What's new

Gajillion-Dollar Stealth Fighter, Now Easier to Shoot Down

Xeric

RETIRED THINK TANK
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
8,297
Reaction score
42
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Gajillion-Dollar Stealth Fighter, Now Easier to Shoot Down | Danger Room | Wired.com

Gajillion-Dollar Stealth Fighter, Now Easier to Shoot Down

* By Noah Shachtman
* June 11, 2010 |
* 12:26 pm |


The jet that’s supposed to make up more than 90 percent of America’s combat aviation fleet may have become a lot easier to shoot down.

Lockheed Martin, makers of the Joint Strike Fighter, has been under huge pressure to stabilize the jet’s skyrocketing costs. Production prices have nearly doubled on what was supposed to be an “affordable” fighter. R&D money is up another 40 percent. Some analysts predict the program could run as much as $388 billion for 2,400 jets.

So Lockheed decided “to trim 11 pounds and $1.4 million from each aircraft by removing shutoff valves for engine coolant and hydraulic lines and five of six dry bay fire-suppression systems,” according to InsideDefense.com.

But those cuts made it much harder for the Joint Strike Fighter to withstand a hit from an anti-aircraft weapon. “When you have something full of fuel under high pressure, some of it very hot, flowing close to hot metal parts and 270 VDC electrical components, your shutoff and check valves and fire suppression in the dry bays (places fuel will spray into) are your only defense,” a knowledgeable observer notes.

Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department’s chief weapons tester, recommended in a letter to Congress last month “that these features be reinstated.” The amount saved by trimming these components, he noted, would be more than made up, if just two aircraft were lost.

“Live-fire ballistic testing has demonstrated that the JSF is vulnerable,” added Lt. Gen. George Trautman, the Marines’ deputy commandant for aviation.

Now, one of the JSF’s now selling points was that it wouldn’t have to worry to much about taking on anti-aircraft fire; the jet would be so stealthy that the ground-to-air guns would never find it. But according to a report published by Air Power Australia, the plane is easier to spot than originally advertised. In fact, it is “demonstrably not a true stealth aircraft.”

Locheed says a recent “technological breakthrough” has fixed all that: a fiber mat that can blend stealthy qualities right into the composite skin of the aircraft.

And in an e-mail to Danger Room, Lockheed spokesman John Kent basically said the Pentagon tester was all wrong about the plane’s vulnerability.

“Rigorous combat analysis revealed that the survivability improvements afforded by the engine fuses and fire extinguishing features were very small,” Kent wrote. “These changes were thoroughly reviewed by the F-35 Operational Advisory Group and approved through the joint JSF Executive Steering Board, which includes membership from all nine JSF partner counties. All agreed that the weight saved by the elimination of these components would be better utilized in maintaining the performance capabilities of the aircraft. The present design meets the JSFPO’s expectations for vulnerability.”

Well, yeah. That’s true. “With the exception of a 30mm high-explosive incendiary round typically associated with light anti-aircraft artillery,” Trautman wrote. Like the kind Russia has, and sells all around the world.
 
.
So much for it's stealthy capabilities. I think most of it is all hyped up, as a true stealth fighter has yet to see combat in dense electronic warfare environment. Perhaps, Iraq and Afghanistan don't count in that case. I wonder how they would fare up in countries with aerial and ground based radars. Just a thought.
 
. .
So much for it's stealthy capabilities. I think most of it is all hyped up, as a true stealth fighter has yet to see combat in dense electronic warfare environment. Perhaps, Iraq and Afghanistan don't count in that case. I wonder how they would fare up in countries with aerial and ground based radars. Just a thought.
Do you even know what you are talking about? Can you show us what constitute a 'dense electronic warfare environment'?
 
.
All these machines are yet to be tested. In the battlefield several strategies may be deployed to defeat stealth.

It's only when America goes to war with someone like the Russians (or another Superpower) can these weapons be truly called proven (or truly failures).
 
.
In the electronic warfare environment, like it or not, the US has no equal in creating the necessary scenarios to gather data on how these 'stealth' aircrafts would perform in said environment. These aircrafts are tested to the next step is live fire and this is as close as anyone can get without actually killing anyone else.
 
.
These aircrafts are tested to the next step is live fire and this is as close as anyone can get without actually killing anyone else.

gambit.
How is that done/achieved safely ? ? . How much part virtual simulation plays .
 
. .
In the electronic warfare environment, like it or not, the US has no equal in creating the necessary scenarios to gather data on how these 'stealth' aircrafts would perform in said environment. These aircrafts are tested to the next step is live fire and this is as close as anyone can get without actually killing anyone else.

SAY WHAT?. There hadn't been anything that can't be detected by Air defence radars of powerful nations as yet. Could you please elaborate American stealth in rain.:hitwall:
 
.
gambit.
How is that done/achieved safely ? ? . How much part virtual simulation plays .
Easy. This has nothing to do with simulation but with assumption. Obviously we do not want to actually live fire at anyone, so what we do is assume that for every radar lock it is a missile 'kill'. Same thing with ECM or in an electronically crowded environment. If an aircraft lost radar lock for X-seconds, we will assume that the ECM tactic was successful. In most cases, we tends to err on the generous side, forcing pilots to plan their missions with extraordinary care to avoid ground radars in these training sessions. That is typical of exercises like Red Flag where ECM is a part of the event. For the F-22, we flew some missions with enhancers and some without, giving everyone a taste of what they may encounter in the future, should a potential adversary deploy an F-22 equivalent. For the enhanced F-22s, this would force the F-22 pilots to plan their missions as if they are meeting a 'stealth' adversary. By assuming that radar is like bullets and missiles, the argument that US 'stealth' aircrafts are unproven because they have never been in combat -- does not stand.
 
.
SAY WHAT?. There hadn't been anything that can't be detected by Air defence radars of powerful nations as yet.
In radar detection, nothing is 'invisible' and the US have never claimed so. We say that these 'stealth' aircrafts are difficult to detect at so-and-so distance. The problem for the defenders is that distance. By the time they can detect an F-22, it is too late.

Could you please elaborate American stealth in rain.:hitwall:
Sure...And easy to explain as well...



The argument against 'stealth' is that it is vulnerable to rain is pure BS. Every time I see/read that from someone, I know the person has not a clue of even basic radar detection principles. The illustration above explain how surface irregularities contribute to an aircraft's RCS and water will create those surface irregularities, no matter how brief in time over distance it may be. It does not mean the 'stealth' aircraft will be reflective like its 'non-stealth' cousin. What 'stealth' does is to insert the aircraft into the clutter rejection region and every radar system has a clutter rejection threshold. Surface irregularities created by flying in rain means that over time and distance, this 'stealth' aircraft may briefly rise above the clutter rejection threshold and create a suspicious return. It does not mean that water washes something off the aircraft's skin...:rolleyes:

So when some clueless person blathers something about some engineers criticizing 'stealth' aircrafts as 'vulnerable' to rain, demand the full quote from said engineers and most likely you will never receive it.
 
.
Ok guys, it was some guud discussion about the stealth tech, i am sure we all enjoyed it, but then the main concern here is something else (the fire protection systems etc etc) of the aircraft, see:

removing shutoff valves for engine coolant and hydraulic lines and five of six dry bay fire-suppression systems
 
.
gambit.
How is that done/achieved safely ? ? . How much part virtual simulation plays .


Hi Lt. Prateek,

It's not my area, but I do know that US systems are subjected to live-fire testing with live munitions. Which is why they call it live-fire. ;-) The Navy does it at China Lake in California, the USAF at Edwards in CA and Eglin in Florida. Other locations too, I'm sure. The Army likewise conducts live-fire testing of helicopters.

The testing is done on the ground, under (relatively) safe conditions. Except in cases where a pilot has done something to get the brass really angry...

An airframe, or some portion of an airframe/system, is actually shot at and the results filmed, the debris examined, etc. One of the F-35s is soon to be sent for live-fire testing once its use in the flight test program is complete, for example.

I'm sure a Google or YouTube search will turn up some interesting videos of airplanes getting shot to hell.
 
.
This is nothing new, year by year air craft rate is increase 7 to 10 per annual. Even russian planes now crossed 60 million
 
.
All these machines are yet to be tested. In the battlefield several strategies may be deployed to defeat stealth.

It's only when America goes to war with someone like the Russians (or another Superpower) can these weapons be truly called proven (or truly failures).

very true

a damning report though. The arms and defence industry is so complicated and political in the U.S. The representatives (LM, USAF etc.) have to report to Congress and basically make the case that more funding (tax money) is required. All they ever have to do is bring up perceived shortfalls against military machines of Russia or China.

by the way JSF was never intended to be a stealth fighter; it is a stealthy aircraft, but not invisible to radar
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom