Slashdot Mirror
The New F-35 Is So Stealthy, It's Harder To Train Pilots (airforcetimes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the Air Force Times: The F-35 Lightning II is so stealthy, pilots are facing an unusual challenge. They're having difficulty participating in some types of training exercises, a squadron commander told reporters Wednesday. During a recent exercise at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, F-35 squadrons wanted to practice evading surface-to-air threats. There was just one problem: No one on the ground could track the plane. 'If they never saw us, they couldn't target us,' said Lt. Col. George Watkins, the commander of the 34th Fighter Squadron at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. The F-35s resorted to flipping on their transponders, used for FAA identification, so that simulated anti-air weapons could track the planes, Watkins said.
I wish niggers were so stealthy!
I'm still waiting for them to invent a cloak of invisibility.
don't..don't believe the hype!
A very troubled, costly program trying to generate some positive spin.
Sounds like they need to invest in some of those Russian S400 missle systems :P
So the F-35 pilot exits Sprawlmart, and looks around for his plane.
I know I parked it here . . . but I just can't see it anywhere!
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Yes, well maybe the aircraft's signature was too low for the threat system to engage them, but if you want to increase the signature of the stealthy aircraft there are lots of easy ways, such as:
1) Lower the undercarriage.
2) Many low signature aircraft have corner reflectors which either bolt on or are hidden behind doors and which greatly increase the radar returns. They are used to hide the true signature when flying somewhere where someone may try to measure your radar cross section. I have no idea if the F35 has such a feature, but I would be surprised if it doesn't.
3) Fit external stores. I don't know if the F35 supports this option.
So, a story about something that isn't a real problem and instead suggests a badly planned training exercise re-cast as an opportunity to say how great their aircraft are.
In Soviet Russia, Kuzkina mat! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)#Radar http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/13/putin-s-missile-could-make-u-s-attacks-on-iran-nearly-impossible.html
So you're saying that there's no truth to this story? Where's you're evidence? You have none? Then why should I believe your negative spin?
Always a clever tactic to demand an explanation and then triumphantly declare that the other person has none before any time has passed for replies to be made. Here, let me help you with that "missing" evidence. Have you missed the news for the past eight years? The F-35 program has been dogged at every step by cost overruns, test failures, design-by-committee creeping features, etc.
I could go on all day, but you get the idea. Just google "F-35" + "waste" + "failure".
With everything I’ve been reading lately, it sounds like the F-35 has just been a total bomb, inferior in every way to earlier planes, but for some reason I could never figure out, the air force was forced to buy them.
Why is this the first I’m hearing that it has really good stealth?
Couldn't resist.
that is all
if this were an MS story (MS new anitvirus so good it cant be tested) slahdotters would be all over it
IE the guy who was an actual fighter ace (Boelcke) that basically thought if you were dogfighting you failed vs the "fighter expert" (Boyd) who never actually shot down anybody who was big of cheap agile planes that were good at dog fighting.(Because in Vietnam they higher ups decided on rules that forced dogfighting.) Or you could look up dicta boelcke and see that the best way to shoot down another airplane is shoot him down before the poor stupid fucker has any idea he's in a fight. (IE don't dogfight, shoot him in the fucking back.) BTW when's the last time any US pilot has actually done a dogfight anyway? (My understanding is that it's been awhile. As in 30 or 40 years.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Those planes were designed for low cross section at frequencies used by American AA systems. Remember, during last Winter Olympics, there were photos of Russians deploying their antiaircraft systems? And there was a weird, seemingly ancient rickety thing? That, my friends, is a modern long wavelength radar. That thing sees "stealth" planes just fine.
What we are not hearing about is the pilots had said it can't dogfight, just like the F4 Phantom.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
There is alwais a trick :) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown
you know, you can't have your cake and eat it
All they are saying is that the F35 has very good stealth vs the US AA radar, which is a high frequency radar and that makes sense, since it was a big priority of the design. In fact, it was a priority over other aspects, so the F35 has many disadvantages. But yes, it has that advantage.
Now, the problem is that Russia and China are building low frequency radars to which the F35 has no stealth capability. The difficulty is getting a good enough lock for weapons targeting - something that is thought to be hard with low frequency radars (i.e. you can see the F35 fine, but it exact location & vector are harder to get). If they succeed in making them good at targeting using low frequencies, then the F35 loses its main advantage and several disadvantages will start coming into play.
Personally, I'd have thought the US would have already built radars that can "see" the F35, mainly to anticipate the others doing so, in order to prepare on facing them (perhaps tweaking the plane, or seeing the limits of low frequency radar technology, or developing strategies etc). But of course they wouldn't announce it, so this fluff piece would be published anyway.
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
"Even we can't track our stealth fighters" isn't meant to amuse you. It's meant to put fear in the hearts of enemies.
The program HAS been expensive in the short run. A lot of money has been spent om R&D.
People who are less interested in facts and more interested in rooting for or against their team or idea then decide "I don't like it, so it sucks in every way." People interested in objectiveness and facts learn that spending all that money allowed some pretty good stuff to be developed. I won't argue that ot was worth every penny, but we did get something for that money.
LOL, the government continues to try to paint a pretty smile on this WHITE ELEPHANT. It will NEVER be able to replace the F-15, F-16, F/A-18 and most importantly, the A-10. WAY over budget, and under performing, it's going to cost lives, if they even try to replace the A-10 with this POS.
They would even think about flying F-35's in training missions without RCS enhancement. One heck of a gift to any adversary looking to probe/defeat US stealth advantage.
"What is your greatest weakness."
"I am just too honest."
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
When did /. become the PR front for the US government?
The F-117 had the same problem back in the late 70's in which it was flying over a Hawk missile battery, with a T-38 flying chase. Ben Rich who designed the F-117 plus a cleared NCO where standing outside when the F-117 flew over, but the radar operators only picked up the T-38 on radar (this is outlined in the book Skunk Works, which is an excellent read about the history of Kelly Johnson, Ben Rich, and Skunk Works (and covers the U-2, SR-71, F-117, Drones, etc)...
Give me one with a Playstation joystick, that I'll show You how to kick some ass.
Good to see that it at least is taking shape to kick ass for that price. (FYI that's the price of the program to build something around 1500 of them. North of 1 Trillion US dollars I've read).
And you will flash like a bulb
If I didn't want potential enemy interest in the plane and its tech, I would probably talk down on it as much as possible. Call it a failure, etc.
Quite the opposite of the usual bragging of " Look at the amazing thing we developed ! "
Your pronouncement is quite wrong - I understand logic very well Not that logic has anything to do with the situation, like the person to who I responded, you're erecting strawmen. Or, also like him, you have the reading comprehension of used cat litter.
At some point in the spectrum it stops being stealthy or is less stealthy enough for a location. In fact , if you multiply the AA radar at various angle , you can correlate the output and timing of output to precisely know where such airplane is, and yes that is even including low frequency radar, as long as they are not co-located.
The F-35 was designed to do one thing, and one thing only, and that it does very well.
It is designed to move public money into private pockets. That it happens to be an airplane is entirely incidental.
AC
Conventionally avoiding hostile ground-based aerial defenses is very relevant exercise as they are one of most relevant threats and knowing how to avoid these can prevent from losing planes by doing something stupid. However for planes that have been optimized against ground-based single-point (rx & tx at same location) radars this isn't really most significant threat. If one wants still to use single-point radar to target the plane, one should do that from above instead.
However opposite to subject, exercise to escape unexpected illumination (obvious targeted radar dosage) is not really useless and this was achieved by improvised means so I suppose using transponders to find out where to send the radar dosage was sufficient here.
Which word is it? I looked in the dictionary and there are many of them. So if you could just point out which n-word you are referring to, we can continue the discussion. Otherwise, your point cannot be taken seriously until this is clarified.
You see, technology advances. And while our radars can't find the F-35....remember when the F-117 was shot down? It was an adaption of multiple radars. Sure, the Romulan cloaking device, sorry, I mean F-35 stealth technology is more advanced, but it will fade. Other nations will put effort into identifying how to identify the aircraft. They will do this...it's just a matter of time. And they likely won't tell us when they have succeeded.
The F-117 was shot down in a combat role, in a secondary engagement environment. This means our enemies, had the means to track the F-117 well before that engagement. We just continued to think it was untrackable. This is like the German strategic error with the Enigma machine.
So that leaves the real question....when the F-35 is trackable by our opponents, how well does it perform? If it loses it's stealth advantage does it remain competitive?
humble brag
Yeah... RIGHT! Just more BS news for a cost over-run fighter program that not many people really want. It can't intercept, can't provide CAS, nor can it dogfight. I seriously doubt SAM sites will have any trouble finding it in the air.
If there was a pilot training issue, I'm sure it was with just getting the turd's engine started and in the air.
Shouldn't have a problem tracking the trail of tax payer money blowing out of its ass.
I'm supposed to be training in the F-35 but I find that I waste a lot of time just trying to find the aircraft on the tarmac. You pretty much have to feel around until you bump into it. It's annoying.
The solution is easy, and has already been proposed by Donald Trump: Just get the Russians to track them.
Apple can track him in the plane. Then if the Air Force tells Apple that they are a marketing company, they will sell then the info.
You showed us you're a lying do nothing Coren22. Middle school eh? You haven't got a thing to show for yourself. Apk does.
See subject above: Many books, magazines, newspapers & trade shows in computing say otherwise for me - NOT you, loser.
* Talk shit all you want but the fact is you haven't done SHIT & you never will... but I've done truckloads of good things in computing by comparison.
APK
P.S.-=> At least I can show something (several somethings over time) for myself - you can't... why? You're a brain-damaged LIMITED cretin & nothing more, lol... fact! apk
I expect you to post a link to a picture of your medical or psychiatric degree next by Coren22 ( 1625475 ) on Monday August 15, 2016 @09:55AM (#52704099)
Didn't you just say that? Where's your degrees? Same place as your non-existent accomplishments in computing!
See subject: Via CS degree work I took logic (did well too) - did you? Obviously not as you call me a psychom abd illogical ad hominem attack (as you have no degree nor a formal exam result given in a professional licensed psychiatric environs to do so - that's libeling me) from you.
"APK, I have done so much more than you" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Thursday August 11, 2016 @12:19PM (#52684621)
Coren22 what commercialware's your code as mine's is? Does malwarebytes host + recommend your work as mine currently is? What trade show did your work do well in like mine? What books, magazines, newspapers articles in computer science feature your work like I've done? You say you've done more in middle school. Ok, what was that? You should just admit you're a lying "ne'er-do-well" bigmouth (it's quite clear you haven't done shit)
APK
P.S.=>
"I expect you to post a link to a picture of your medical or psychiatric degree next" - by Coren22 ( 1625475 ) on Monday August 15, 2016 @09:55AM (#52704099)
Blowhard & where's your degrees in psychiatric sciences? None of that to your credit either (nor a formal examination given in a professional licensed psychiatric environs results either despite your "SiDeWaLk-ShRiNk of /." prognosis - libel much? Yes, out of frustration in your being an easily outwitted brain-damaged assburger DOLT, which is a FACT you admit, not libel from me, lol)... apk