Sign in to follow this  
Nailing Malarkey Too

Brussles tells Jagdflugzeug, Dassault & Sabb to shove it

Recommended Posts

Whee ... now Belgium can be another European power to put their trust in a cutting edge airplane that can effectively hide from WWII-era radar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Plausible said:

how the hell did you manage to get 4864 down votes.     was there a campaign organized against you ?   Are you the winner ?

Jack is not a winner. Whiner, maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Xlot said:

 

Sabb??

They make big old boat diesels and are make in Norway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Laker said:

They make big old boat diesels and are make in Norway.

I hear they are going to outsource to Nambia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Belgium chooses the F-35. Canada is next and then maybe Germany, Swiss ...

Where is "Swiss?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2018 at 2:18 AM, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Belgium chooses the F-35. Canada is next and then maybe Germany, Swiss ...

 

Announced 2 weeks ago, were you off on another cruise, Jack?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada put the F-35 procurement on hold in Dec 2016 and launched a new study on what to buy that will take 5 years. In the mean time they purchased  newer F-18s from  Australia after cancelling a contract with Boeing to buy Hornets because your stupid fucking department of commerce  put a tariff on Bombardier passengers jets, putting both American and Canadian jobs in peril, when Boeing has no comparable jet  to compete with Bombardier (based on size of plane).    So Jack as usual your sizing up of the available info is that of a fruit bat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, d'ranger said:

Wasting away in Malarkeyville. 

See people say there's a Democrat to blame...

...But i know, It's my own damn fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, austin1972 said:

Wow, this thread is a wet mess.

The only mess is European Aerospace. The A380 will never reach profitability. The A400 has been a financial disaster. Arianespace is getting buried by Space -X. The Eurofighter is a maintenance nightmare and costs a lot more than the F-35. The first swing at a homegrown stealth fighter has tanked and estimates of first flight are now pushed off past 2026. 

Germany will likely cede fighter design to the US and buy F-35.  Particularly if east-west relations deteriorate further. France will arrogantly go their own way but without Germany on board, they will be unlikely to field a competitive 5th gen fighter before the US introduces its 6th gen design. 

The F35 will dominate the skies and sales contracts.

 

 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we talking about passenger jets in a thread Happy started about fighter jets?

Oh, right.  He is trying to formulate a coherent argument.

And, failing.  Again.  Belief me.

Failing Malarkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HuronBouy said:

Canada put the F-35 procurement on hold in Dec 2016 and launched a new study on what to buy that will take 5 years. In the mean time they purchased  newer F-18s from  Australia after cancelling a contract with Boeing to buy Hornets because your stupid fucking department of commerce  put a tariff on Bombardier passengers jets, putting both American and Canadian jobs in peril, when Boeing has no comparable jet  to compete with Bombardier (based on size of plane).    So Jack as usual your sizing up of the available info is that of a fruit bat. 

Canada is in a bit of a panic. Russian pressure on northern sovereignty is increasing and the only deterrent Canada has is a perceived willingness of the US to back up Canadian territorial claims. Look for Russia to start claiming territory and creating military bases in the north. If they install S400 systems in such a region the Canadian would have no options militarily without US aid.   The stupidity and arrogance of Canadian attitudes toward the US jeopardize the public willingness to sacrifice on your behalf. 

Keep calling us Nazis and neanderthals and we might just thumb our nose north when you need us most. 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Why are we talking about passenger jets in a thread Happy started about fighter jets?

Wide-area search trying to find something he knows shit about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Canada is in a bit of a panic. Russian pressure on northern sovereignty is increasing and the only deterrent Canada has is a perceived willingness of the US to back up Canadian territorial claims. Look for Russia to start claiming territory and creating military bases in the north. If they install S400 systems in such a region the Canadian would have no options military without US aid.   The stupidity and arrogance of Canadian attitudes toward the US jeopardize the public willingness to sacrifice on your behalf. 

Keep calling us Nazis and neanderthals and we might just thumb our nose north when you need us most. 

No panic here. Our biggest threat to our sovereignty in the north is the US. You are ones who insist that the north west passage is international waters when no maritime court in the world has agreed to this assertion. So fuck off you are Nazis,neanderthals bullies and you elect assholes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HuronBouy said:

No panic here. Our biggest threat to our sovereignty in the north is the US. You are ones who insist that the north west passage is international waters when no maritime court in the world has agreed to this assertion. So fuck off you are Nazis,neanderthals bullies and you elect assholes.

When that day comes we just might. I'll be sad for Canada but you are your own worst enemy right now. 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Canada is in a bit of a panic. Russian pressure on northern sovereignty is increasing and the only deterrent Canada has is a perceived willingness of the US to back up Canadian territorial claims. Look for Russia to start claiming territory and creating military bases in the north. If they install S400 systems in such a region the Canadian would have no options militarily without US aid.   The stupidity and arrogance of Canadian attitudes toward the US jeopardize the public willingness to sacrifice on your behalf. 

Keep calling us Nazis and neanderthals and we might just thumb our nose north when you need us most. 

Trump would much prefer Putin and a Russian controlled Canada on our northern border.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Trump would much prefer Putin and a Russian controlled Canada on our northern border.

Screw that. I love America's Hat. Some of the nicest people I've ever met.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, austin1972 said:

Screw that. I love America's Hat. Some of the nicest people I've ever met.

No wonder they revoked Malarkey’s citizenship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, HuronBouy said:

No panic here. Our biggest threat to our sovereignty in the north is the US. You are ones who insist that the north west passage is international waters when no maritime court in the world has agreed to this assertion. So fuck off you are Nazis,neanderthals bullies and you elect assholes.

 

Yes, we are well and truly fucked up now, and most of us are more upset than you are, and mightily ashamed and embarassed!!  This won't end well, but it will end, and cooler heads will prevail.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Malarkey, I don't know how close you are to the reality of the situation, but the reason that the Canadians are jumping all over themselves to not buy the F35 has more to do with the political pressure being brought to bear.  The recent announcement of a change in selection criteria that allowed the Europeans time and access to the develop the technology to interface with NORAD may be an indication of this.  The Brits have put further acquisition of the F35 on hold ( I am sure you have seen the press releases on this) but are accelerating the development of the new fighter and new navy fighter/bomber. (as if the term fighter/bomber means anything these days).  The previous administration's attempt to integrate a NATO fighter among nations has deteriorated to a monopoly to Lockheed-Martin on all aspects of the aircraft with only the nationality of the pilots changing.  All the money goes to L-M in other words with balancing purchases becoming a joke.  The US is behind $4.5 bn in offsets to Canada at this moment by the way.  The Lockheed-Martin Camel (as it has been renamed in certain circles), even if it were the greatest thing since sliced bread (not), has a high probability of being rejected on pure assholishness of the seller and its backers alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

When that day comes we just might. I'll be sad for Canada but you are your own worst enemy right now. 

How so Russia has not slapped on unfair and punitive tariffs, ignored international rulings  like softwood lumber. Seems to me our biggest issues are assholes like you. You know America will try to buy something it wants first if they  can;t they will try to steal it if it can't steal they wage war on you . Look up gun boat diplomacy, banana republic or bay of pigs or corruption before Cuban revolution, overthrow of Chile.....need I go on? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

When that day comes we just might. I'll be sad for Canada but you are your own worst enemy right now. 

Look at Jack, acting like swinging-dick American to his homeland, from his adopted country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Look at Jack, acting like swinging-dick American to his homeland, from his adopted country. 

Just reminding my compatriots which side of their bread is buttered. The ever-present Canadian Shoulder chip could bite them. 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fakenews said:

Look for Russia to start claiming territory and creating military bases in the north. If they install S400 systems in such a region the Canadian would have no options militarily without US aid

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?   You have a total lack of understanding of geography. The S-400 has a max range of ~400 km. Note the lack of any part of Russia anywhere near Canada. 

Russia.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Just reminding my compatriots which side of their bread is buttered. The ever-present Canadian Shoulder chip could bite them. 

Bullshit.

3 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Keep calling us Nazis and neanderthals and we might just thumb our nose north when you need us most. 

 

3 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

When that day comes we just might. I'll be sad for Canada but you are your own worst enemy right now. 

 

Espèce de traître.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

The only mess is European Aerospace. The A380 will never reach profitability. The A400 has been a financial disaster. Arianespace is getting buried by Space -X. The Eurofighter is a maintenance nightmare and costs a lot more than the F-35. The first swing at a homegrown stealth fighter has tanked and estimates of first flight are now pushed off past 2026. 

Germany will likely cede fighter design to the US and buy F-35.  Particularly if east-west relations deteriorate further. France will arrogantly go their own way but without Germany on board, they will be unlikely to field a competitive 5th gen fighter before the US introduces its 6th gen design. 

The F35 will dominate the skies and sales contracts.

 

 

The contemporary equivalent of dominating the castle moats.

Neither moats nor skies are where wars are being waged anymore. And this particular F-35 moat bridge used up resources that we needed for actual, real-life economic warfare.

Sometimes when my son gives me a puppy dog face, I'll buy him a little toy or video game credits, or a $1,500,000,000,000 airplane. Boys like toys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2018 at 11:23 AM, mikewof said:

Whee ... now Belgium can be another European power to put their trust in a cutting edge airplane that can effectively hide from WWII-era radar.

Nope. Old WW2 radar in the meter bands works much better against stealth aircraft than modern millimetric/centimetric radars...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Zonker said:

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?   You have a total lack of understanding of geography. The S-400 has a max range of ~400 km. Note the lack of any part of Russia anywhere near Canada. 

Russia.jpg

Hey moron I didn’t say that. Malarkey did.  Learn how to fucking use the quote function.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Zonker said:

Do you have any idea how stupid you sound?   You have a total lack of understanding of geography. The S-400 has a max range of ~400 km. Note the lack of any part of Russia anywhere near Canada. 

 

 

image.png.2f50753d41a25578a439bf86d5aad7eb.png

 

The defensive system only needs to cover the Russian base  Establish airfields and the Russians can claim and patrol a large area which Canada alone would be powerless to counter. Russia alone has established naval bases in the artic. You think global warming is going to make the artic navigatable? Well, don't be surprised if Russia pulls a China and claims territory Canada thinks is theirs. 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Expatriated said:

Nope. Old WW2 radar in the meter bands works much better against stealth aircraft than modern millimetric/centimetric radars...

That's right some of the time, but not always. It depends on the "stealth" scheme. For the radar absorbent paint, where carbon fibers are deposited onto the surface, the feature length of the thread has to be about half as long or longer than the wavelength of light incident on the surface. The limit of these threads to prevent near-surface turbulence is about 25 microns, depending on the envelope of the aircraft, so about 50 visible light up to 50 microns, or about 6 THz to 6000 GHz, except the short wavelength light tends to carry too much energy to be effectively absorbed, so it really only started working at wavelengths about 1 micron or so. This is where you would be right, and the long wavelength WWII--ere bands are effective.

The retroreflecting surfaces are good for longer wavelengths, there the feature length determines the retroreflection of long, radar-band type wavelengths. This is where the retroreflectors are ineffective against shorter wavelength light. And finally the spoofing methods tend to work better on longer wavelengths because these carry so much less resolution. 

But new phase array sources can create a synthetic aperture that simulates the effect of both shorter and longer wavelength light, so they're effective against both normal kinds of stealth, and they have variable efficacy against electronic countermeasures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mikewof said:

That's right some of the time, but not always. It depends on the "stealth" scheme. For the radar absorbent paint, where carbon fibers are deposited onto the surface, the feature length of the thread has to be about half as long or longer than the wavelength of light incident on the surface. The limit of these threads to prevent near-surface turbulence is about 25 microns, depending on the envelope of the aircraft, so about 50 visible light up to 50 microns, or about 6 THz to 6000 GHz, except the short wavelength light tends to carry too much energy to be effectively absorbed, so it really only started working at wavelengths about 1 micron or so. This is where you would be right, and the long wavelength WWII--ere bands are effective.

The retroreflecting surfaces are good for longer wavelengths, there the feature length determines the retroreflection of long, radar-band type wavelengths. This is where the retroreflectors are ineffective against shorter wavelength light. And finally the spoofing methods tend to work better on longer wavelengths because these carry so much less resolution. 

But new phase array sources can create a synthetic aperture that simulates the effect of both shorter and longer wavelength light, so they're effective against both normal kinds of stealth, and they have variable efficacy against electronic countermeasures.

And fitting it in the 25 cm aperture of an air to air missile is easy peasy.

What you ignore my less than informed friend is that the F35 is not just passive stealth of angles and absorbers it is also active stealth and active jamming.  And unfortunately for your long wavelength phased radars, they are not just physically enormous, easy to detect and target, they are also much much easier to spoof and jam. The F35's DSP's and ECM emitters will have a field day with Russian L band (and lower) Radars.  

Stealth is not invisibility but it is pretty close in practice. 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think they should be called the People Scouts? Lacks a little oomph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

A country did this? Which country?

Did you read the article?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

And fitting it in the 25 cm aperture of an air to air missile is easy peasy.

What you ignore my less than informed friend is that the F35 is not just passive stealth of angles and absorbers it is also active stealth and active jamming.  And unfortunately for your long wavelength phased radars, they are not just physically enormous, easy to detect and target, they are also much much easier to spoof and jam. The F35's DSP's and ECM emitters will have a field day with Russian L band (and lower) Radars.  

Stealth is not invisibility but it is pretty close in practice. 

Stealth used to work. Phase array and spread spectrum killed it ... it's like squeezing a balloon; when you absorb, deflect and spoof certain wavelengths, you then make the interaction more visible in those other wavelengths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Stealth used to work. Phase array and spread spectrum killed it ... it's like squeezing a balloon; when you absorb, deflect and spoof certain wavelengths, you then make the interaction more visible in those other wavelengths.

You have zero understanding of how it works in practice. 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, VOA said:

I'm happy to say I don't know how it works. I'm pretty confident squeezing balloons has nothing to do with it though. I've squeezed some balloons over the years and they all still looked like balloons.

It's a terrific analogy, because at its core, radar sensing of aircraft is photons interacting with molecules. When you squeeze the air from one side of the balloon, the other side gets big. You can't squeeze the entire balloon without compressing the air.

Photons WILL interact with molecules no matter what the stealth designer does. Once you understand how to prevent light from reradiating from a photon-molecule interaction or at least change the phase and direction, then you'll see why it's a lot like squeezing a balloon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mikey, you would be better off thinking as waves/fields than photons - you also missed he easiest way of mitigating stealth for ground based radar is to separate transmitter and receiver which is funny 'cos that was how the UK RADAR experiments started in the 1930's. 

Phased array radars aren't that new...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Expatriated said:

Mikey, you would be better off thinking as waves/fields than photons - you also missed he easiest way of mitigating stealth for ground based radar is to separate transmitter and receiver which is funny 'cos that was how the UK RADAR experiments started in the 1930's. 

Phased array radars aren't that new...

You have a beautiful and subtle point.

I don't like to use waves as the model because it doesn't explain the atom-photon interaction as simply. It's perfect for propagation, but once the energy is allowed to leave the ground state, the interaction depends only on the energy/wavelength of the photon and the particle that absorbs it.

Phase array isn't new, but the computational control to actively shape that beam is new. The active signal is essentially jacketed by signals of varying wavelengths that are designed to interact with the air and create essentially untraceable wavefronts, like a kind of ionizing tunnel, the waveguide is synthetic in the AIR! 

That is new, and even now, it isn't easy to do. It requires characterizing the air with a LiDAR, and then a synthetic aperture that can simultaneously transmit with a wide range of frequencies using short "antennalets" that combine and subtract to get the desired wavelength.

It's tough as hell. Jack hates when I mention the superiority of Russians in this kind of vacuum physics, but it's just reality. We don't have a lot of expertise in this area compared to them, in part because we don't use quaternions anymore, our math is mesh based and vector/tensor based.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mikewof said:

Phase array isn't new, but the computational control to actively shape that beam is new.

How do you define new? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Cal20sailor said:

How do you define new? 

Phase array has been around for decades.

But using synthetic waveguides needs supercomputers, fairly effective LiDAR, and nanoscale depositions to dynamically shape the transmission surface. Practically, that's about ten years old.

And honestly, it's probably a waste to use it to do something as pedestrian as targeting a $1,500,000,000,000 invisible Wonder Woman jet. We seem to have the technology too, it's probably an Israeli design, and it's probably used for spoofing GPS and homing signals. That's the real valuable application. Why shoot down a pawn when you can have the rook come to your doorstep?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Phase array has been around for decades.

But using synthetic waveguides needs supercomputers, fairly effective LiDAR, and nanoscale depositions to dynamically shape the transmission surface. Practically, that's about ten years old.

And honestly, it's probably a waste to use it to do something as pedestrian as targeting a $1,500,000,000,000 invisible Wonder Woman jet. We seem to have the technology too, it's probably an Israeli design, and it's probably used for spoofing GPS and homing signals. That's the real valuable application. Why shoot down a pawn when you can have the rook come to your doorstep?

Been. out of the field for a dozen years  but what do you mean my synthetic waveguides and can I assume LIDAR is laser-driven.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

Been. out of the field for a dozen years  but what do you mean my synthetic waveguides and can I assume LIDAR is laser-driven.  

The LiDAR is usually needed to characterize the air through which you construct the synthetic waveguide. You need to know how much moisture and particulates are there because your "jacket" is absorbed by that stuff. You need to play with the wavelengths of the jacket to control the ionization. The jacket is the synthetic waveguide.

The goal of this is to make a reflective surface for the signal inside the jacket, kind of a coaxial arrangement. Then you need to steer your synthetic waveguide through superposition and you can do all kinds of wacky stuff, like give the illusion that the signal is coming from in front of the plane when it's behind.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, mikewof said:

It's a terrific analogy, because at its core, radar sensing of aircraft is photons interacting with molecules. When you squeeze the air from one side of the balloon, the other side gets big. You can't squeeze the entire balloon without compressing the air.

Photons WILL interact with molecules no matter what the stealth designer does. Once you understand how to prevent light from reradiating from a photon-molecule interaction or at least change the phase and direction, then you'll see why it's a lot like squeezing a balloon.

Mike knows more than all the scientists and engineers at Lockheed's Skunk Works and all the other contractors on the F35. Mike also can explain why Russia, India, China, Japan, Germany, and France are all working on stealth fighters.  That makes Mike smarter than a whole lot of smart people. Smarter than the theorists that write the algorithms for the ECM suite. Smarter than the Stealth designers, Smarter that the Isreali military and the Belgium Military and smarter than all of us here.

I showed him the simplest of electronic circuits and he had no clue. But, the practical creation of a missile defense system able to overcome a stealth and ECM system he does not know the specifications of and that is fast enough to kill before being killed is a piece of cake for him. 

We need to shut down the National labs, shutter DARPA and install a hotline to Mike for all our answers. Who need scientists and research when we have him. 

Maybe Mike will explain why our own best ground and air defense system can't defeat the F35 even though we know exactly how the F35 performs its magic. But of course, it's no problem for his Russian comrades.   

 

 

 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, mikewof said:

The LiDAR is usually needed to characterize the air through which you construct the synthetic waveguide. You need to know how much moisture and particulates are there because your "jacket" is absorbed by that stuff. You need to play with the wavelengths of the jacket to control the ionization. The jacket is the synthetic waveguide.

The goal of this is to make a reflective surface for the signal inside the jacket, kind of a coaxial arrangement. Then you need to steer your synthetic waveguide through superposition and you can do all kinds of wacky stuff, like give the illusion that the signal is coming from in front of the plane when it's behind.

 

You are so full of your self it is ridiculous.   

The best line of anyone I ever heard years ago upon being briefed on our capabilities was, we knew more than we thought. That was 20yrs.

You don't sail so why hang around other than your tomes on the best nail clippers to buy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike knows more than all the scientists and engineers at Lockheed's Skunk Works and all the other contractors on the F35. Mike also can explain why Russia, India, China, Japan, Germany, and France are all working on stealth fighters.  That makes Mike smarter than a whole lot of smart people. Smarter than the theorists that write the algorithms for the ECM suite. Smarter than the Stealth designers, Smarter that the Isreali military and the Belgium Military and smarter than all of us here.

 

Well, this is the way everyone else does it..........Grace Hopper, the developer of COBOL, was always on about doing things in a certain way because this was the way everyone else does it. Yes, a million people could be wrong.  We have already determined  that stealth is not perfect.  The stated advantage is now that the Camel cannot be targeted because the return is so small and the reaction cannot be fast enough.

Try this.  How would you overcome stealth?  Weapons designers are asked to come up with a list of how their weapons systems could be overcome.  I am sure that stealth designers have been asked the same things and that operational parameters are set for the weapons system.

BTW, the Brit fighters being worked on are not particularly stealthy.  Do they know something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Laker said:

Mike knows more than all the scientists and engineers at Lockheed's Skunk Works and all the other contractors on the F35. Mike also can explain why Russia, India, China, Japan, Germany, and France are all working on stealth fighters.  That makes Mike smarter than a whole lot of smart people. Smarter than the theorists that write the algorithms for the ECM suite. Smarter than the Stealth designers, Smarter that the Isreali military and the Belgium Military and smarter than all of us here.

 

Well, this is the way everyone else does it..........Grace Hopper, the developer of COBOL, was always on about doing things in a certain way because this was the way everyone else does it. Yes, a million people could be wrong.  We have already determined  that stealth is not perfect.  The stated advantage is now that the Camel cannot be targeted because the return is so small and the reaction cannot be fast enough.

Try this.  How would you overcome stealth?  Weapons designers are asked to come up with a list of how their weapons systems could be overcome.  I am sure that stealth designers have been asked the same things and that operational parameters are set for the weapons system.

BTW, the Brit fighters being worked on are not particularly stealthy.  Do they know something?

Which fighter is that?

Stealth was never sold as invisible or nondetectable. It is a tactical advantage over legacy defenses and nothing more. There is no question that on today's battlefield with existing defenses it is a huge advantage. Longwave IR can with a clear sky and idea conditions detect and with enough overlapping networked detectors may resolve targeting solutions on stealth planes. But the limitations on this capability still face major hurdles to become practical weapons. The most likely application will be at sea where an aircraft carrier task group will link such detectors across the fleet and gain the ability to steer interceptors and missiles to enemy stealth targets.  

Google  F18 Bock III & Boeing & navy & stealth for more on this. 

One day all of these technologies will negate the F35's stealth advantage. Its role is to force enemies to discard their inventory of legacy weapons and then invent, perfect and manufacturer more capable replacements. They also have to afford to do it. 

Every new offensive capability spurs the development of the Defensive countermeasure and then the cycle repeats. 

When I ask left leaning posters like Mike Wolfsey if the world is better off with the US maintaining a huge military superiority over Russia and China etc. or would we be safer if all major powers had military parity. The usual response is along the lines of "America bully and the biggest threat to world peace". 

I have to conclude the opposition to the F35 is not because it is a failure but because it is such a success. 

 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2018 at 1:17 PM, HuronBouy said:

Canada put the F-35 procurement on hold in Dec 2016 and launched a new study on what to buy that will take 5 years. In the mean time they purchased  newer F-18s from  Australia after cancelling a contract with Boeing to buy Hornets because your stupid fucking department of commerce  put a tariff on Bombardier passengers jets, putting both American and Canadian jobs in peril, when Boeing has no comparable jet  to compete with Bombardier (based on size of plane).    So Jack as usual your sizing up of the available info is that of a fruit bat. 

2

The first casualty. Typhoo is next then Grippen then the F18 Super. I am going to love Justin Time's crow pie. I wonder how he will explain the flip-flop. Probably "Canada's thread to cancel the F35 order was the impetus needed to force them to get their act together. My clever ploy worked."

VICTORIA, British Columbia — Dassault Aviation has withdrawn from Canada’s competition to buy 88 new fighter jets over concerns that interoperability and intelligence sharing requirements were too extensive, according to industry sources.

Dassault had been approved by the Canadian government for the competition and intended to offer the Royal Canadian Air Force the Rafale fighter jet.

A draft bid package for 88 fighter aircraft has been issued to companies for their feedback by the end of this year, said Pat Finn, assistant deputy minister for materiel at Canada’s Department of National Defence. From there, the final bidding instructions for the CAN$16 billion (U.S. $12.2 billion) procurement will be issued and bids required by May 2019, he added.

Dassault, however, reviewed the draft request for proposals and determined the Canadian requirements for intelligence data sharing and interoperability, particularly with U.S. forces, would be difficult to meet, sources noted.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cal20sailor said:

You are so full of your self it is ridiculous.   

The best line of anyone I ever heard years ago upon being briefed on our capabilities was, we knew more than we thought. That was 20yrs.

You don't sail so why hang around other than your tomes on the best nail clippers to buy?

Full of myself? I didn't invent this! I'm in awe of it! It's a glorious demonstration of superposition.

And I do sail.

And I also bang your mom, so there's that.

But I'm curious as to your emotional illness that you feel compelled to start.a functional conversation with me and then suddenly decide that you prefer "little bitch boy mode" where you then need to start a shitfight.

While I do recognize that your mangina is chemically imbalanced, I wonder if you have ever known the luxury of not being pitied by those who suffer from raging premenstrual syndrome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Mike knows more than all the scientists and engineers at Lockheed's Skunk Works and all the other contractors on the F35. Mike also can explain why Russia, India, China, Japan, Germany, and France are all working on stealth fighters.  That makes Mike smarter than a whole lot of smart people. Smarter than the theorists that write the algorithms for the ECM suite. Smarter than the Stealth designers, Smarter that the Isreali military and the Belgium Military and smarter than all of us here.

I showed him the simplest of electronic circuits and he had no clue. But, the practical creation of a missile defense system able to overcome a stealth and ECM system he does not know the specifications of and that is fast enough to kill before being killed is a piece of cake for him. 

We need to shut down the National labs, shutter DARPA and install a hotline to Mike for all our answers. Who need scientists and research when we have him. 

Maybe Mike will explain why our own best ground and air defense system can't defeat the F35 even though we know exactly how the F35 performs its magic. But of course, it's no problem for his Russian comrades.   

Jack, I'm nowhere near as smart as those engineers. My dad was a Martin Marietta engineer, I know full well that guys like him are more capable than I am.

But I am not on their payroll, so I can clearly see that when it comes to stealth, the King has no clothing. In the era of accessible waveforms, stealth is an anachronism.

Now, to that circuit, that's not my area, I'm a physicist, not an electronics technician.

And while I don't have that fancy degree from MIT like you do, and my lowly Ph.D is just from silly-ol' football school University of Alabama, I did somehow receive sufficient training in basic electrodynamics in JD Jackson that I can rationality discern a crock of shit when confronted with it. The reason why "our best" air ground systems "can't see that great, hulking, flaming, flying beast is obviously because they are OUR systems and if they could see it, then that $1,500,000,000,000 airplane would suddenly lose a good bit of value, no?

Think about it Jack, how long does it take to design a novel electronic circuit on a truck versus an entire integrated air-frame, powerplant and flying supercomputer?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Which fighter is that?

Stealth was never sold as invisible or nondetectable. It is a tactical advantage over legacy defenses and nothing more. There is no question that on today's battlefield with existing defenses it is a huge advantage. Longwave IR can with a clear sky and idea conditions detect and with enough overlapping networked detectors may resolve targeting solutions on stealth planes. But the limitations on this capability still face major hurdles to become practical weapons. The most likely application will be at sea where an aircraft carrier task group will link such detectors across the fleet and gain the ability to steer interceptors and missiles to enemy stealth targets.  

Google  F18 Bock III & Boeing & navy & stealth for more on this. 

One day all of these technologies will negate the F35's stealth advantage. Its role is to force enemies to discard their inventory of legacy weapons and then invent, perfect and manufacturer more capable replacements. They also have to afford to do it. 

Every new offensive capability spurs the development of the Defensive countermeasure and then the cycle repeats. 

When I ask left leaning posters like Mike Wolfsey if the world is better off with the US maintaining a huge military superiority over Russia and China etc. or would we be safer if all major powers had military parity. The usual response is along the lines of "America bully and the biggest threat to world peace". 

I have to conclude the opposition to the F35 is not because it is a failure but because it is such a success. 

 

YCMTSU!

Jack insults me for stating the truth, then he outright agrees with me in his very next post!

Finally, you see the light ... the F-35 will light up most any contemporary sensing system. And yes, I've no doubt that it can elude many old technology radar systems.

Whoopdefuckingdo.

So we have a $1,500,000,000,000 plane that can effectively fight the ground forces of Lithuania, Tanzanis, Peru and Madagascar. And oh yeah, Jack now admits that it's essentially stealthless against China, Russia and anyone who purchases a decent system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, mikewof said:

YCMTSU!

Jack insults me for stating the truth, then he outright agrees with me in his very next post!

Finally, you see the light ... the F-35 will light up most any contemporary sensing system. And yes, I've no doubt that it can elude many old technology radar systems.

Whoopdefuckingdo.

So we have a $1,500,000,000,000 plane that can effectively fight the ground forces of Lithuania, Tanzanis, Peru and Madagascar. And oh yeah, Jack now admits that it's essentially stealthless against China, Russia and anyone who purchases a decent system.

Sorry, Mike, you went off half-cocked again. There are no existing systems that can target the F35 at an effective range. Not the S300, 400, or yet to be produced 500. Everything the Russians and the Chinees have invested in is obsolete against American Stealth.

In the case of fighters? The aperture available on a fighter and the even smaller diameter air to air missiles dictated the use of x band and above. Against which the F35 stealth is excellent. The best Russian IRST systems use shortwave IR and as such have limited detection ranges and are near;y useless in search mode.  Unless given a bearing and elevation it is unlikely to detect anything at any approachable range. It is useful only when searching a few degrees of azimuth and elevation at a time. 

The F35 also masks its IR signature with active cooling on all frontal edges and surfaces. You may have heard that The F35 need to keep its fuel cool. (white painted tankers etc. ) that is because the fuel is used as a heat sink to cool the airframe and the electronics. 

Maybe in 20 years, the Russians will start to field systems that can at least detect the presence of F35's but right now no one including the US has such tech. 

Your idea that all the engineers, pilots, ground crews, contractors, politicians and everyone else are suppressing the truth to keep the dollars flowing to Lockheed is ridiculous. 

If stealth does not work and existing Russian weapons can see right through it the parties who would know would blow the whistle. A conspiracy of a hundred thousand people all keeping this huge secret. Right. 

 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Sorry, Mike, you went off half-cocked again. There are no existing systems that can target the F35 at an effective range. Not the S300, 400, or yet to be produced 500. Everything the Russians and the Chinees have invested in is obsolete against American Stealth.

In the case of fighters? The aperture available on a fighter and the even smaller diameter air to air missiles dictated the use of x band and above. Against which the F35 stealth is excellent. The best Russian IRST systems use shortwave IR and as such have limited detection ranges and are near;y useless in search mode.  Unless given a bearing and elevation it is unlikely to detect anything at any approachable range. It is useful only when searching a few degrees of azimuth and elevation at a time. 

The F35 also masks its IR signature with active cooling on all frontal edges and surfaces. You may have heard that The F35 need to keep its fuel cool. (white painted tankers etc. ) that is because the fuel is used as a heat sink to cool the airframe and the electronics. 

Maybe in 20 years, the Russians will start to field systems that can at least detect the presence of F35's but right now no one including the US has such tech. 

Your idea that all the engineers, pilots, ground crews, contractors, politicians and everyone else are suppressing the truth to keep the dollars flowing to Lockheed is ridiculous. 

If stealth does not work and existing Russian weapons can see right through it the parties who would know would blow the whistle. A conspiracy of a hundred thousand people all keeping this huge secret. Right. 

 

It's funny, but I think we're gradually coming to some kind of consensus about the plane. If I mostly go by your previous post, it seems that you're suggesting that the F-35 is made to be a potentially profitable product to defend second-tier powers against third-tier powers ... essentially a fleet of Chevy Corvettes that actually have a decent per-unit cost compared to the Bugattis and Lambos that don't have the wide installed base to penetrate market defenses for the next twenty five years. And with that, you've won me over to your argument, the F-35 may well be that plane.

But with this new post, you've reverted back to your original position that the F-35 can do things that seem more hype than reality. And on this, I still don't see it because my bullshit detectors are buzzing.

1. We've discussed the light sensing issues at length. Again, the contemporary ability to shape and guide waveforms will allow a decent light source to see that plane at any distance where the atmosphere has some transmission. And even at wavelengths where the signals are highly attenuated, the ability to digitally encode the carrier will allow for immediate verification of reflection or absorption on the surface of that plane. It's not 1945, we don't characterize analog reflections, and even a return signal strength of 1/10,000 the source strength is sufficient to positively identify that great hulking flying beast. It's not some soldier looking at a glowing green screen, it's a computer identifying signals. And the computer doesn't give a rat's ass about low observability ... once it locks into something with the right velocity vector, then it has a target, and that can happen in milliseconds.

2. The IR signature thing is -- again -- useful in an era of analog Vietnam War era signal acquisition -- but even the computer in my telephone can identify an IR signature like the one generated by that great, flying, flaming hunk of titanium. The engineers can "mask" the heat signature six ways to Sunday, but they don't have the ability to violate the Second an Law of Thermodynamics. About 90% of the energy drawn off of the fuel in that plane is converted to heat after being used for useful forward work to move the plane against the air friction. They can use the fuel a a half-assed, market-driven heat sink, but the fuel in that plane has something like 120,000 BTUs per gallon. So even being generous by estimating that 100,000 BTUs per gallon end up as heat boiling off that plane, there is no way that the fuel in even full tanks could absorb that kind of energy at anything close to the rate that it is produced.

Nope.

That heat, the vast, vast majority of that 100,000 BTUs per gallon is boiling off into the air surrounding that plane and it is detectable by contemporary systems. The idea of using the fuel as a heat sink is really terrific marketing hype, but even a first year undergraduate chemistry student can do a mass-energy balance and immediately see that the chemical energy in that fuel is orders of magnitudes higher than the fuel's ability to thermally store the heat to avoid being thermally detected.

That's just basic chemistry, and I suck at chemistry, but even I know that the energy in the hydrogen lattice of the jet fuel  far above the liquid's ability to hold heat. Even if that plane has the ability to store heat by converting the liquid fuel to solid chunks of condensed fuel, it still would be a piss in the.energy bucket.

And how much energy can you pump into reservoirs of jet fuel until you risk them exploding?

That plane will light up a far-IR sensor like a teary-eyed rendition of O Tannenbaum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike,

You need to get your love of Russian tech into perspective; it ain't that great. Sure they get a lot of bang for what they spend compared with the US but you are over enamored of their abilities. Stealth is mostly about delaying target acquisition - the closer you can get to the radar the better the chance of an anti radar missile causing a rapid disassembly of the radar and it's personnel. The earliest stealth tests I am aware where for ballistic missile warheads in the 1960's which lead to the UK Chevaline decoy and evasion changes to Polaris. 

 

I cannot for the life of me figure out why so many lefties ever loved and still love the Russian government and admire ALL things Soviet Russian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Expatriated said:

Mike,

You need to get your love of Russian tech into perspective; it ain't that great. Sure they get a lot of bang for what they spend compared with the US but you are over enamored of their abilities. Stealth is mostly about delaying target acquisition - the closer you can get to the radar the better the chance of an anti radar missile causing a rapid disassembly of the radar and it's personnel. The earliest stealth tests I am aware where for ballistic missile warheads in the 1960's which lead to the UK Chevaline decoy and evasion changes to Polaris. 

 

I cannot for the life of me figure out why so many lefties ever loved and still love the Russian government and admire ALL things Soviet Russian.

I  come back to two things whenever dealing with Russian tech.  The ability up to the nineties for Russian submarine sonar to stay active at a much higher speed than the west.  Turned out to be the use of old U-Boat tech organ pipes on the front end. And the inability to effectively jam some signals from Russian aircraft.  Turned out to be the use of tubes instead of transistors in some of their electronics.  Of course there was always their use of a pencil in space where the US developed a special pen at a multimillion dollar cost.  You can see why there is some respect for their abilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Expatriated said:

Mike,

You need to get your love of Russian tech into perspective; it ain't that great. Sure they get a lot of bang for what they spend compared with the US but you are over enamored of their abilities. Stealth is mostly about delaying target acquisition - the closer you can get to the radar the better the chance of an anti radar missile causing a rapid disassembly of the radar and it's personnel. The earliest stealth tests I am aware where for ballistic missile warheads in the 1960's which lead to the UK Chevaline decoy and evasion changes to Polaris. 

 

I cannot for the life of me figure out why so many lefties ever loved and still love the Russian government and admire ALL things Soviet Russian.

Russian "tech"? When did I admire that?

Russian tech sucks, that's the whole point, it has forced them to be inventive and disruptive with inferior technology. They invented the stealth retroreflecting surfaces that are used on the F-35 fercrissakes. Pieter Ufimstev IS the farther of Stealth!

And there is probably not a physicist alive who didn't learn many of his or her skills from Landau-Lifshitz books translated into English, German, French, Spanish or Italian.

I am in awe of Soviet trained physicists (and many younger Russian trained physicists) because their abilities are so momentously established. They use tensor analysis as first year students. I have personally worked with them, and their abilities and training are beyond reproach.

I am happy to discuss the limitations of Stealth with you, but the moment the conversation turns away from the basic electrodynamics of the process, there is no longer a discussion, it just devolves into something resembling a Car & Driver article comparing a Cadillac to a Mercedes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Laker said:

I  come back to two things whenever dealing with Russian tech.  The ability up to the nineties for Russian submarine sonar to stay active at a much higher speed than the west.  Turned out to be the use of old U-Boat tech organ pipes on the front end. And the inability to effectively jam some signals from Russian aircraft.  Turned out to be the use of tubes instead of transistors in some of their electronics.  Of course there was always their use of a pencil in space where the US developed a special pen at a multimillion dollar cost.  You can see why there is some respect for their abilities.

One of the first in-person discussions I had with Jack on the phone about twelve years ago was those vacuum tubes. His take was that our radiation hardening was sufficient, just wrap your electronics in tantalum foil.

My take on having worked with damaged electronics from radiation was that only tubes and Field Emission Devices really ever survived the worst conditions.

Of course, Jack is correct for 99% of the radiation damage that our circuits would ever receive. But the Soviets went with that ridiculous tube technology because of that remaining 1%, and also because they could leverage their own poverty with tubes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Mike but you love to run down the rabbit whole when you are missing the simple points. If I a stealthed plane gets closer to the target before it is detected the better the chance has that the target is destroyed. The now obsolete Alarm missile I worked on years ago was specifically designed to destroy radio emitting targets; the closer you could get before launch the better the chance of a hit. Stealth is also very effective against missiles with an onboard radar 'cos of the physical size limitations on air-to-air and ground-to-air missiles. 

 

Did you ever work on anything defense related?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These F-35 discussions tend to leave me with a grudging respect for the tools of war that didn't try to bamboozle us.

Like the old Fairchild A-10 Warthog ... that plane was a nightmare of a flying killing machine. It didn't pretend to be a good plane, or a flying computer, it didn't pretend to have the ability to hide its sound, or its heat. It just flew, and it armored its engines, and stuck the pilot into a titanium bathtub to protect him or her. It gave anyone on the horizon ample warning that it was coming to fuck shit up, and they were welcome to run like scared kittens if they so desired.

THAT plane was America ... It kicked ass, and it didn't care who knew it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree with your point about being bamboozled Mike!

Defense buyers keep changing their minds and adding features and the defense industry loves to keep feeding the beast. The A-10 was a beast and the F35 is way to expensive to use for close support but that is a job better done by drones these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Expatriated said:

Sorry Mike but you love to run down the rabbit whole when you are missing the simple points. If I a stealthed plane gets closer to the target before it is detected the better the chance has that the target is destroyed. The now obsolete Alarm missile I worked on years ago was specifically designed to destroy radio emitting targets; the closer you could get before launch the better the chance of a hit. Stealth is also very effective against missiles with an onboard radar 'cos of the physical size limitations on air-to-air and ground-to-air missiles. 

 

Did you ever work on anything defense related?

Discussing the basic process of "stealth" is not a "rabbit hole" it's the beauty of electrodynamics. If your "simple points" are not anchored in basic electrodynamics then they are not simple points as much as they are hype from the marketing department. You seem to know that.

Your suggested that a "stealthed" plane is more difficult to detect farther from a target is academic at best. Again, we no longer identify planes by blips on a radar screen. Digital signal acquisition of a plane on a horizon, or a cluster of cancer cells in some healthy tissue or a fleck of paint in a gallon of milk IS established, it's here right now, and the computer usually isn't fooled by "low observability." It is happy enough to characterize even individual pixels if necessary.

You present this idea that "stealth" might give the plane an extra several minutes invisibility before being identified, but in reality it's probably more like a few seconds at best, and maybe more like a few fractions of seconds. Economically, it just doesn't make sense to spend $1,500,000,000,000 on a plane that has only a tiny edge of decreased observability.

 

Physicists don't usually work on defense, but the defense industry tends to use our work. Out of all the physicists with whom I've ever trained, only one of them is in an actual "defense" position, and that's for nuclear nonproliferation. We aren't engineers, we train engineers. Some of my applied theory in Casimir Force tolerance has been used in defense, but I don't know the details. They tend not to tell us anything about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Expatriated said:

I don't disagree with your point about being bamboozled Mike!

Defense buyers keep changing their minds and adding features and the defense industry loves to keep feeding the beast. The A-10 was a beast and the F35 is way to expensive to use for close support but that is a job better done by drones these days.

It's true. And that's why I have gradually recognized Jack's point about the possible future of the F-35. I don't see it as an effective way to protect our country, but it might well turn into an effective economic engine. I don't know for sure, but it sure would be swell if we could make money in a way that didn't necessitate blowing up brown people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mikewof said:

It's funny, but I think we're gradually coming to some kind of consensus about the plane. If I mostly go by your previous post, it seems that you're suggesting that the F-35 is made to be a potentially profitable product to defend second-tier powers against third-tier powers ... essentially a fleet of Chevy Corvettes that actually have a decent per-unit cost compared to the Bugattis and Lambos that don't have the wide installed base to penetrate market defenses for the next twenty five years. And with that, you've won me over to your argument, the F-35 may well be that plane.

But with this new post, you've reverted back to your original position that the F-35 can do things that seem more hype than reality. And on this, I still don't see it because my bullshit detectors are buzzing.

1. We've discussed the light sensing issues at length. Again, the contemporary ability to shape and guide waveforms will allow a decent light source to see that plane at any distance where the atmosphere has some transmission. And even at wavelengths where the signals are highly attenuated, the ability to digitally encode the carrier will allow for immediate verification of reflection or absorption on the surface of that plane. It's not 1945, we don't characterize analog reflections, and even a return signal strength of 1/10,000 the source strength is sufficient to positively identify that great hulking flying beast. It's not some soldier looking at a glowing green screen, it's a computer identifying signals. And the computer doesn't give a rat's ass about low observability ... once it locks into something with the right velocity vector, then it has a target, and that can happen in milliseconds.

2. The IR signature thing is -- again -- useful in an era of analog Vietnam War era signal acquisition -- but even the computer in my telephone can identify an IR signature like the one generated by that great, flying, flaming hunk of titanium. The engineers can "mask" the heat signature six ways to Sunday, but they don't have the ability to violate the Second an Law of Thermodynamics. About 90% of the energy drawn off of the fuel in that plane is converted to heat after being used for useful forward work to move the plane against the air friction. They can use the fuel a a half-assed, market-driven heat sink, but the fuel in that plane has something like 120,000 BTUs per gallon. So even being generous by estimating that 100,000 BTUs per gallon end up as heat boiling off that plane, there is no way that the fuel in even full tanks could absorb that kind of energy at anything close to the rate that it is produced.

Nope.

That heat, the vast, vast majority of that 100,000 BTUs per gallon is boiling off into the air surrounding that plane and it is detectable by contemporary systems. The idea of using the fuel as a heat sink is really terrific marketing hype, but even a first year undergraduate chemistry student can do a mass-energy balance and immediately see that the chemical energy in that fuel is orders of magnitudes higher than the fuel's ability to thermally store the heat to avoid being thermally detected.

That's just basic chemistry, and I suck at chemistry, but even I know that the energy in the hydrogen lattice of the jet fuel  far above the liquid's ability to hold heat. Even if that plane has the ability to store heat by converting the liquid fuel to solid chunks of condensed fuel, it still would be a piss in the.energy bucket.

And how much energy can you pump into reservoirs of jet fuel until you risk them exploding?

That plane will light up a far-IR sensor like a teary-eyed rendition of O Tannenbaum. 

Marketing hype won't fool the pilots and ground crews. For you to be correct they all have to be participants in a huge lie. The pilots know if their IRST can see each other and at what range. The pilots know if the ground radars and fighter radars can see them and at what range. They experience the value or failure of the F-35 stealth on every training and red flag or green flag they participate in. It is a pure fantasy for you to claim they would all conspire together to float the lie that Stealth works. 

As for the second world vs 3rd... Hogwash the F-35 is the premier fighter in the world today. Recently it flew against the F-22 in The Baltic. The results have not been officially released but there is every indication the F-35 was equal to or bested the F-22 in frontal and off-axis engagements. 

The APG-81, DAS, and the IRST on the F-35 are vastly superior to the F-22's APG-77.  The F-22 is slated for an avionics overhaul in the coming decade to include many of the F35's tricks. 

So I ask you. Are all these pilots just stupid or are they complicit in a lie about the stealth capabilities of their airplane? 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Expatriated said:

I don't disagree with your point about being bamboozled Mike!

Defense buyers keep changing their minds and adding features and the defense industry loves to keep feeding the beast. The A-10 was a beast and the F35 is way to expensive to use for close support but that is a job better done by drones these days.

It isn't the life of a defense buyer in the cockpit of an F-35. Do you rationally believe that the 900 or so pilots and several 1000 ground crew members now F-35 trained or the many thousands they fly against in training exercises don't know if the stealth works or not? And, that they to a man say nothing. 

Rubbish. 

 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

It isn't the life of a defense buyer in the cockpit of an F-35. Do you rationally believe that the 900 or so pilots and several 1000 ground crew members now F-35 trained or the many thousands they fly against in training exercises don't know if the stealth works or not? And, that they to a man say nothing. 

Rubbish. 

 

I know very well that stealth works to some degree. It is not a magic invisibility cloak and can be degraded. I don't know why you are so confident in the publicly expressed views of the pilots; it wouldn't be career enhancing to say it wasn't effective and I would be surprised if you -or many USAF  F35 pilots - have direct knowledge of anti-stealth testing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Expatriated said:

I know very well that stealth works to some degree. It is not a magic invisibility cloak and can be degraded. I don't know why you are so confident in the publicly expressed views of the pilots; it wouldn't be career enhancing to say it wasn't effective and I would be surprised if you -or many USAF  F35 pilots - have direct knowledge of anti-stealth testing. 

They have the ONLY direct testing of stealth effectiveness when they fly it against other aircraft and ground defenses. They don't give a crap what some engineer says it did in "testing", they see what it does in practice and that is what matters to them. The pilots have had no reservations about helmet issues, hypoxia, and violent catapult launchings. I see no reason to believe concerns about stealths ineffectiveness would uniquely get covered up. As the size of the conspirator cadre grows the secrecy of the conspiracy shrinks at an accelerated pace. 

Your argument is not credible. 

Oh, and the F-35 has never calmed to be invisible or undetectable just harder to detect and much harder to intercept,  Nor have I. 

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nailing Malarkey Too said:

Your argument is not credible. 

Oh, and the F-35 has never calmed to be invisible or undetectable just harder to detect and much harder to intercept,  Nor have I. 

YCMTSU!!

 

  • Like 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Expatriated said:

NM you do know when aircraft are tested it is test pilots flying scenarios the engineers defined together with the pilots... 

Don't throw facts at him, he's confused enough already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites