull out at this stage when they've invested almost all of the R+D they would need. No more is really needed in that area. If they pull out it is billions down the drain.

It's a waste of money.

The Eurofighter Typhoon is already taking a decade longer than expected to enter service, and has had to be adapted at the last moment from an air superiority fighter to a fighter-bomber to reflect the fact that all future enemies will lack an effective air force. Plus the delay has wasted a huge amount of money, and the UK is ordering fewer aircraft than it had planned.

Regarding the aircraft carriers, they are already considering reducing their size from the already mediocre 40,000 tonnes, because even as early as the design phase the project looks like it's going to run over budget too. The JSF may therefore find itself designed out of the system.

And considering the cost of the JSF project, if on top of that the US does not give the UK an independent capability, then the deal is very poor value. Frankly, as far as aircraft design strategies go, the UK would be far better off buying Sukhoi airframes and building a new generation of fighter around that.
Smaller carriers actually means Britain is more likely to bu the F-35. They would cancel orders for the charlie and get the bravo version that is STOVL.

forget it, not allowed for sale. All stealth aircraft legally can't be sold, but I'm still trying to wonder how the hell they can seel JSF then.

Oh and other nations are involved. Turkey, Italy, Israel, Canada, and some others I'm forgetting. Italy abandoned Eurofighter for the F-35 recently.

Britain won't pull out at this stage when they've invested almost all of the R+D they would need. No more is really needed in that area. If they pull out it is billions down the drain.

Untrue. Stealth technology is on the restricted list, but can still be sold to certain nations (I believe the term is "defense partners"). Australia is on the list. Only thing is, we don't really have any use for a dedicated ASF...

The foward swept wings add to manuverability, and in conjuction with three dimentional thrust vectoring make the SU-47 the most manuverable fighter on earth.

http://www.flymig.com/wallpaper/1024x768/Su-47.jpg

The foward swept wings add to manuverability, and in conjuction with three dimentional thrust vectoring make the SU-47 the most manuverable fighter on earth. Whilst surely one of the cooler looking aircraft out there, the SU-47 is old news compared to the new generation of superfighters such as the F-22.

Manuverability is all very well, but it's useless if the enemy is both invisible and completely out-ranges you, which is what the F-35 and F-22 are designed to do.

But have they put it into full production yet? I understood they needed an input of foreign capital before it would be possible.

Manuverability is all very well, but it's useless if the enemy is both invisible and...the F-35 is NOT invisible.

the F-35 is NOT invisible. Ah, sorry. I thought I read somewhere that the F-35A was equipped with Stealth Capabilities, is this wrong?

the F-35 is NOT invisible.
It has a smaller RCS than the B-2 and F-117 so it is not invisible, but the only way a RADAR on an aircraft would find it is if the F-35 was in close proximity, but that plane would be destroyed by an AMRAAM long before he knew the F-35 was there. Please don't post in this stuff OD unless you know something about the aircraft.

No plane is truly invisible, even an F-22 could probably be detected at extremely close ranges, the problem for the enemy is that they won't live long enough to get there.
http://strategypage.com/dls/articles/2005129233421.asp

F-22 Stealth Ability Revealed by USAF
by James Dunnigan
December 9, 2005
Discussion Board on this DLS topic

The U.S. Air Force, in it’s effort to get money to build more F-22s, has revealed just how “stealthy” the F-22 is. It’s RCS (Radar Cross Section) is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117. Much older aircraft, like the B-52, have a huge RCS, which makes them very easy to spot on radar. But with a smaller RCS, it's more likely that the aircraft won't be detected at all.

The air force revealed this information, which is usually kept secret, because it wants to make the case that it makes more sense to cut production of the F-35 (which cost $30-50 million each), so that more F-22s (that cost over $100 million each) can be bought. Most of the air force generals are former fighter pilots, and the F-22 is a much hotter fighter than the F-35 (which is basically a fighter-bomber, with emphasis on the latter function.) This is causing an international uproar, because of the many foreign countries that are buying the F-35. Some of these countries have contributed money for the development of the F-35. The F-22 will not be exported, because it uses so much top secret technology.

China aside for a moment...if the British pull out, the Australians probably will too.

Which is two major partners in the F-35 project gone, leaving the Americans to go it alone. They probably will, but if these concerns are true, and costs will blow out as they did with the F-22, this whole stealth fighter thing might have turned out to be one of the silliest procurement decisions ever made.
It's a force multiplyer. More capability at a lower overall cost, but a necessarily higher unit cost. How much would it cost to fly 1,000 B-17s over a hostile country now? Those 1,000 B-17s are far less effective than a single F-15E. Ultimately the F-35, though it might prove more expensive than advertised, is going to be more effective and ultimately less expensive than a less modern alternative or maintaining the status quo for some extended period of time.

America is going to do it no matter what, it's an economic need to reduce the operating cost of the military. While the British certainly have a national security concern over not having the source code to their own fighters, given how other US military technologies were sold to the red team by US allies, so does the US. Building a new fighter off of a licensed Russian airframe which has seen much development is an option. But the naval requirement, particularly since Britain doesn't exactly build Nimitz class carriers, is a particularly nasty obstacle. In the end trusting America is probably the safest most cost effective option for the near future.

With other upgrades that are already in development, it's going to be an extremely formitable opponant for a long time. And it's almost ready for delivery. Putting a new generation fighter off for another 10 years has to be a pretty bitter pill for Britain's military establishment to swallow.

A few things:

a) The articles I have posted in the OP hint at the possibility of making the Eurofighter carrier-capable, but that would be a big ask indeed.

b) Regardless of what the UK does, the Aussies have their own independent worries right now, partly because of the news that the F-35 won't be as stealthy as was first assumed (apparently it's a beach ball now), partly because it costs a lot, partly because the surrounding countries will all have improved Sukhois (probably Su-37s soon).

c) The Russians say they have "Plasma Stealth", which is essentially a technology using ionised particles to smother radar waves. That can simply be bolted on to an existing airframe and would mean that their super-duper dogfighters could both be really maneuverable and stealthy. The French have their Thales SPECTRA electronic system which will send its own radar waves to cancel out those of another plane or ground station. They already have that on the Rafale, as I understand it.

d) Sweden does allow the sale of the Gripen. A number of nations, like the Czech Republic and Brazil have bought some. I like 'em, and they can carry everything under the sun in terms of new weapons.

Heres an Idea, being as Australia is surrounded by potential hostile Nations (excluding NZ) why doesn't Britain, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa, Canada and all the other rich Commonwealth Nations pool there resources into designing, building and testing a new series of fighters build only for Commonwealth nations which have all the best features from Asian Fighter design, European Fighter Design and American fighter Design. That way we all get a Fighter to be proud of except India will have a lot more than anybody else.

I'm a little confused... why would Canada want top of the line stealth fighters?
Sounds like an offensive weapon... We leave starting wars to the Americans. :p

Ah, sorry. I thought I read somewhere that the F-35A was equipped with Stealth Capabilities, is this wrong?

Comparing the F117 and the F-35's stealth capabilities.

F117: Oh, shit here comes a seagull!
F35: Oh, crap here comes a Hang glider with a morbidly obese rider!

F117: Oh, shit here comes a seagull!
And yet, the Serbs shot down a F-117 using a bit of creativity and non-linear thinking (and a long-wave radar).
And the Russians are putting ridiculously huge trick radars into their jets and say they can spot most if not all "stealth" planes by now by looking for the vortexes they create.

b) Regardless of what the UK does, the Aussies have their own independent worries right now, partly because of the news that the F-35 won't be as stealthy as was first assumed (apparently it's a beach ball now), partly because it costs a lot, partly because the surrounding countries will all have improved Sukhois (probably Su-37s soon). This is my biggest concern, certain East Asian nations are undergoing major upgrades to their military, particularly their air-forces. It doesn't bode well for Australia that at this rate, we're going to have a gap of two years or so when we are going to pretty much not have an air-force. Then again, it's impossible not to get depressed when looking at the current government's complete bungling of the Defence Force and their utter paranoia regarding spending any money on compentent equipment.

Comparing the F117 and the F-35's stealth capabilities.

F117: Oh, shit here comes a seagull!
F35: Oh, crap here comes a Hang glider with a morbidly obese rider!

You know that when people send up birds and fat men on hangliders to successfully intercept your newest and shiniest fighters....somebody has been sucking too much money out of R&D :p

Comparing the F117 and the F-35's stealth capabilities.

F35: Oh, crap here comes a Hang glider with a morbidly obese rider!
And then they will know it can only be an American plane.

And yet, the Serbs shot down a F-117 using a bit of creativity and non-linear thinking (and a long-wave radar).
And the Russians are putting ridiculously huge trick radars into their jets and say they can spot most if not all "stealth" planes by now by looking for the vortexes they create.

You hear a lot of the rumours and news stories it seems like, and thats not bad nessecairaly, but it doesn't give you an accurate picture.

1. There is no aircraft in the world right now that can spot aircraft by disturbances in air behind them, etc. I believe its australia who is working on this with large ground-based radars, but there is no aircraft using such a system at the time.

2. Plasma stealth is a possibility in the future, but it is far in development, and may turn out to be a fraud. Research it, don't bank on it.

2b. Russian aircraft, like the Sukhoi's(27,30, etc) have large radars. However, their large RCS gets rid of pretty much any advantage here. Stealth aircraft, especially with AESA suites, will detect these sukhoi's at incredibly long distances, while the sukhoi's will have to get quite close to see the stealthy aircraft(Large radar helps, but if its the difference between 10 and 15 kilometers, the sukhoi is already dead).

The only time when it reaches close to parity is against reduced RCS aircraft, like Superhornets, Rafales, and Typhoons. These aircraft, except some of the hornets, don't use AESA radars. Using doppler or PESA(RBE2) radars, in conjunction with lowered RCS, is closely equivilent to using large radars of a non-AESA type with higher RCS. These non-sukhoi's are, for the most part, still at an advantage(Especially the Rafale, with particularly powerful IRST sensors and EW). My point is, a powerful radar is one thing, a good ability to hide is another, and both should ideally compliment each other, like the F-35 and F-22(both stealthy and using AESA radars).

3. As much as I like the SPECTRA system on the rafale, the ability for it to actively cancel out radar waves is only really a rumour at this point. Its very hard to say if it can now, it will be able to later, or it never will be. One thing though, if they have the ability to do it, they aren't. Otherwise, Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea probably would have all bought it, as that would make it just about the most stealthy aircraft in the world(Stealth being more than the ability to not be detected by radar).

4. Making the typhoon carrier capable wouldn't be a hard task, it would be basically impossible. You would have to create just about a completely new aircraft to do it. Little commonality would be possible.

4b. I personally suggest the Rafale for england. The Rafale will be able to use just about every munition the typhoon can, it is designed to be able to be both omni-role and be able to operate off carriers, two things Britain wishes. France and Britain are both working on carriers together, so it would make sense to both use the same kind of aircraft on their carriers. The main manufacturer of rafales would be right next door to Britain. I think public opinion, especially those interested in the aircraft world, are getting more and more excited over the possibility of an open-source Rafale over a closed-source F-35 with possibly reduced RCS features.

5. Indeed, the Gripen is allowed to be sold abroad, and has been. However, the Gripen is just the epitome of pre-2000 aircraft. Its great compared to US teen aircraft, Mirage-2000's, Tornado's, etc. However, it doesn't innovate. The typhoon has a number of features meant to make it more manuverable in supersonic speeds, have a nicely reduced RCS, though not much else. The Rafale is a carrier capable, truely omni-role aircraft, it has probably the most powerful EW system of a non-dedicated aircraft, its IRST suite is very capable(either equal to or just below the F-22, most likely), and its pilot interface goes above and beyond. The Superhornet isn't really innovative, but it was created to simply meet the needs of the US navy. It incorporates all of the latest design features, like AESA, reduced RCS, etc.

The Gripen can fire many types of different weapons, but not really anything more than say a Rafale(At least an F3 Rafale, obviously earlier variants don't have full capability). The only thing the Gripen has over any other ECD, or recent US fighter is having come out before the millenia.

6. Final comment: Australia is a strange case. They have a lot of land to defend. They can't have an aircraft with short legs to defend them. the F-111 was a good choice before, but now its beyond its time. I personally suggest the Rafale, which uses conformal drop tanks, and has a plethora of ways to detect the enemy, track them, and destroy them.

Comparing the F117 and the F-35's stealth capabilities.

F117: Oh, shit here comes a seagull!
F35: Oh, crap here comes a Hang glider with a morbidly obese rider!

Both a bad comparison and bad info.

The F-117 is older, and uses older stealth technology. Its RCS is still low, but the F-35 that the USAF uses has a much lower RCS. While we don't know specific figures, being highly classified, we do know the F-35 is much more stealthy than the F-117.

The foward swept wings add to manuverability, and in conjuction with three dimentional thrust vectoring make the SU-47 the most manuverable fighter on earth.

The Su 47 is also not intended for production.

The Su 47 is also not intended for production.

Indeed. Its a technology demonstrator. It would be a very pointless fighter IRL. It has no real ability over say an Su-27 or Mig-29 even in BVR, which is a pretty sad capability. I would take a Mirage 2000-9 as a mainline fighter over the Su-47, because I trust French radars over russian ones, which have bad histories, and because of the ability to use the Mica, which is a more capable missile than pretty much any russian missile(R-73 really only has range, and with an EW pod on the Mirage, it would probably be a no-obstacle).

...and with an EW pod on the Mirage, it would probably be a no-obstacle).
Which is another point...how reliable are modern US missiles against the best current countermeasures and/or -tactics? The AMRAAM seems old, the ASRAAM has already been overtaken now that the IRIS-T is up and running and various MBDA developments are all just about finished.

AFAIK, all the Americans are working on is a new version of the AMRAAM - but is that enough to stay on top? Could there be a time when a Su-37 can reasonably expect to detect and evade an incoming US missile, up until the point where it can detect and then outmaneuvre a stealth aircraft?

I think that the US aerospace industry community has been ripping off the US taxpayers (see F-22) for so long that they’ve overstayed their welcome matt to deliver the next generation air superiority fighter. They kept having to redesign the engine because nothing worked properly and have all but lost the confidence of the Air Force brass. The US military is going to need something to replace its aging airframes and hopefully not another over priced stealth project that barely functions. The reason why things are going ahead with the F-35 is that they need to salvage something from the F-22 program to show for it. While competitors already producing jets for the next generation, like the Su-37 and the Gripen, the US has really dropped the ball this time. For the obscene spending of US tax dollars to finance private aerospace corporations, the US has very little to show for their cash, except a lot of articles in science magazines.

The US is also working at beyond the horizon air to air missiles that beg the question of having expensive air frames to launch them if they have that kind of range. There is even research into an air to air missile capable of hitting targets on the other side of the planet. It’s good except that it would only be worth shooting at civilian airliners, because modern jets would have far too long to deploy countermeasures (or just land for that matter). This continued focus on standoff fighting isn’t good news for the future of the US air force, if they ever get into a dogfight with a 1st world nation.

And yet, the Serbs shot down a F-117 using a bit of creativity and non-linear thinking (and a long-wave radar).
From all the sources I've seen the F-117 was shot down by some very creative thinking, but no special technology was used. The Serbs had an agent based just outside of Aviano, who would call in every time an F-117 would take off. An anti-aircraft artillery commander studied the schedules, and using traditional visible observation of the sky, he was able to figure out when he could expect a plane to pass. To give stupid points to the US military, they never altered the routes that the F-117s took to the target, so this Serb commander knew exactly where the F-117 would be and when. He eventually got his timetables worked out perfectly, and he filled the air with AAA and SAMs. One of them got lucky. There was no use of long-wave radar.


And the Russians are putting ridiculously huge trick radars into their jets and say they can spot most if not all "stealth" planes by now by looking for the vortexes they create.
And that's just total BS on the part of the Russians. That's something that really cannot be done with current technology.

There was no use of long-wave radar.
Most of what you said is true, but the fact of the matter is that a SAM missile is not unguided. Something must have locked on, and the missile they used (an ancient SA-3 or SA-6, depending on who you ask - at any rate not something you can flood the sky with) does have a longer wave radar than modern versions. But I heard that there is also speculation that the missile had been upgraded with heat-seeking and laser rangefinding devices.
http://www.aeronautics.ru/lbandradars.htm

And that's just total BS on the part of the Russians. That's something that really cannot be done with current technology.
The Australians say they can detect them too.

I can't tell you the details, I'm not an engineer, nor a physicist. The vortex thing came from wiki.

http://defence-data.com/features/fpage37.htm
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/12/140853.shtml
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/2b86d4d03cb84010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
http://www.pogo.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf

I really don't know about the shooting down of the F-117; last I'd heard they'd done it using MK1 Eyeball and deadfiring at the incoming plane. The old Russian SAMs could be fired without a lock on (for emergency use against ground targets).

The Australians can only detect stealthed planes with their Jindalee Over-the-Horizon system. That bounces radar waves off the ionosphere and back to the ground, then receives the (very faint) return coming back the same way. Most stealth systems work best from direct on and below; in this case, the RADAR pulses are coming in from above. The aircraft get blindsided.

As to missilies - my understanding is that the next iteration of the AMRAAM is going to be deployed next year. Now, if they would just build a replacement for the Phoenix...

It would be stupid to buy military technology that will make us completely dependent on America for maintainnce. If the Americans aren't going to give us the information we need, we should pull out. But we'd need to find a replacement very very fast. We're getting rid of the Harrier and if we don't get the replacement to step in, we'll have a big hole in our military. This will mean that if Argentina makes a grab for the Falklands again, we wouldn't be able to get it back.

There's rumours the UK will be getting Rafales for the carriers.

I think I'd rather see them as Helicopter Carriers until a better replace comes along. Prefer not having them on our ships!

Which is another point...how reliable are modern US missiles against the best current countermeasures and/or -tactics? The AMRAAM seems old, the ASRAAM has already been overtaken now that the IRIS-T is up and running and various MBDA developments are all just about finished.

AFAIK, all the Americans are working on is a new version of the AMRAAM - but is that enough to stay on top? Could there be a time when a Su-37 can reasonably expect to detect and evade an incoming US missile, up until the point where it can detect and then outmaneuvre a stealth aircraft?

The AMRAAM is constantly evolving. The Aim-120C is a whole different beast than the A, and the D version should come around sooner or later. US missiles in their most recent forms are pretty strong against EW.

However, I rate both the MICA and soon to come Meteor over it. The Mica has less range than the 120C, but the dual mode missile makes it so you can fight both BVR and WVR quite capably. Someone could easily sneak up on you in a Rafale, using IRST tactics to hunt them, and pop shots with a MICA IR before the enemy plane ever saw them.

As for the Su-37, you can't really evade missiles. While, especially with older missiles, it was possible to dodge in WVR combat, at BVR range, you really can't dodge a missile. Pretty much all BVR combat is about outrunning the missile(there is a no-turn back zone which all pilots attempt to avoid, where at full speed they still couldn't outrun the missile of the enemy... which is a pretty big envelope). Its really just not possible to dodge BVR shots and run into WVR combat, which is why WVR is so rare these days.

I really don't know about the shooting down of the F-117; last I'd heard they'd done it using MK1 Eyeball and deadfiring at the incoming plane. The old Russian SAMs could be fired without a lock on (for emergency use against ground targets).

The Australians can only detect stealthed planes with their Jindalee Over-the-Horizon system. That bounces radar waves off the ionosphere and back to the ground, then receives the (very faint) return coming back the same way. Most stealth systems work best from direct on and below; in this case, the RADAR pulses are coming in from above. The aircraft get blindsided.

As to missilies - my understanding is that the next iteration of the AMRAAM is going to be deployed next year. Now, if they would just build a replacement for the Phoenix...

You should check out the Aim-152. It looks like it would have been very impressive if ever deployed. However, the need for such a long range, large AAM seems pointless now, seeing as AMRAAMs and Meteors can pretty much hit any target by the time the radar can detect the enemy. The only practical use for these cruise AAMs is hitting bombers, AWACS, and transports. Among other things, they might be large enough for MICA's to hit(Mica's have the ability to target and hit missiles, though afaik, most aam's are too small and fast to hit that way).

F-35? Not as long as it keeps its beak in the water and out of public pumping red!

Surely someone cares.

Here's a picture, maybe that'll spark some interest.

http://www.defence.gov.au/raaf/images/for_site/corporate/f35.gif


no plane looks better then the b-2 (http://sunsite.tus.ac.jp/multimed/pics/vehicles/aircraft/b-2.gif)

and too think the idea was a product of the Nazis

note to self: do not google b2 with safe search off ever again

no plane looks better then the b-2 (http://sunsite.tus.ac.jp/multimed/pics/vehicles/aircraft/b-2.gif)

and too think the idea was a product of the Nazis

note to self: do not google b2 with safe search off ever again

Well, wing body aircraft were being developed by the Horten brothers, but work was going on in the US too, before the war ended, afaik. Hence the development of the X-35(possibly the wrong number...). The B-2 is really a development off of the X-35, except obvious changes.

Well, wing body aircraft were being developed by the Horten brothers, but work was going on in the US too, before the war ended, afaik. Hence the development of the X-35(possibly the wrong number...). The B-2 is really a development off of the X-35, except obvious changes.
But I think the idea of building a jet shaped like that and made of stealthy materials came from the Germans first. Much of the Ho 229 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horten_Ho_229) then went on to benefit the YB-35 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-35).
And had the war gone on, there were plans for a bigger Ho 229 (http://www.luft46.com/horten/ho18b.html) which could fly to the US and back...

Both a bad comparison and bad info.

The F-117 is older, and uses older stealth technology. Its RCS is still low, but the F-35 that the USAF uses has a much lower RCS. While we don't know specific figures, being highly classified, we do know the F-35 is much more stealthy than the F-117.
Thank you, I posted something similar, but it seems everyone glanced over it. The USAF has publically said that the F-35 is stealthier than both the F-117 and the B-2. The only plane with a smaller RCS is the F-22.