Oz experts' long articles say JSF not so stealth.
-
ggg
few main points of this quoted article--BOQ
1.The first major departure from established shaping conventions is the angular or aspect dependency of the Joint Strike Fighter’s radar signature.(lion :pl look at Dia 3 below)
2.The second major departure from established stealth conventions is that the Joint Strike Fighter is designed to perform in the X-band, and upper portions of the S-band, with little effort expended in optimizing for the lower L-band, UHF-band and VHF-band.(lion--look at Dia 4 below)
3.The most generous description of the stealth design used in the Joint Strike Fighter is that it is
----25% VLO(Very Low Obserable), in the nose sector,
------25% LO in the tail sector, and
------50% “reduced observable” in the beam sectors, with a strong threat operating frequency and angular aspect dependency in stealth performance. It is clearly not a stealth design in the same sense as the F-117A Nighthawk, B-2A Spirit, YF-23A and F-22A Raptor, and to label it a “VLO design” is at best a “quarter-truth”, quite indifferent to the physical realities of the design and the threat systems it will need to defeat in future conflicts.
---EOQ
VLO--Very Low Observable
@@@@@@@@@@@''
Hi this is noisy lion again to post a assessment on JSF written by a oz!!
Dr Carlo Kopp is not a retiree nor a unemployed to write to spend time.
He spent some time to do his home work.
I found JSF have not been discussed for a long time.
The long span of time from concepts to IOC seem too long.
It is very popular,like worshipping,that anything looks FUTURE is
very powerful and very stealth.JSF is one of them.
If Dr Kopp is right,then JSF is not the best choice for future fighter.
The not so stealth RCS in JSF is a detrimental factor.
Of course,we cant ignore other merits of JSF.
The point is very low RCS is a MUST!!
Decision making is a art.
U can just look at the good points,but forget
the bad points,though a detrimental one.
Or u can just look a the bad points,but forget the other merits.
Like Oz in acquiring howitzers.They put a very low weight as a critera,
indirectly making M 777 just the only option left.
Well weight is important in transport etc.But there are other merits
for a heavy howitzers,like automation etc.
What it matter is the OVERALL result!!
M 777 is still a gun operated by soldiers in Korea war or Vietnam war.
@@@@@@@@@@@'
Oz is very keen to buy 100 JSF.
We do hope Kopp is wrong.
llll
http://www.ausairpower.net/apa-analyses.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html#mozTocId93619
BOQ---
above--Diagram 4. BOQ---Diagram 4 summarises the qualitative comparisons of Joint Strike Fighter shaping aspect and band dependency, with green denoting performance which qualifies as Very Low Observable, yellow as Low Observable, and red as order of magnitude closest to conventional reduced signature aircraft designs. The aircraft performs best in the X-band, and Ku-band, with performance declining through the S-band with increasing wavelength. In the L-band the axisymmetric nozzle design no longer produces useful effect, and the length of the inlet edges sits in resonant mode scattering rather than clean optical scattering, degrading performance. In the VHF band (~2 metres) Joint Strike Fighter airframe shaping has become largely ineffective.
The aircraft will have a credible ability to defeat S-band search/acquisition radars, X-band engagement radars and X/Ku/K/Ka-band missile seekers only in the narrow ±14.5° angular sector under the nose. As the angle relative to the threat radars increases, the unfortunate lower fuselage shaping features will produce an increasingly strong effect with a cluster of “flare spot” peaks around 90° where the longitudinal panel and door edge joins produce effect.
In the narrow ±14.5° angular sector under the tail, the design will produce best effect against X/Ku/K/Ka-band missile seekers, but less useful effect against X-band engagement radars due to their higher power-aperture performance. At S-band the nozzle exterior signature will become increasingly prominent, leading to loss of effect in the vicinity of the L-band.
It is clear that these design choices were intentional and no accident. By confining proper stealth shaping technique only to the forward fuselage and inlet geometry, the designers avoided incurring the development, and to a lesser extent, the associated manufacturing costs of a fully stealthy design, with the YF-23A and F-22A presenting good comparisons.
This is an acceptable optimization if the intent is only to defeat an isolated individual low power aperture pop-up short/medium range mobile battlefield air defence system in the category of the SA-6 Gainful, SA-8 Gecko, SA-9 Gaskin, Chapparel, Crotale, Roland, SA-11 Gadfly, SA-15 Gauntlet, SA-19 Grison or SA-22 “Greyhound”. It is a completely unsuitable optimization for a wide range of other threat types which are in service, and the associated characteristic engagement geometries. It is also a problematic optimisation where short/medium range battlefield air defence systems are deployed in a coordinated manner.
The most generous description of the stealth design used in the Joint Strike Fighter is that it is 25% VLO, in the nose sector, 25% LO in the tail sector, and 50% “reduced observable” in the beam sectors, with a strong threat operating frequency and angular aspect dependency in stealth performance. It is clearly not a stealth design in the same sense as the F-117A Nighthawk, B-2A Spirit, YF-23A and F-22A Raptor, and to label it a “VLO design” is at best a “quarter-truth”, quite indifferent to the physical realities of the design and the threat systems it will need to defeat in future conflicts.----EOQfurther reading
-
Volume VI - January - December 2009 Volume V - APA-2009-01 Dr Carlo Kopp Assessing Joint Strike Fighter Defence Penetration Capabilities -
BOQ--
above--Diagram 3.
In the SDD design, the beam/side aspect radar signature is especially problematic, due to the presence of multiple specular reflecting shapes, specifically due to singly and doubly curved lower fuselage surface feature shaping. The Joint Strike Fighter has a complex lower fuselage shape as well as a wing and fuselage lower join shape, unlike any other aircraft designed with stealth in mind, refer preceding images. The result of this design choice is that the beam/side aspect Radar Cross Section will be closer in magnitude to a conventional fighter flown clean than a “classical” stealth aircraft. This is an inevitable result of clustering no less than nine unique convex specular scattering shapes in the lower hemisphere of the aircraft. Diagram 3 illustrates this.--EOQ
@@@@@@@@@@@
see the actual one in official web site--
http://www.jsf.mil
http://www.jsf.mil/gallery/gal_photo_sdd_f35btest.htm
http://www.jsf.mil/images/gallery/sdd/f35_test/b/sdd_f35testb_012.jpg
-
http://www.jsf.mil/images/gallery/sdd/f35_test/b/sdd_f35testb_016.jpg
@@@@@@@@@@@
my question is ----have the JSF developer done any testing on the shape?
-
http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_variants.htm
-
I suspect the side view of the aircraft is even lower that what you claim in a JSF doing 400-500knots at altitude.
But hey, who am I to comment on the JSF when there is the "great" Carlo Kopp?
-
Yawn~
-
I wonder what's the point of this thread. The SAF indicated it was interested in this plane, so?
-
and why is it that australia is repeatedly buggering the US for F-22 and that being told that the only option on the table is F-35, accepted it ?
+ X to lionnoisy australia bashing.
lol.. same shit different day.
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
and why is it that australia is repeatedly buggering the US for F-22 and that being told that the only option on the table is F-35, accepted it ?
+ X to lionnoisy australia bashing.
lol.. same shit different day.
looks like he is a full time SAF regular. must read this kind of stuff for his job. lol.
-
Originally posted by fishbuff1:
looks like he is a full time SAF regular. must read this kind of stuff for his job. lol.
I doubt the SAF is that hard-up for "talent". :D
-
Idiots are fun, no wonder every village wants one.
-
Lionnoisy has posted a video on youtube once which invariably linked to his personal Utube page. the link was about some STK bronco ad.
if the corresponding information is correct and not a pilfered link. lionnoisy is a male 15 or 16 Y.O student at some neighbourhood (so-so school, never heard of it before) sec school.
@ herr oberst,
village idiot dosent quite cut it for him, more like resident douche bag.
Idiots are fun, no wonder every village wants one.
lionnoisy is quite perverse, does he deserve a verse ?
mince him into a bun ; bake till its done.
process is in reverse, or cut him up with a curse
it is much fun , afterall its all up-front
licentiousness he disburses, a can of whoopass he shall deserve -
Originally posted by sgstars:
if the corresponding information is correct and not a pilfered link. lionnoisy is a male 15 or 16 Y.O student at some neighbourhood (so-so school, never heard of it before) sec school.
No wonder all that senseless crap. Not even using STK products n raving abt it. OMG. Nice poem there.
And, i thought that the JSF was not marketed as stealth, but as low radar signature ??? -
i m not exactly betting on it but i would consider this somewhat possible to be lionnoisy.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=sworddrill&view=videos
check the whole range of STK products. especially his pet stuff like the Bronco, SAR 21 and artillery pieces.
its either sworddrill or donbasarawi, the posting style seems exactly the same. together with the classic rah rah singapurah. but at least sworddrill can phrase complete sentences. Donbasarawi on the other hand...
interestingly, this was uploaded at approximately the same time our friend lionnoisy started ranting about STK being the worlds largest 40mm ammunition producer late last year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obqctkoUG4I&feature=channel_page
the pegasus video was also uploaded at just about the time he start his whole nonsense of scoot and flickrammers and what not rant about pegasus and m777.
only thing missing i suppose , would be a Oz bashing video.
they share common themes and very focused approaches : to sell a postive RAH RAH pro-singapore, everything also boleh idiocity. but some limitations on both. ild let you guys decide for yourself.
-
Hmm, my previous post had some posting errors....
What I wanted to say was, no wonder he craps senselessly, cos he probably never touched and fire a SAR21 b4, nor sat in a Bronco or operated on the SPH or the LWSPH.
And, i thought the JSF was marketed as low radar signature, not stealth ?? ?? -
-
Originally posted by sgstars:
Lionnoisy has posted a video on youtube once which invariably linked to his personal Utube page. the link was about some STK bronco ad.
Oh, what's the link?
-
This is another article from Australian former Wing Commander on JSF.
Do u think this retired Australian
WGCDR is anti Australia or JSF?
http://www.ausairpower.net/notams.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-020309-1.html
APA NOTAMS ISSN 1836-7135
JSF: WGCDR Mills Responds
to Maj Gen Davis
Air Power Australia - Australia's Independent Defence Think Tank
Air Power Australia NOTAM
2nd March, 2009
-
03/03/2009 Dr Carlo Kopp, MIEEE, SMAIAA, PEng F-35 JSF: Cold War Anachronism Without a Mission APA NOTAM #35 02/03/2009 WGCDR Chris Mills, RAAF (Retd) JSF: WGCDR Mills Responds to Maj Gen Davis APA NOTAM #34 27/02/2009 Dr Carlo Kopp, MIEEE, SMAIAA, PEng JSF: Dr Kopp Responds to Maj Gen Davis APA NOTAM #33 24/02/2009 Dr Carlo Kopp, MIEEE, SMAIAA, PEng United Kingdom: F-35 or F-22? -
APA NOTAM #37 04/03/2009 Dr Carlo Kopp, MIEEE, SMAIAA, PEng When America’s Stealth Monopoly Ends, What's Next? -
This is a very interesting comparsion.
''Designed around a non-existent Cold War era large scale battlefield air interdiction role, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a Cold War anachronism without a mission. It is almost identical in size, weight and runway requirements to the Cold War era F-105D Thunderchief, also designed for much the same role.''
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-030309-1.html
-
''From a force structure triage perspective, the F-35 falls into the same category as the US fleet of legacy fighters, including the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Unlike the legacy fighters, the F-35 is becoming about as expensive as an F-22A Raptor in quantity, but much less survivable and lethal than the F-22A.''