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.

Comments

As PE said

[Lawrence_Bird]

don't..don't believe the hype!

A very troubled, costly program trying to generate some positive spin.

Re:As PE said

[Ken McE]

“For most of us, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to bed down a new weapon set and make it employable and bring this capability for the defense of our nation,” Anderson said. “Everyone from the youngest airmen on up through our wing commanders is totally invested in this program. We are all excited and very motivated for what we’ve accomplished over the last year and what we’re going to accomplish in the future.”

Nope, no hype or spin here.

Re:As PE said

[h4x0t]

It's just money. What's a few hundred (400) billion dollars? I mean, what else are we going to spend it on? Education? Infrastructure? This is clearly the best use of the funds.

Re:As PE said

[dunkelfalke]

Probably. USA wouldn't export a really stealthy airplane (F-22) even though several countries would rather buy that than F-35.

Re:As PE said

[Richard_at_work]

Its a pointless story on a pointless topic, because this is the fourth stealth aircraft operated by the USAF which would have been tested against modern SAM systems, so its not as if they only just discovered a problem with the training process.

Turn on the transponder or hang external ordnance off of pylons on the wings, both would be enough to raise the RCS enough to make it hairy for the pilots.

Re:As PE said

[hey!]

I too expect exaggeration. The aircraft has numerous external hardpoints so if it were a problem all you'd do is mount something reflective on one of those.

The fact that they're claiming this is a "problem" suggests to me they weren't trying very hard. I expect Russia and China will be a little more enterprising.

Even the US Navy is beginning to make noises about backing away from stealth, and that may be because they've been studying the problem of detecting enemy stealth aircraft. Some people believe the Navy's actually has the capability of targeting stealth aircraft today. It's possible that may be an exaggeration, but if the Navy at least isn't working on it then something is very wrong with them.

Re: As PE said

[Rei]

Most sources put the F-35's stealth at worse than the F-22. According to one article, the USAF stated that the F-22's RCS is "is the equivalent, for a radar, to a metal marble. The less stealthy (and much cheaper) F-35, is equal to a metal golf ball. The F-35 stealthiness is a bit better than the B-2 bomber, which, in turn, was twice as good as that on the even older F-117."

It was hard to keep the F-22's stealth to that level, however. It's also a bigger plane, which makes it more vulnerable to low frequency radar. Either way, they're both incredibly low cross section.

Re:As PE said

[neonv]

It does not make sense to disregard evidence of stealth based on program cost overruns. Stealth is one aspect of the F-35 that has gone well. Keep an open mind and make decision based on data, not hype or preconceived biases.

Re:As PE said

[GeekWithAKnife]

Sure, one way to see it. Another way is to say; the game has changed. It;s about who attacks first because the latest stealth tech cannot be defended against.

Re:As PE said

[Deadstick]

Where's you're evidence?

I see no evidence that he's evidence.

Re:As PE said

[Sarten-X]

Mounting something reflective means that's something extra the missile can track, negating the whole point of evasion training. The idea is that the pilot learns the effects of various tactics while a missile's tracking them.

They'd need something the SAM launcher can track to give the missile an initial lock, without altering the missile's characteristics. A transponder they can turn on (for the initial launch) and off (once the missile sees them and starts tracking) would do the job nicely.

Re: As PE said

[ShanghaiBill]

It is only "stealthy" if the radar transmitter and receiver are co-located. The Russians and the Chinese are well aware of this limitation, and are already building offset radar. So it is only stealthy if we assume that our adversaries are idiots. This is a good assumption if we want the funding to continue, but a bad assumption if we actually expect it to be effective. The F35 has way too much inertia and sunk costs to be cancelled at this point ... and please don't say that "sunk costs don't matter". That may be true in business, but is not true in politics.

Re:As PE said

[Anonymous Coward]

Its a pointless story on a pointless topic, because this is the fourth stealth aircraft operated by the USAF which would have been tested against modern SAM systems, so its not as if they only just discovered a problem with the training process.

Turn on the transponder or hang external ordnance off of pylons on the wings, both would be enough to raise the RCS enough to make it hairy for the pilots.

A couple points: The F-117 and B-2 don't practice threat reactions like non-LO fighters/bombers do; their primary tactic is to mitigate detection through careful mission planning.

The F-22 is primarily an Air-to-Air player. While they do some limited Air-to-Ground, they also do not do classic threat reactions. Rather, they point, shoot (or drop), and then turn and run.

The F-35 is the first LO platform designed to penetrate missile defences that won't rely entirely on remaining stealthy to avoid detection.

Finally, turning on a transponder has no effect on your RCS.

Re:As PE said

[Aighearach]

They decided a few years ago that the airplanes don't work, so any news of them being the next generation and more this, and more than, and better at the other thing, that just doesn't matter to them. They can't see the words, because it would mean they were wrong in the past. Instead, they'll just be wrong forever.

It is hilarious, but useful. If nobody can even talk about the thing online without an army of stupid popping up, it will be harder for the enemy to prepare. Maybe.

Re:As PE said

[NicBenjamin]

They all are.

Remember when the F-22 was a ridiculous boondoggle that nobody would ever use? Or the Abrams turbine engine burned so hot that it created an exhaust plume that was highly visible on IR and kilometers long? And ridiculous ceramic armor that was inferior to good old boring steel everywhere but the imaginations of ponsy British scientists? And that the Marines actually refused to use them in Gulf One because the previous tank (the M-60) was clearly superior?

The thing about $Trillion programs is that a) they tend to involve new tech that's buggy as fuck that looks terrible to both the English Majors who dominate the media and the inherently conservative Army/Air Force rank-and-file, while also having b) an actual fucking $trillion to fix said bugs.

Re:As PE said

[c]

Amen. Without knowing what kinds of constraints the SAM crews were under during the exercise, it's pretty much impossible to tell whether this was a realistic exercise or not.

Re:As PE said

[caseih]

But in a more serious vein, the money does eventually trickle down, albeit very unevenly. It's not like the money spent on the F-35 goes up into space never to return. It enriches an industry and companies, true, but it certainly benefits the economies that the many people who work on the program (all the way down to the smallest sub-contractors) live in. But by the same token we could argue that money spent on entitlements also has a similar effect, perhaps more-so.

Re: As PE said

[davester666]

The only way we get value out of this program is if each one is used as a pod to send 2 politicians (yes, they have to share!) to Mars. Or even just the moon.

Re:As PE said

[cheesybagel]

The US Marines used the M1A1 in the first Gulf War even if it was in a limited way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I wouldn't be surprised if most of the Marines were still using the M60 because, well, usually the Marines get to use whatever's leftover from the other branches.

A lot of people still claim the turbine engine was a bad idea. It probably made sense when it was designed because oil was cheaper and you could pool engine research with helicopters. Now it looks like a really bad idea. The Russians also haven't used turbines in tanks ever since the T-80. All their later tanks are diesels.

Re: As PE said

[BigFootApe]

The rear aspect RCS of the F-35 is going to be abysmal, though.

Re: As PE said

[shutdown -p now]

The generals are always preparing for the last war.

Get Trump elected, and suddenly engaging Russia or even China full on over some minor spat doesn't sound all that unlikely.

Re: As PE said

[stoatwblr]

"It is only "stealthy" if the radar transmitter and receiver are co-located. "

It's also only stealthy in a 30 degree cone about the nose, so a networked air defense system will be able to track them - and like the B2 it's not stealthy at all to VHF radar or HF over-the-horizon stuff (eg, Australia's Jindalee and Russia's Duga - also known as "the russian woodpecker")

This underscores the point that they're not an air-superiority weapon - that would be the F22 - and all those non-USAian airforces planning to use them in that role are likely to get a very rude awkening in a battlefield environment if going up against a well-equipped foe (to be honest, this is rare. Iraq was about the most prepared for invasion and they failed spectacularly).

Re:As PE said

[stoatwblr]

When B2s flew into the Uk for the first time the civilian systems didn't see the until transponders were enabled.

The UK military tracked them across the country simply by dialling up the gain on their radars. There aren't many flocks of birds flying at 600mph, so if you know to look for something, you'll find it.

Re:As PE said

[NicBenjamin]

And yet...

There's more then one comment on this forum that the F-35 should be canned and replaced by the more expensive F-22.

Re: As PE said

[Mondor]

No, just force each NATO member to buy one. Actually, Germany may afford two.

Re:As PE said

[whodunit]

How the fuck do non-informative, knee-jerk "nuh uh" shitposts like this still get modded up?

Sounds like ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like they need to invest in some of those Russian S400 missle systems :P

Re:Sounds like ....

[cciechad]

They don't even need anything that advanced. A very old soviet system shot down a US stealth aircraft in 1999. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Sounds like ....

[fnj]

25 years of combat, my ass. 24-1/2 years of mugging helpless savages and maybe 1/2 year of combat.

Re:Sounds like ....

[_merlin]

More like 25 years of avoiding conflict. After the USSR showed they could shoot down a U2 by actually doing it, US has had a policy of avoiding engagement with anyone who has competent defence.

Re:Sounds like ....

[K. S. Kyosuke]

That still doesn't matter all that much. If your frequency of hitting the thing that attacks you is like one hit per month, you're dead.

Re:Sounds like ....

[NicBenjamin]

You're changing the subject.

We're talking about whether the weapon will work for the job we bought it for, not whether the US Political system includes anyone who enjoys a fair fight. Which you just implicitly admitted it will work fine, by not countering the point.

And, for the record, since that time George Washington went 0-3 in fair fights in the Revolution; we are extremely proud of never having one. We're not some ponsy aristos, obsessed with adding honor to the family tradition by gloriously dying on the battlefield and making it "forever England." We make the other poor dumb motherfucker die for his country, and let his countryman wax poetic about it.

Re:Sounds like ....

[seksi-seppo]

You're forgetting one thing: if the fact that you shoot once in a while without hitting makes the potential attacker less eager to attack, you're not dead. The most significant impact of any aerial defense system is limiting enemy aerial operations.

Re:Sounds like ....

[cheesybagel]

Perhaps they have failed recently. But I guess you never read about Operation Linebacker II.

In the Sprawlmart parking lot . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

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!

Re:In the Sprawlmart parking lot . . .

[PPH]

Here it is!

Re:In the Sprawlmart parking lot . . .

[fustakrakich]

Admiral Kirk! Can you hear me?

Pointless hype

[HuskyDog]

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.

Re:Pointless hype

[psmoot]

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,

...snip...

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.

If we take the story at face value, yeah this is a good thing. OTOH, we've had stealth fighters for some time now, I would have thought we'd worked out procedures for training with them a long time ago.

Re:Pointless hype

[Anonymous Coward]

Flipping radar transponder switch sounds much easier ..

Re:Pointless hype

[DerekLyons]

1) Lower the undercarriage.

Which greatly limits the performance of the aircraft and thus provides much less than optimum training for the missile operators.
 

2) Many low signature aircraft have corner reflectors which either bolt on or are hidden behind doors and which greatly increase the radar returns.

[[Citation Needed]] - not only that such things exist, but that the F-35 has them.
 

3) Fit external stores. I don't know if the F35 supports this option.

It does (I know this because I'm not too lazy to Google), but as in 1), this is not always desirable.
 

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.

Actually, no. A bullshit reply that indicates a lack of any real knowledge indicates you have know clue what you're talking about.

Re:Pointless hype

[skam240]

"Flipping radar transponder switch sounds much easier ..

THANKYOU. Unfortunatly my mod points expired yesterday.

Why this guy got modded up for suggesting more complex solutions to a problem that was already solved is beyond me

Re:Pointless hype

[neonv]

The F-35 does not support external stores and opening the bay doors or lowering gear degrade the aerodynamics, making evasion maneuvers that they were practicing very difficult. Turning on the transponder makes a lot of sense in this case.

Re:Pointless hype

[realxmp]

You use corner reflectors because you want to train people to use active and passive radar to track a target (like a MiG-21). A transponder ain't the kind of simulation you're after there because it's just squarking out an active position.

Re:Pointless hype

[Anonymous Coward]

2) Many low signature aircraft have corner reflectors which either bolt on or are hidden behind doors and which greatly increase the radar returns.

[[Citation Needed]] - not only that such things exist, but that the F-35 has them.

It's a luneberg reflector:

http://www.radar-reflector.com/products/radar-reflector/luneberg-reflector
http://i52.tinypic.com/11lrjtl.jpg

Re:Pointless hype

[Xest]

Lower your undercarriage so that you can be tracked whilst pulling high-G missile evasion manoeuvres?

Great idea, assuming you don't plan to land the thing again afterwards.

Re:Pointless hype

[Sarten-X]

We're not training the missile ops to use their radar, though.

We're training the pilots on how to use their plane's stealth to evade missiles. Undermining that stealth capability doesn't help.

Re:Pointless hype

[Aighearach]

If you're simulating something, can't you just do that in middleware? Why would you want to engineer hardware?

Re:Pointless hype

[MrNaz]

Duct-taping some sheet metal to the F-35 is an optional extra, and Lockheed charge $10 billion for the tinfoil, and $12 billion for the duct tape application service contract.

Re:Pointless hype

[ras]

if you want to increase the signature of the stealthy aircraft there are lots of easy ways

You missed: open the weapons bay doors, which the F-35 has to do every 10 minutes or so if it wants to avoid cooking it's munitions. Quoting that link:

• The F-35's weapons bay can overheat if if the plane is maintaining high speeds at an altitude of under 25,000 feet and an atmospheric temperature 90 F or greater. The trouble occurs if the plane's weapon day doors are closed for upwards of 10 minutes, and opening the bay doors negates the F-35s stealth capabilities.

Re:Pointless hype

[fnj]

The F-35 does not support external stores

Absolutely ... WRONG.

Re:Pointless hype

[K. S. Kyosuke]

It's also a great exercise if you have to do it in flight.

Re:Pointless hype

[dywolf]

it should be noted that most aircraft risk damage to the undercarriage above a certain speed.

Re:Pointless hype

[realxmp]

The problem is that if the enemy has some kind of new radar or algorithm that can undermine your stealth capability, they are going to do their best to keep this from you. Pilots then trained with absolute impunity in an aircraft may not then have practiced the skills necessary to deal with that radar. Also an unluckily even slightly damaged aircraft may lose stealth capability, something you also want to train for.

O. Rly?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Deep Esophagus]

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.

• * F-35 Fighter can't turn, can't climb, can't run
• * Trillion-dollar F-35 joint strike fighter can't even do dogfights
• * F-35 Program: a danger to US Defense
• * My favorite:How the F-35 could provide 23 years of free college for everyone

I could go on all day, but you get the idea. Just google "F-35" + "waste" + "failure".

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[CrimsonAvenger]

It should be noted that turning, climbing, and running aren't terribly important if the other guy can't find you, target you, or shoot at you.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[DerekLyons]

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.

Always a clever tactic - to erect a strawman and subsequent to demolishing it pronounce the other person a fraud.
 
It's either that, or you have serious reading comprehension problems - because the grandparent's question wasn't "prove the program is a failure". It was "prove there's no truth to this story". Something that, despite claiming "victory", you have signally failed to so.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[freeze128]

The thing is still optically VISIBLE, right?

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[peragrin]

Except the f_35 is supposed to be a close air support plane as well. If you can see it you can hit it no matter how small the radar cross section is.

That is the problem with the f-35 it isn't the a,b,c version.. but it is trying to do roles it can't do well

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Rei]

Yes, the F-35 absolutely can dogfight - for whatever that's worth these days.

Also, all of these financial comparisons completely miss the point, as if the US wasn't going with the F-35 program, they'd be going with a different program instead. It's not like the US is just going to say, "Meh, I think our fighters are good enough, even though all of our potential adversaries keep advancing theirs..." And they would have again sought to go big, since there's a lot of aircraft to replace, and the more they produce the smaller the unit cost.

Yes, the F-35 is estimated at $1,5 trillion. Total through 2070. Aka, $28B per year, versus the Pentagon's $580B budget. And not all go to the US, there are many international orders as well. Procurement is only a fifth of that $1,5 trillion, or under $6B per year.

Again, yes, you could spend that money on, say, college education for people instead. If you're willing not only to let your adversaries out-tech your airforce, but also to scrap the current airplanes you're with that the F-35 is designed to replace, since that money also pays for ongoing operations costs that you'd have to pay for either way. You might be willing to scrap a large chunk of your airforce. Most Americans would not be, I'm sure.

Is it worth mentioning that many of the design decisions of the F-35 are designed to reduce operating costs, such as large production runs, a single engine design, etc - even though the unit cost is high? Again: production is only a fifth of total costs....

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Anonymous Coward]

It should be noted that turning, climbing, and running aren't terribly important if the other guy can't find you, target you, or shoot at you.

"It should be noted that turning, climbing, and running aren't terribly important if you have missiles you can launch at the other guy from a larger distance than he can." - USAF, before Vietnam war.

"Oh, shit." - USAF, during Vietnam war.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[arth1]

Is it worth mentioning that many of the design decisions of the F-35 are designed to reduce operating costs, such as large production runs, a single engine design, etc - even though the unit cost is high? Again: production is only a fifth of total costs....

And I had the impression that several of the allies and early signers for the F-35 program had either cancelled or reduced their orders because of astronomical operating costs compared with the alternatives.
Something like how you could fly 10 sorties with a Jas Gripen or 5 with a Eurofighter for the cost of one with an F-35...

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Bartles]

Well, the F22 is stealthy, and it can turn, climb, and run. A pig is a pig.

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Anonymous Coward]

Stealth isn't like a Klingon cloaking device and shooting a stealth fighter out of the sky is definitely quite possible. Plus after quickly researching how stealth works, it seems that it isn't as simple as one size fits all radars and purposes. Depending upon the purpose of the flight they have to determine the stealth capability and what type of factors get sacraficed (top speed, maneuverability, etc) to achieve the type of stealth they need.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[GrumpyNope]

Finally, someone who understands what they're talking about instead of all these people blindly bashing the F-35 because of some misleading media story they heard.

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Hylandr]

Huge amount of group think going on here.

The F-35 May have been made invisible to the EMF spectrum used by radar, but there's far more frequencies that it will show up on.

https://tech.slashdot.org/stor...
http://aviationweek.com/techno...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I like this one. Clutter can be solved with good software.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And this one is gold:

a series of in-field modifications carried out by the Yugoslavs further reduced the frequency of the 1960s vintage P-18 VHF acquisition radar under Dani’s command, which enabled his men to detect Zelko’s F-117 at a distance of 30 to 37 miles (50-60 km).

*In-field modifications* That's bad-ass.

http://thediplomat.com/2014/08...

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[stealth_finger]

Darkstar, Judy, Judy. I'm going in for guns! Protip, launching a missile isn't a stealthy business. The F22 is a stealth jet, the F35 has stealthy characteristics, neither are invisible. Firstly it has a curved body which is not good for stealth. I'd wonder about the capabilities of the launchers in this case rather than the plane.

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[stealth_finger]

You're right it's not. It's called beyond visual range. These engagements don't happen over the horizon like naval battles.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[stealth_finger]

The claim isn't missiles are useless. The claim is don't rely on them and keep a gun on board.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[stealth_finger]

Because of it's overwhelming armament capacity that it doesn't have?

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Rei]

This is simply not correct. The F-35's operating cost is nearly as low per hour as the old, much less advanced F-16, which has had nearly half a century to refine. See the line item above for maintenance, $10k per flight hour? The F-22 by contrast takes $33k maintenance per flight hour. Just the maintenance line item alone for the F-22 costs more than all O&S costs for the F-35 combined.

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Luckyo]

I recall reading a more detailed account, and the last one is wrong. He later admitted that he was using stock hardware. His secret was in the fact that he had very well trained AA battery teams, who followed strict discipline when it came to things like time for which fire control radar would illuminate the target and had very high morale as they were the most successful AA team in the entire nation.

The biggest problem for Serbs was the sheer volume of strike craft and the fact that you couldn't paint anything without being quickly targeted and destroyed by the plane itself or its allies because of it. Dani's people were trained to illuminate the target only for 20 seconds at a time and then shut the radar down and rapidly relocate no matter what. That meant that HARM based counter-strikes that killed so much AA hardware were ineffective against his batteries. It also meant that his people quickly understood that they weren't being under severe threat of getting randomly killed by air fired missile, which created significant amount of morale and bravery needed to put your neck out to spot, identify, target, paint and shoot at numerous aircraft that all really hate you, want to kill you and have weapons that are specifically designed to kill you.

That got US pilots in the area used to the fact that they were only in danger for ~17 seconds. His shoot down of F-16 later on involved him breaking his own rule and telling the fire control people to keep the radar illuminating the aircraft, pilot of which expected to just jam off the missile once more powerful radar on the ground would turn off and decided to take a HARM shot to see if he could score a kill. He didn't and plane got shot down

I recall similar thing was done to F-117, in that it was killed in a very specific window during which it could be tracked accurately enough for missile to stand a good chance of actually hitting the aircraft. I recall that he said he used a moment when F-117 opened it's bomb bay to get a tentative radar return that this is indeed his target, and then he just directed his powerful fire control radar to illuminate the spot with as much energy as it could pump. You can be stealthy enough to prevent a weapons grade lock on from fire control radar, but when you get bombarded by a fire control radar that already knows where you are because you flashed yourself for it to low quality lock on because spotters took their time to analyze the tactics used and know where to look, missile's logic has a good chance of estimating the range correctly and detonating close enough to kill the aircraft when aircraft is as slow and unmaneveurable as F-117.

According to the leaks, for F-35 the moment when it's "low observable" rather than "stealth" is pretty much any time it's above and ahead of ground radar. It's stealthiness is mainly in the front hemisphere of the aircraft, and rear is far less stealthy. Which means that if it runs into a well trained team like one that Dani led, it's going to have a decent chance to get killed in a similar fashion. And that's when it's in the stealth configuration, which can carry almost no payload. When carrying a proper strike package, it's about as stealthy as most aircraft around, simply because of signal returns from the payload itself.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Luckyo]

To haul comparable payload in stealth mode, you're actually going to need about four or five times as many F-35s.

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Anonymous Coward]

With regard to the F-117, generally, "stealth" in this context (and era) isn't to make a plane completely undetectable by radar, it's to reduce the range at which it is detected. This produces effective gaps in ground based radar coverage. And in more modern applications, it's also to allow time to obtain the first shot against other aircraft.

The P-18 VHF is an early warning system with a range of 155 miles (250 km). If the F-117 can only be detected at 30-37 miles on an early warning radar, this seems like a win for the F-117. The stealth did exactly what it was supposed to do.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[ShanghaiBill]

It should be noted that turning, climbing, and running aren't terribly important if the other guy can't find you, target you, or shoot at you.

Exactly. The F35 will be fine as long as we assume that our adversaries are completely incapable of innovation. The Chinese would certainly never think to stick a $5 optical camera and an ANN in the nose of a SAM and track using visible light.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Aighearach]

It also turns out that when you program the computer to run in extra-safe mode... it turns, climbs, and otherwise runs slower. That's the thing that was based on something real.

Too bad Mr Deep Eyesocket didn't actually read any of his own links, he might have learned something.

The quote about turning, climbing, running slow was from RAND corp, from 2008, and not based on anything real or even from the military; they programmed a war sim themselves. Using non-classified (read: fake) data sources. And indeed, they managed to program it so that in the simulation, the thing with the label "F-35" did indeed suck. Not sure that means what some of these people think it means. Gosh, scary thought, but what if these morons also believed everything else that RAND Corp said?! Yikes!

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[stealth_finger]

Let's see shall we. Just using wiki the F35A has 6 external pylons (massively increasing rcs) and 2 internal with a total of 8100kg storage or 1360kg if we're preserving stealth and using only internal. Gripen, quite an old jet relatively also has 8 hardpoints with about half the wingloading. Eurofighter has 13 pylons for 7500kg a 600kg difference. So closer to a quarter of a quarter. However that's fully loaded with rcs out the window remember. That's basically the same as what you get on an f16. If you want a big hit you want the F15 E that can carry 10,400kg on 11 pylons. Bottom line is the f35 adds nothing and can't do anything better than anything else. It's not particularly a bad plane it's just very expensive and not really needed.

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Aighearach]

You may have stepped in some strategic misinformation. Like "carrots improve night vision," which is still being taught in schools even thought the Germans already know about radar.

Low-frequency radar is a great tool. And it can indeed detect stealth craft. The problem is, you need a giant powerful broadcast, and you don't get location data. You just detect, "gosh there is something out there." It isn't what Serbia used to shoot down a plane; they used regular AA radar, the plane wasn't stealth even though it was a stealth model, because it was operating in wet weather where it looks normal on radar. It has to be dry to be stealthy. They took a chance, and got hit.

You thought vintage radar would detect stealth tech? Seriously? That's like... W T F level stuff.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[stealth_finger]

Also rcs is unrelated to the range of your weaponry.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Aighearach]

If you can see it you can hit it no matter how small the radar cross section is.

That would be true if the enemy had sci-fi phaser blasters or something, but they don't. You can't aim at an aircraft with your eyes and a projectile. It is not practicable.

You read on the internet, before the thing was even built, that it was awful at all those roles. You failed to understand the comments; it was just some guy saying "in his opinion, it will end up sucking at those things." If you had remembered it was a prognostication, you'd have been ready to reserve judgment as to the actual capabilities achieved until there are operational results to look at. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, and it isn't even out of the oven yet. Just waving your hands doesn't mean it sucks.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Aighearach]

design decisions of the F-35 are designed to reduce operating costs

And that would have been a good idea... if it had worked out. But it didn't: the F-35 has massively higher operational costs than other modern fighters it competes with.

We don't know it has higher operating costs. Pundits have speculated as much, but experts with knowledge keep saying it will reduce operating costs. Your whole meme about "if it had worked" isn't even a thing. Let me explain to you how it actually reads: you say already decided it sucked, before you had data, because pundits. Then when new information came out later, and the program was succeeding, you refused to listen because you already had decided it was a failure. Done explaining.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[SvnLyrBrto]

If the F-35 had been developed just as an F-16 replacement, it would have been a much better-managed program and would probably meet, or even already have met, the goal respectably. The problem is that a jack-of-all-trades is inevitably a master of none, and the F-35 grew into a massive boondoggle. In addition to the F-16, it also has to replace:

- Most of the F-15s, because the air force stopped building the F-22 too soon.
- The F-22s that were supposed to be built, but weren't.
- The F-14; the Super Hornet having been inadequate to the task.
- The A-6; the Super Hornet, again, not having matched the AtG capability of the Intruder.
- The A-10.
- The F/A-18 Hornet, both the navy's supers, and the marines' standard model.
- The AV-8 Harrier.
- Various specialized variants of the above such as as the Strike Eagle and EW versions of the A-6 and F/A-18.
- Australia's F-111 Aardvarks.
- Probably a few more that I've not remembered off the top of my head.

While it may be a cromulent replacement for the F-16, the non-super hornet, and the Harrier; it lacks the range of the F-15, 14, 22, 111, 18-super, and A-6; the supercruise ability of the 22; the long-range intercept capability of the 14 plus AIM-54; the air-to-ground loadout of the 15E, 111, 18-super, A-6, and A-10; and the survivability, loiter time, forward deployment, and giant gatling cannon of the A-10. Basically, the only thing it has going for it as anything more than a 16, non-super 18, and Harrier replacement is stealth. If anyone figures out how to break that, it's boned. And that's all, of course, assuming that everything works perfectly as promised with no bugs or gremlins at all; which has already proven not to be the case.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[NicBenjamin]

It's interesting you're quoting media reports from English/Journalism Majors in an evaluation of technology. This does not speak well to your critical thinking skills.

No shit, a plane specifically designed to be impossible to find can't dogfight. I'll bet the next thing you tell me is that a dude with a cavalry sabre can hack every pilot in the squadron to death if he's managed to sneak into the officer's club while their drunk and totally unarmed. Hell, given the state which most flyboys keep their firearms our hypothetical one dude with a cavalry sabre could probably gut almost all of them sober if he started from within 15 ft.

Moreover if you read those carefully, you'll note the F-35 costs they're quoting are entire program costs for 55 years. So the cost of the planes, the cost of training the pilots, the cost of spares, the cost of jet fuel, etc. No shit the cost for doing that for 55 years, for a major industrialized nation, which frequently finds itself blowing the fuck out of random places, is a huge ass number.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Megol]

While a popular meme by some people it isn't generally true. Proving negatives is done all the time, the simplest way to do it is to enumerate all possibilities and check them all.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[NicBenjamin]

Interestingly enough, a few years back it was considered a terrible waste of money and everyone thought that it should be canned and replaced with F-35.

It's amazing how the perception of a weapons system can change among English/Journalism majors when there have been a few years to work the bugs out.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[angel'o'sphere]

Proving negatives is done all the time, the simplest way to do it is to enumerate all possibilities and check them all.
That only works for positives and not for negatives.
Hence: you can not prove a negative.

Or: please prove that God does not exist. Or assuming, he does not exist: prove he does.
Or: prove unicorns don't exist, in case you are religious and God is a hot topic for you.

Your parent is right, you failed at basic math and logic.

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[richardlvance]

Close air support is done with drone swarms

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[fnj]

You can't aim at an aircraft with your eyes and a projectile.

What utter nonsense; of course you can. It's true, you better be damn good at leading your target to have any success with a SINGLE PROJECTILE. But that is a stupid visualization. Close air support is extreme low level. Close air support is brought down by filling the air in the vicinity with fire. Lots of Mustangs were brought down by multiple free-fired ground machine guns. Can you avoid a hailstorm by flying fast but directly toward the target at low level? Of course not.

WWI CAS was under 100 knots. By WWII it had risen to 200-400 knots. Today it is very little faster; 350-500 knots; no matter if the aircraft is capable of supersonic dash or not, that just isn't how you strafe ground targets. It's not that much harder to hit something at 500 knots than it was at 400, especially when it's much bigger now.

The F-35 is an utter piece of garbage at close air support as well as at dogfighting. The only role it could be any good at is flying high, engaging enemy aircraft at long range with missiles. And it's complete overkill for that. Not to mention that no air force on earth outside of the US, Europe, Russia, and Israel has the slightest competency whatsoever at air to air combat.

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[fnj]

Bugger off. No Marine platoon pinned down under heavy enemy fire wants to see air support arrive in the form of goddam toy airplanes, blundering and pussyfooting around. They want to see A-10s, driven by seasoned pilots, well experienced in CAS. They want to hear that BRRRRRRRRRRP of death shredding the enemy.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[fnj]

"Claims" be stuffed. The REALITY is that the vaunted long range Sparrow radar homers were SHIT. They NEVER hit ANYTHING. The small, cheap Sidewinder infrared homers were a lot better, but they were short range. Fact is, if a highly maneuverable fighter with a good pilot sees that almighty giveaway smoke trail of a missile coming for him, ANY type of missile which is nothing more than a pointy stick with rudders and elevators on the end, but no airfoil up front, he stands a damn good chance of outmaneuvering it, because the fighter has an airfoil and can pull a lot of Gs turning.

Long range missile kills against a bunch of ignorant savages like Libya or Iraq, who are just meat on the table, are a piece of cake. Against guys who know what the fuck they are doing, like the US, Europe, Russia, and Israel - forget it.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[fnj]

In a pig's eye will we ever acquire 2443 of these gold-plated overpriced pieces of shit. That's la-la land. As of March 2016, only 171 had been built, and the program is HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars over budget.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[ShanghaiBill]

You got a visual sensor that can tell a 10m by 16m triangle-shaped thing at 441 km from a seagull's tail at 350 km?

From a single static image? Unlikely. From a series of images at 60 FPS? Very likely. If I was building such a system, my first attempt would be a recurrent convolutional NN, 6 or 8 layers. I would need a server farm (rentable by the hour from AWS) to train it, but then it could deployed on a cheap commodity GPU or maybe even an on-die GPU for extra reliability during high-G turns.

Keep in mind that the SAM/drone/whatever that first sees the F35 would not be the only one in the sky. They could communicate to triangulate and confirm visual results, and attack using swarm tactics.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[ShanghaiBill]

we're getting thousands of them (680 Navy and Marines, and 1,763 for the Air Force).

No we aren't. In a couple years Hillary (or maybe Mike Pence) will face a choice of slashing this order, or painful cuts to Medicare. The first choice will lead to fewer aircraft that are increasingly seen as a white elephants, while the second choice means giving up any chance of reelection. Guess which will happen?

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[thrich81]

All five of the kills which Steve Ritchie (the only US Air Force pilot ace in Vietnam) got were done by AIM-7 Sparrows. For two of those kills he was flying an F-4E which had a gun. Here is a description of his fourth kill, "The first MiG had also turned back and was attacking the last F-4 in Ritchie's flight from behind, an often fatal consequence to US aircraft employing the then-standard "fluid four" tactical formation. Ritchie made a hard turn across the curving intercept of the MiG, again coming out at its 5 o'clock, and the MiG, apparently perceiving the threat, broke hard right and dove away. Ritchie fired an AIM-7 from inside its minimum range and at the limit of its capability to turn. Expecting the Sparrow to miss, he was trying to switch to a gun attack in the relatively unfamiliar F-4E he was flying that day when the missile exploded the MiG, 1 minute and 29 seconds after the first kill."
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Antique Geekmeister]

> Basically, the only thing it has going for it as anything more than a 16, non-super 18, and Harrier replacement is stealth. If anyone figures out how to break that, it's boned

Or if they can break the bank of the military using them. Programs like the F-35 are so grossly overbudget, and so expensive to equip and maintain, that they genuinely cut into the funding for "boots on the ground" to occupy territory. And the F-35 still remains reliant on grossly expensive replacement parts after _every mission_, especially the tires. The tires are custom made to support the heavy air frame and high landing speeds, and tend to fail if used even twice.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[stealth_finger]

It's not just about weight carried though. Number of pylons increases the amount and types you can carry. I misread your last sentence though and that is a valid point but that's internal stores only which is an absolute max of six missiles so it's a trade off and you'd probably rather be in a raptor in an air to air engagement.

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Anonymous Coward]

Bugger off. No Marine platoon pinned down under heavy enemy fire wants to see air support arrive in the form of goddam toy airplanes, blundering and pussyfooting around. They want to see A-10s, driven by seasoned pilots, well experienced in CAS. They want to hear that BRRRRRRRRRRP of death shredding the enemy.

No they don't. A-10s, operated by the Air Force, have the highest rate of friendly incidents. An A-10 is the last thing they want to see.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Sir Holo]

Proving negatives is done all the time, the simplest way to do it is to enumerate all possibilities and check them all.
That only works for positives and not for negatives.
Hence: you can not prove a negative.

Or: please prove that God does not exist. Or assuming, he does not exist: prove he does.
Or: prove unicorns don't exist, in case you are religious and God is a hot topic for you.

Your parent is right, you failed at basic math and logic.

Thank you, angel'o'sphere (note the 5-digit UID) , for correcting the troll.

For those that don't know, Megol's claim that "it is a popular meme by some people" is nothing more than trollery. The concept underpins the discipline of Scientific Research. Well, err, science itself.

Oh, also: My first "-1" Comment! Why did it take over a decade to achieve such an honor? Darn.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[ahabswhale]

Pick a less biased party (like the GAO) and you'll find those operating costs are MUCH higher than $10k. In short, breakingdefence.com is completely full of shit.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Aighearach]

Close air support is extreme low level.

Close air support is whatever level it is at. The operational range depends on the ability to sense the ground accurately and deliver munitions. We have no data yet about how the F-35 even performs this role, much less how good at it it is.

People have a video-game idea of an A-10 flying in and looking out the window, but if you look at the data, it mostly fires missiles from nearby, and gets shot down pretty quick if it gets too close. Which is tricky, because it is very slow. Faster planes tend to have a hard time delivering munitions accurately enough at the sort of speed that makes things safer.

You have no data about how it performs at close air support, and no data about how it performs dogfighting. Public information about how it performed in dogfighting training was using software where it was designed to lose. There is no public data saying it is actually bad at the real task. None. Just people breathlessly repeating what the read on the internet, that was repeated from the opinions of blowhards who didn't have access to any information that would confirm their prognostications.

Heck, we don't even know what they're installing in the central compartment for the close air support mission. What we do know is that the people in the military actually involved in the technology, who do know what it is, support the program very strongly. And that it cost more than the original price tag. (that's true for everything the military buys though) And that's about all we actually know about it. Oh yeah, it comes in variants. We know that.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[vux984]

Hence: you can not prove a negative.

Of course you can prove a negative.

Prove that there are no prime integers between 23 and 29:

24 - 3x8
25 - 5x5
26 - 2x13
27 - 3x9
28 - 4x7
QED

Prove that that the set of real numbers is not countable... see Cantor's Diagonal proof

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And there are other techniques one can use to prove other negatives.
"Or: prove unicorns don't exist, in case you are religious and God is a hot topic for you."

Define 'not exist' and clarify the properties of unicorns. I'm reasonably confident that unless you make some rather extravagant claims of bizarre properties that I should have no real difficulty proving there are no unicorns in my living room right now.

Granted that's not nearly as strong as proving they don't exist anywhere at all for all time. But nevertheless I've still proven a negative.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[NicBenjamin]

Dude, we've already paid for the shit that goes over-budget on F-35.

We're into production, and costs go down during the production run. According to the latest info from the Air Force's accountants, each new F-35 costs less then any opther American fighter currently on sale. Altho we could conceivably save $16 million a pop if we got the Swedish Grippen.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[NicBenjamin]

Like I said, sitting on your ass in the Valley it's easy to say you can do that. Actually doing that, at 50k ft, in all weather conditions, at night, while keeping your eyes in the sky from being blowed up by a cheap-ass drone out of Nevada, is a much different technical problem. Note the night thing? What the fuck you gonna do if I send in 500 F-35s to nail your eye-in-the-sky base at night?

Your solution (networked small, low-power, hard-to-detect, observation units in constant communications with each-other) is actually quite similar to the guys who figured out how to detect our stealth aircraft decades ago. But in in actual combat it's hellishly difficult to pull off because you figure out a way around any single element of the system and it's a boondoggle. Thus, IRL precisely one guy managed to pull that shit off.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[NicBenjamin]

Dude, we've already paid for the parts of the project that can go over-budget. We're into production. If Lockheed says "sorry guys, we spent $90 mil building this one" and doesn't have a detailed invoice for every single line that went over Lockheed gets to eat the loss. They'll also need a really good explanation for not calling the Air Force when Pratt and Whitney over-charges for the engine. Moreover, production cost is in the $80-85 mil range, which is cheaper then damn near any modern fighter out there, and cheaper then quite a few whose first flight was before I was born in '81. In fact to my knowledge the only 3.5+g fighter available for less then the 80-85 mil we're being charged is the SAAB Grippen.

So the price is already in the budget. Moreover, if the elites in DC have to choose between a) Medicare and b) the Defense Department do you seriously think there's any fucking chance they won't go for option c) drown in deficit spending?

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[NicBenjamin]

Not really. CAS is what happens when you're going 300 MPH, straight over the enemy position, running a cannon. No drone we have in the sky actually does that shit. They do bombs and missiles, but not kamikaze cannon runs.

The A-10 does. AFAIK the only other real close support aircraft in the world is the Russian Grach (altho COIN planes like the Tucano can fake it). Grach gets a bit of a bad rap because various post-Soviet and African states operate them in places with real air defense, so they tend to have that 1% a day casualty margin I mentioned.

Thus the drone comment.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[angel'o'sphere]

That is not what we call "prove a negative".

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[NicBenjamin]

And if the Air Force informed a Marine captain that his company had to do a job that cost a guy a day in combat conditions would said Marine Captain do his damndest to squirm out?

Infantry guys love the A-10 for the BRRRRRRRP, and in the immediate future (say the next 5 years) this will work fine. But in the long term, manned aircraft as CAS is dumb with a capital D-U-M. 1% a day casualties just is not acceptable. I don't know what will replace them, but I suspect it will take advantage of the fact that a drone base and pilot do not actually have to be on the same continent, and every FOB commanded by an O-3 will have a couple Air Force Lieutenant drone jockeys sitting around the staff room waiting to take over a tough-ass drone, designed on the A-10 model, with the A-10's GAU-8 gun.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[K. S. Kyosuke]

For quite some time now, I've been thinking that missiles with computer vision are the future. Although packing the computational process into a small-enough power envelope is going to be interesting (ASICs?).

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Yesss! They are manly men! I have a military boner now! /s

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[K. S. Kyosuke]

I suspect that a much lighter drone with a chain gun, assuming it can see and discriminate the targets, could replace the area-showering MO of A-10 strafing runs with accuracy.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[K. S. Kyosuke]

ANY type of missile which is nothing more than a pointy stick with rudders and elevators on the end, but no airfoil up front

Do these exist anymore? I look at Python 5 and simply don't see that happening.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Some people will get buyer's remorse not matter what you give them.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[K. S. Kyosuke]

If it isn't, then the term is useless.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Comparable how? How do, for example, the eight SDB-IIs compare to whatever the Gripen can currently carry? In terms of expected efficiency? I mean, you might as well compare it to a B-29 bomb load and say that more kilograms win, even without actually hitting anything.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[NotAPK]

I know this is a US-centric site, but the allies of the USA are also upset with the F-35 program:

UK.

Canada.

Australia.

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[stealth_finger]

You thought vintage radar would detect stealth tech? Seriously? That's like... W T F level stuff.

The thing about stealth is it's effective vs certain things. Most are designed to be stealthy against the type of high frequency radar employed by modern aircraft. Low frequency radars can pick them up much easier. Fun fact, if they all flew the channel at 1946 at the primitive radar sets then they would all be detected because they're not designed to deflect/absorb that type of signal.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[stealth_finger]

For quite some time now, I've been thinking that missiles with computer vision are the future. Although packing the computational process into a small-enough power envelope is going to be interesting (ASICs?).

Bring back project pigeon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[NotAPK]

Comparison should be to something like the Dassault Rafale. This little plane is proving to be very cost effective and useful multirole fighter.

Comes in a carrier variant as well.

Looks boss to boot.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[angel'o'sphere]

There are primes.
So proving there are no primes between 8 and 10 makes no sense.

Proving a negative means: prove that there are no primes at all. (The fact that there are primes is not the point. The point is: you can not enumerate all numbers and check every one. Hence you could not prove that a certain number property does not exist, you can only prove that it does, by finding the first one).

The Unicorn is the typical example. Because you can not check every point of the universe and make sure there is none, you can not prove Unicorns don't exist. Hence you can not prove the "non exisiting" or "non existente" of anything. Only the existence.

If you are programmer you should have learned that in school or at the latest in university.

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[tpgp]

he had very well trained AA battery teams,

Imagine what he could've done with C, or even D cells.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[CharlieG]

I'm actually old enough (hint, old enough to be the average /. readers father if I remember the demographics correctly) that I can remember people complaining that the F-15 was a waste of money, because it was so expensive, and we should stick with the F-4 or at most the F-5

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[budgenator]

It should be noted that turning, climbing, and running aren't terribly important if the other guy can't find you, target you, or shoot at you.

Because sooner or later, one of your opposing forces are going to figure out how to see what can't today be seen, that's when turning, climbing, and running become terribly important.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Rei]

Did you even click the link? The document is from the DoD.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[cheesybagel]

The software isn't finished.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[ahabswhale]

Yep, I read it. You do realize the DoD is biased to make the F-35 look good, right?

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[budgenator]

It should be noted that turning, climbing, and running aren't terribly important if the other guy can't find you, target you, or shoot at you.

What's invisible today always becomes visible tomorrow that's when turning, climbing, and running are very important when the other guy finds you, targets you, and shoots.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

There are certainly problems with the F-35 program - you've pointed out quite a few (although other pilots have different opinions on it). However, none of what you say actually refutes this story directly - that is, there's nothing that says the stealth on the plane is actually worse than the article makes it out to be.

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[budgenator]

Low-frequency radar is a great tool. And it can indeed detect stealth craft. The problem is, you need a giant powerful broadcast, and you don't get location data. You just detect, "gosh there is something out there."

You think you're not getting location data because the wavelength is much longer and you need a good 10 lambdas wide antenna to achieve fairly good angular resolution. This leads to tactically impractical antenna sizes in the lower frequency ranges. But the truth is with GPS multiple receivers can be can be interconnected and used as a phase array. I would not be surprised if the software to do this couldn't be found at any university seismology lab.
For that matter even triangulating signal arrival times, would get you plenty close enough to fire up the high powered illuminating transmitters from multiple locations.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[budgenator]

No you throw up a bunch of lead and the aircraft runs into it.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Rei]

So, your argument is, the DoD is lying when it describes in its own internal documents how much the F-35 costs to operate. And your contrary, higher O&S figures are in what document, exactly?

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Aighearach]

Right, you start throwing up lead because here it comes, and then computer-aided targeting systems blast you to hell.

The one too fast to aim at has a much easier time in that battle than the one who is slow moving or fixed on the ground; one can aim and is hard to hit, the other can't aim but is easy to hit.

Nobody is going to understand this stuff by thinking, because it is all well-measured and there are fairly concrete answers about what is better in what situation. People trying to think, tend to think the A-10's armor makes it survivable, but data from the field says no. People think infantry support requires looking out the window, field data calls that a "friendly fire incident," or "where the hospital used to be." What infantry really could use is close support with good enough sensors to drop small stuff on locations they choose. And that has nothing to do with getting close, it has to do with location and targeting; eg, electronics. If you're trying to do close air support, and the enemy is throwing up lead, you can see those positions really really well. If your targeting systems are accurate enough to fire close to the friendlies, and your targeting system knows where those friendlies are, you can do a lot of good. There is no reason why being slow and loitering overhead is better in that situation than being higher up and moving faster.

The reason old planes had to be slow to do that job, the only weapon small enough to use close to friendlies didn't have good targeting, and wasn't useful at high speed. So you end with A-10s that supposedly are doing close support with a cannon, but because they're the most vulnerable thing in the sky to a MANPAD, they don't actually operate that way, and instead they fly around the edges of combat trying to take shots at vehicles... with missiles. They end up mostly having to use missiles, because even with all that armor, they're not survivable. They're not designed for infantry support, they're designed to attack armor that is on the move and has minimum air defense other than portable AAA. An important role, in a certain type of war that needed to be prepared for at the time, but is no longer a significant concern.

This is all stuff you can learn about, instead of trying to figure out or guess at. "Gosh in the movies you just throw more and more lead in the air until they crash into it, the enemy can just do that and we're screwed." Cliches about strategy and logistics might be educational here.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[vux984]

Proving a negative means: prove that there are no primes at all.

No. Proving a negative simply means to prove a statement "such and such is not true".

The point is: you can not enumerate all numbers and check every one

You don't have to.

Take a look a Cantor's diagonal proof. It proves a number is NOT in an infinite table of numbers. (A proof of a negative) And in the the process proves that real set of numbers is not countable. (A proof of another negative.)

In general, for finite search spaces you can use a proof by exhaustion. For countable (and even for some uncountable) infinite search spaces you can use an inductive proof or proof by contradiction.

Hence you could not prove that a certain number property does not exist,

"No positive integral powers of 2 end in 0"

It's a statement that a certain number property doesn't exist. (Thus a negative.) And you don't have to check every positive integer to prove the statement is true.

The Unicorn is the typical example. Because you can not check every point of the universe and make sure there is none, you can not prove Unicorns don't exist. Only the existence.

That only argues that you can't exhaustively search the universe.

Whether or not you need to search the universe to prove unicorns exists depends on your criteria for what a unicorn is. After all the Ringling brothers had one in their circus until the 80s.

If you are programmer you should have learned that in school or at the latest in university.

Quite so. However I think you must have misunderstood. Proving the existence of something is always possible using a direct proof by example. (Prove there exists a prime number greater than 5: ok... 7. done.) Proving the non-existence something is harder since you have use less direct proof techniques.

But in general, there are many true negative statements that absolutely are provable. And there are many true positive statements that are not provable.

Further, when you start to talk about programming and formal logic, the word 'proof' itself generally is reserved for pure mathematics and logic not the physical world. In the physical world, we really only have theories and evidence, not proofs of anything, positive or negative.

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Aighearach]

You thought vintage radar would detect stealth tech? Seriously? That's like... W T F level stuff.

The thing about stealth is it's effective vs certain things. Most are designed to be stealthy against the type of high frequency radar employed by modern aircraft.

Modern aircraft use those frequencies because those are the frequencies that can tell you exactly where a thing is. Lower frequencies give you less location data. You have to have enough data for accurate targeting or it is just a flashing light on the dash, except that gives your position away for hundreds of miles.

Those frequencies aren't just arbitrary choices, there are real physical sciencey engineering reasons why specific ranges of frequencies are used for different things. Just saying, "the type of high frequency radar employed by modern aircraft" isn't enough. You have to also ask, "Is there a reason why all the modern aircraft employ higher frequency radar? Is it different, or just a fad?" You'll find out even with the most basic search that yes, there are real differences in the utility of different frequencies for radar. You might even come to realize, if you look into it, that it isn't only true that stealth tech is designed to be stealthy against radar employed by modern aircraft, but that they're designed to be stealthy to the range of frequencies that are useful for targeting missiles at fast-moving aircraft. Once you get out of the fad mindset and start thinking in terms of ranges of potential capabilities, then it becomes a bit more obvious what is going on.

And if, hypothetically, you installed a bunch of WWII radar to try to detect stealth craft, and it worked... you get some warning to run to the bomb shelter, but you can't do anything else with that. Your base still blows up. You can't guide a missile, because that sort of radar doesn't provide enough location detail to hit a target at that speed, even if it can see it perfectly. The missile would just zoom past a quarter mile away, get a couple miles, realize it missed, and have to turn around. Or if you need a game analogy, WW-II radar is more like "Marco Polo" than "Duck Hunt."

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[stoatwblr]

> You just detect, "gosh there is something out there."

Knowing something's out there is important intelligence all by itself. It allows the AA operators to be prepared for something they wouldn't normally have time to react to.

F35 is this generation's F-111B, except this time around it isn't being dumped and replaced with the equivalent of the F14/F15 (which were much cheaper but developed from knowledge gained in the F111B development program).

It seems one of the lessons learned from the F111B program was how to rig things so it was impossible to cancel.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[stoatwblr]

The F22 was supposed to be the expensive air superiority fighter and the F35 the cheap aircraft for close air support after the opposition's airforce and defences were taken out.

F22 was canned because it was too expensive - as you say, ironic because the per-piece price of the "cheap" F35 is now higher.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[ahabswhale]

Sorry, I trust the GAO over the DoD when it comes to money. Read wikipedia if you want the GAO estimates.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[stoatwblr]

"If you're willing not only to let your adversaries out-tech your airforce,"

The USA spends at least 3 times as much on its military as the next country on the list (China - and what they spend is less than the interest they earn on loans to the USA).

It spends more than the next NINETEEN countries combined and several times more more than all the rest combined too.

What killed the Nazis was overspending on hi-tech solutions which ended up to expensive to produce (eg: tiger tanks), instead of concentrating on using what they had efficiently.
What killed the Soviet Union was spending too much on its military systems as cost of everything else

The USA seems to be waltzing down both paths simultaneously - your education, medical and transportation infrastructure are all suffering badly whilst the country continues to invest vast amounts of wealth into unusable military systems. It's unsustainable and eventually something's going to break, despite the continuing militarisation of civilian peacekeepers.

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Aighearach]

That doesn't sound very impressive at all, if you think about it. So, yeah, as long as at the start of the conflict we take out part of their known, large, built-up early warning system, it is basically useless. And even if it is operational, they have to have a bunch of high power stations networked together just to get a regional warning, and they can then point a very very powerful beam with huge energy requirements that can give better detail in a very small area, and they can then shine that around the region indicated and hope they hit something. But even then, they can't actually run that on a missile it is too big. So if they also have a modern in-air multi-vehicle target sharing system (they don't) then they could target a missile. But they don't, so all they can do is point AAA guns which won't ever be in range. But even if they had missiles that could use that data, they'd be at a very large disadvantage. The bigger a radar station, the sooner it gets blown up. Turning on the most powerful radar in the world at a low frequency from a fixed station? That doesn't last past the first day. The vast majority of the difficulties facing the US armed forces happen after the first day. The first day stuff, actually we're so good at that it isn't even a challenge.

Do they need to invest in that sort of radar? Yes, they do. So they can get the important people into the bunker. Does it somehow turn stealth technology into a boondoggle? No, it doesn't even reduce the benefits noticeably.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[budgenator]

Sorry, but if your in the Air Force and you're not a Pedro or a Hog drive or other A10 support you're a useless piece of shit and your breathing is a waste of oxygen. Trying to shoot an A10 is like trying to shoot a Barn Swallow, do you honestly think that an F35 is going to be any faster than an A10 is down low and dirty in the peasoup we call an atmosphere; if anything it's going to be slower. Comparing the F35 to an A10 is like comparing a semi truck to a dirt bike in the woods.

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[stealth_finger]

You're completely correct that you need the high frequency to actually target stuff, however my point was vintage radar would in fact detect stealth

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[budgenator]

The weak-link in the fight between aircraft and missiles has always been the meat-sack holding the stick turning into jelly before the missile does. Most Missiles have a g-limiter set around 10+ G's and the autopilot in the missile is programmed to over-correct so it always takes the shortest path to intercept. This forces the pilot to turn even sharper, he he can't because the missile is quite happy operating in G levels that will cause him to blackout. The only way the pilot can survive is to stay out of the no escape range.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Rei]

I'll repeat: your contrary, higher O&S figures are in what document, exactly?

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Rei]

As for Wikipedia: it links to an article (not a report) citing a GAO report from 2014 (the report I linked is from 2015) comparing per hour costs of a wide range of planes (not specifically F-16s as in the actual report I linked), a report which is criticized in the article linked as “comparing apples and oranges.” and "...GAO’s methods mean their estimates are inherently out of date. Questions were also raised about the GAO’s methodologies for analyzing fuel costs..." and "It will be very interesting to see if the GAO sticks to these conclusions when the report gets approved for release." And Wikipedia's source is the one you just decried just moments ago, Breaking Defense, so strange that you'd now go tell me to read it.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[ahabswhale]

Believe what you want to believe but you're fucking nuts if you think the operating costs are gonna be anywhere close to what the the DoD is saying. The DoD has never estimated any weapons system cost even remotely accurately. If it were only off by 2.5 times, I would be amazed.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[angel'o'sphere]

A "true negative statement" is not a "it does not exist statement".

"The first prime after 5 is not smaller than 5" is a negative statement and it is true.

You can not prove a program is bug free. You can only prove it is free of certain bugs. The non existence of a bug can not be proven.

Further, when you start to talk about programming and formal logic, the word 'proof' itself generally is reserved for pure mathematics and logic not the physical world. In the physical world, we really only have theories and evidence, not proofs of anything, positive or negative.
Obviously. But when talking to laymen it is easier to take an example from the physical world. It is easier to understand.

You are arguing that you can invent arbitrary "theorems" and prove that they don't exist/cant be true. Again: that is not proving a negative.

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Hylandr]

You may not be impressed, but everyone seems to forget the enemy really is another intelligent human like themselves bent on the others destruction and will use all the resources available which would include testing every idea.

What I hate most about group-think is the assumption that the enemy will fight the way we want them to, while using the best possible scientific solution that we know everything about.

The first day stuff, actually we're so good at that it isn't even a challenge.

The first enemy to surprise the shit out of us is going to have a field day.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[vux984]

A 'true negative statement' can absolutely be a 'it does not exist statement'.

No positive integral power of 2 ends with 0. That is a true statement that says something does not exist.

2^1 ends in 2 ...
2^4 ends in 6
2^5 ends in 2 ...
2^10 ends in 4 ...
2^16 end in 6 ...

For all 2^n there does not exist an n>0 such that the result ends in zero.
That positive integer does not exist.
It's provably true.

Its a true negative statement that says something doesn't exist.

Obviously. But when talking to laymen it is easier to take an example from the physical world. It is easier to understand.

But it leads to all kinds of logical faults. The reason we can't prove whether an arbitrary computer program has bugs, or will halt, etc is really not at all related to why you can't search the universe for unicorns.

Indeed the halting problem (or the correctness problem you mentioned) both have been proven to be true -- and they are also both negative statements of existence:

The halting problem for example can be stated that "There does not exist a program that can determine whether a program + input pair will halt for all program+inputs." And we've proved this is true. (using... a proof modeled on Cantor's diagnoal proof...)

The program correctness problem can be similiarly stated (and proven).

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[NicBenjamin]

The F22 was supposed to be the expensive air superiority fighter and the F35 the cheap aircraft for close air support after the opposition's airforce and defences were taken out.

F22 was canned because it was too expensive - as you say, ironic because the per-piece price of the "cheap" F35 is now higher.

Pardon my rantiness, but Godmotherfuckingdamnit, would it be too much to ask a single person who is opposing the F-35 to fucking check motherfucking wikipedia to find out whether the blurb he read about this shit a year ago is still fucking true?

If you're talking about the cost of a single plane, you're talking flyaway cost. For F-22 that is $150 million. For F-35 it's $116 million for the extremely expensive Navy variant, for the cheaper Air Force variant it's under $100 million and likely to reduce to $85 million in 2018.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[NicBenjamin]

Is software ever actually finished?

It's working fine at the moment, so it's unlikely to cause another $4 Billion in cost over-runs.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Nethemas the Great]

I was under the impression that the F-35 wasn't going to scrape the tree tops like the A-10. Rather it provided CAS from higher/farther by utilizing it's superior sensor suite and munitions.

Most of the criticism seems to be coming from armchair trolls and A-10 fans that aren't able to accept/grasp how the technology will bridge the gap. There hasn't been objective, real-world data provided on its CAS abilities yet. Should be coming soon now that they've been moved to "ready for combat" status.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Aighearach]

it's like the US carrier fleets if during exercises they turn out to be less than invincible , they just declare they are by changing the rules and restart the exercise.

No, if you could read you'd understand that it is like if somebody who isn't the US Navy made up their own carrier simulation without any real life data, and then claimed the result tells you about real carriers. It would be fucking stupid.

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Aighearach]

Well gosh, that would explain why they spend their money on high frequency radar, and trying to copy stealth tech. They must be intelligent humans who don't have magic WWII radar, they just have less money than us and so their equipment isn't as good.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[angel'o'sphere]

Why are you nitpicking?

Ok, I should not have chosen a math problem as argument, my fault.

You are not proving any "non existences here". Actually you prove the existence and the truth of a theorem.

Can't be so hard to grasp that the "non existence" of anything can't be proven, for someone who shows up here as smart as you are.

Again: prove there is no Unicorn. You can't. Or simpler: prove there is no whale. You can't either. Because you will find whales, or I show you one ... The point is: if there would be no whales, you could not prove it.

So I won by argument of: "giving one example" ...

Your math examples make no sense, as "there are numbers", so the corresponding prove would be "show that there are no numbers". But surprise there are some. Plenty actually. What you are doing with your math examples is showing properties of those or certain numbers. That has nothing to do with "non existance" of something. E.g. a bug in a program.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...Ãdel%27s_incompleteness_theorems

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Now I understand what you "roughly" mean by it, but mathematically, I find it quite difficult to distinguish negative claims purely on the basis on their scope. Now the education could be a red herring because English is not my native tongue so the specific terminology may overlap with English usage in problematic ways, but we certainly refer with a similar term simply to the act of proving a statement with negation as its outermost operator regardless of the constraints.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[K. S. Kyosuke]

You can not prove a program is bug free. You can only prove it is free of certain bugs. The non existence of a bug can not be proven.

The apparent problem here is the lack of an accurate, objective definition of a bug. This is not the case for primes, while on the other hand, in the case of gods, the problem is one of not only definition but also of physical or transcendental existence. I get increasingly the feeling that you're conflating incommensurable issues from multiple areas of cognition into one.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[budgenator]

You guys just don't get it, your customer is the Grunt on the Ground, when your customer calls, he knows he's Danger Close. He not thinking there is a chance I might die from Friendly Fire, He's thinking there is a chance I might get out of this shit alive. Your Customer doesn't want a nice sterile surgical strike, He wants the Angel of Death raining down Hell fire and Brimstone.

I understand the Blue-shirts hate the A10, the down and dirty style of fighting the A10 excels at, goes against the grain of the Air Force psyche, that's find just tranfer the kit and cabootle to the Army; I'm sure the Cavalry will know how to use them.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[vux984]

Why are you nitpicking?

Because the statement 'you cannot prove a negative' is just wrong. It's not nit-picking. Its just wrong.

You are not proving any "non existences here". Actually you prove the existence and the truth of a theorem.

We proved that a particular program that could do a particular thing did not exist, and could not exist. How is that NOT a proof of the non-existence of something?

Again: prove there is no Unicorn.

You are not proving any "non existences here". Actually you prove the existence and the truth of a theorem.

Suppose I started with a theorem... that "a distinct earthly species genetically related to a goat with a naturally occurring single horn on its forehead and cloven hooves, did not exist" and then I managed to prove it... have I proven the existence and truth of a theorem?

Or have I proven unicorns don't exist?

The two conclusions seem to be intractably related.

Your math examples make no sense, as "there are numbers", so the corresponding prove would be "show that there are no numbers". But surprise there are some. Plenty actually. What you are doing with your math examples is showing properties of those or certain numbers. That has nothing to do with "non existance" of something.

Allow me to rephrase...with unicorns. (and not intending to be offensive):

Your unicorn examples make no sense, as "there are animals", so the corresponding proof would be "show that there are no animals". But surprise there are some. Plenty actually. What you are doing with your unicorn example is showing properties of those or certain animals. That has nothing to do with the "non-existence" of something.

With my math and programming examples I am proving that numbers with certain properties don't exist, and programs with certain properties don't exist. With your unicorn example, you are simply asserting that animals with certain properties don't exist.

There really is no difference in the 'logical form' of these propositions. Some of them can be proven, others can't.

The reason the non-existence of unicorns can't proven is more subtle than "its a negative statement". It has to do with the fact that we don't currently understand or describe the universe as a formal system. If we ever solve that and find a grand unified theory of everything that covers every observation, we may suddenly be able to prove (at least assuming the GUT as true) that unicorns for (some precise definition of unicorn) cannot exist, or did not exist... or perhaps do exist somewhere in a universe described by that GUT.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Aighearach]

You can imagine whatever you want, but you don't have the data.

A-10s don't do "dirty fighting" very much of the time, they get shot down if they do that.

1) The current primary plane doing close air support is the F-16

2) The A-10 does the job the same way the F-16 does, it circles at 30,000 ft and then drops shit downwards on coordinates.

Don't use magical thinking, find out how the tool is used currently, that will explain what the military is going to want.

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[AchilleTalon]

So, basically they invented a quantum fighter. The Schrödinger plane is everywhere and nowhere at the same time. And you can detect it, losing information on its location, kind of Heisenberg uncertainity principle.

Re: Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Aighearach]

It isn't that mystical. It isn't an easy thing to use radio for in the first place. A low frequency beam is too big to provide good location data. It isn't realistic for an airplane to control the angle it bounces off at, because the wavelength is too wide relative to the size of the plane. But for the same reason, you can't really tell where it was when it bounced. You don't have a big enough return signal. You need a bunch of stuff that bounced so you can do statistical analysis and predict a location. With a high frequency beam you get more stuff to bounce, but the wavelength is tiny compared to the size of the airplane; the plane can control the way it bounces just by the shape of the contours of the craft, at least on the forwards-facing parts of it. The back is a bit harder to do. So are missiles, which is why the F-35's extra interior space is so important. It can be stealthy, and carry weapons at the same time. Stealth isn't magic, it is symmetrical to the physical abilities of radar, and is mostly about shape. Radar that bounces off an aircraft easily can detect its location, but the reflection can be controlled by design. Radar that doesn't bounce off the aircraft easily can still detect that there is something inside a broad area, if it has a really huge array with massive broadcast power and lots of statistical analysis, but it isn't going to give you a location good enough for targeting.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[budgenator]

The A-10 does the job the same way the F-16 does, it circles at 30,000 ft and then drops shit downwards on coordinates.

I'm not sure what dropping shit from 6 miles away has to do with C.A.S., Close Air Support, B52s drop shit a lot better than a F35 would, and probably a lot cheaper. Where I'm from we have to tell the Hog Driver to stay above 500 ft over the eagle nesting areas because they don't have fun until they are below 150 feet.

But this again just proves my point, You don't understand your customer, you want your customer to change his method of operations to suit what you intend to supply and your unable to adapt to the realities of your market.

https://youtu.be/o7JM82fa5ZY

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[Aighearach]

B-52s are big and expensive with a large crew and are not an efficient choice for dropping individual small precise "smart" weapons.

And you're not sure what it has to do with close air support, because you're alliterate. If you were able to read the words and actually parse them, instead of just sounding them out, you'd figure out what is being said: Dropping shit from up high is what the job of close air support is. The job doesn't mean you're close to what you're supporting. It means that the stuff you're blowing up is close to the friendlies who want you to blow it up. And that is done from high up in the air, using sensors, not by looking out the window at the MANPAD hitting your engine.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[angel'o'sphere]

Sorry, it is a fundamental fact in logic, that you can not prove a negative.
At least that is what is taught in my university, no idea about yours.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[vux984]

Sorry, it is a fundamental fact in logic, that you can not prove a negative. At least that is what is taught in my university, no idea about yours.

You need to go back to university and have a conversation with your logic professor. I suspect its far more likely that you simply misunderstood something, than it is that they told you something this wrong.

There ARE lots of things you can't prove. But "you can't prove a negative" is much to broad a claim to be universally true in all formal logic systems. No logician or philosopher would side with you on this.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[stoatwblr]

That flyaway cost presupposes the numbers ordered will hold and every indication at the moment is that they won't.

It's disingenuous at best to avoid amortising the development cost of the aircraft across the numbers actually sold.

On the bright side, the USA will be so busying paying for this boondoggle that they won't be able to afford to go to war with anyone for a while.

Re:Can't turn, can't climb, can't run

[NicBenjamin]

Like I said in another section of this thread, the cost-over-runny bits of development are already almost. A squadron of F-35s has just been declared combat ready. done. Thus, to the extent this particular new weapons system has included b$Billion surprises, those have already been sprung. That means all those over-runs the English Majors in the media freak out about are already priced into $85 million, and that $85 Mil price-tag is in the budgets for the next fifty years or so.

Which in turn means that the only way to reduce the order would be to get Congress to reduce defense spending. And specifically, that they'd prefer reducing defense spending by cutting weapons procurement, rather then cutting flight time (Av Gas ain't cheap).

That shit ain't happening.

Wait, so the F-35 is good for something?

[Theovon]

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?

Re:Wait, so the F-35 is good for something?

[Rei]

Because you've been reading sources focused on bashing the F-35? Which might explain the seemingly "inexplicable" interest by other parties who don't read exclusively efforts to bash it?

Re:Wait, so the F-35 is good for something?

[CanadianMacFan]

Well it's not really great since if it wants to take out the radar source it will have to open the weapons bay doors which will greatly increase the radar signature so that it will probably show up on radar. The article didn't mention anything about trying to attack the sources, just evading. The US may have the F-22 to take out SAM sites but other countries like Canada or Australia won't. And when it comes to encountering other aircraft it's going to be a disadvantage.

Re:Wait, so the F-35 is good for something?

[arth1]

It's not inferior in every way to earlier planes. Most ways, but not all. Whether the ways it's superior (stealth) can completely make up for the ways it is inferior (climb rate, maneuverability during dogfights, payload, loiter time, low airspeed performance for close air support, sustained turn rate, cockpit visibility, range, survivability vs combat damage), remains to be seen. Many people doubt it. It's a one-trick pony. Defeat that trick, and you are SOL.

I think a large concern isn't it being a one trick pony, but that it is a duck-billed platypus, and the result of design by committee. Every investing party demanded that it had a feature, be it bombing, or STOL, or stealth, or ability to be crippled remotely, or the machine that goes ping. Attempting to cram all the different uses into a single machine made it a jack of all trades. You still have to pay for all those features, though, both in costs and in performance trade-offs in other areas.

Re:Wait, so the F-35 is good for something?

[GrumpyNope]

Because the media can spin a tiny bad thing into a huge story. Yes the F-35 has had some issues but that can be said about anything when it first gets released. I'd like for someone to point out a military aircraft that did not have any problems when it first entered service. They usually get these things fixed within the first few rounds of updates.

Re: Wait, so the F-35 is good for something?

[Jack_the_Tripper]

Probably depends on how much military aid they get from the US to buy the things.

Re:Wait, so the F-35 is good for something?

[Cederic]

Although since the Russian economy isn't great, their pilots wont get the same level of training airtime and will likely struggle in an early-conflict combat situation.

There's a reason the UK keep winning conflicts despite seldom being the best equipped army out there.

Dude, where's my plane???

[Anonymous Coward]

Couldn't resist.

IE Boelcke vs Boyd

[NotSoHeavyD3]

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.)

Re:IE Boelcke vs Boyd

[SuricouRaven]

1999, actually. US F-16 vs a MiG-29. The F16 won. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/...

But you are correct in general: Dogfighting is not as important as it used to be. It still matters, just not as much.

Re:IE Boelcke vs Boyd

[Shadow of Eternity]

Which makes sense since we've hit a point with technology where air action is either going to be based on using stealth tech to blow up things on the ground that don't have time to respond or using sensor tech to launch intelligent weapons at other jets that are still over the horizon from you.

Re:IE Boelcke vs Boyd

[fnj]

That works just as long as the opponent really is a "stupid fucker". Toward the end of WWII, a hell of a lot of Fw 190 pilots, poorly trained kids fresh from the farm, were on fire and going down before they knew they were under attack. The Mustang pilots marveled how they flew straight and level, not even looking around, even after bullets had started to strike them.

A competent opponent is trained to be aware at all times, and not to fly predictably. He will spot that missile from miles away, and just outmaneuver it.

Re:IE Boelcke vs Boyd

[guruevi]

Then why have planes at all? If you can just shoot a missile, you can shoot a missile from the ground or a boat half way across the world. Besides having a few missiles, planes are usually depicted as flying machine guns. Or perhaps the methods of fighting have changed so much that we're just building swords only to see the enemy coming at us with tanks.

Salesmanship

[sshir]

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.

Re:Salesmanship

[nojayuk]

Yes, longer-wavelength radars can indeed detect stealthy aircraft. Warships with sea-sweeping radars can often spot such aircraft. The problem is they can't hand off an accurate location and track to the anti-aircraft missile radars which need to be much higher frequency to determine the aircraft's position to within a few centimetres so they can actually hit it. Those missile system radars are what the stealth profiles and skin coatings are designed to be near-invisible to and they do that job very well. At the same time active radars are a perfect target for anti-radar missiles of the sort the F-35 carries among other payloads. In addition it can network its own radar detection systems, handing off radar targets to other aircraft such as the F-14 which can't approach a defence area too closely because they would be detected and fired upon.

Re:Salesmanship

[OzPeter]

...That, my friends, is a modern long wavelength radar. That thing sees "stealth" planes just fine.

You mean like was discussed here a while ago? Long-Wave Radar Can Take the Stealth From Stealth Technology

Re:Salesmanship

[mwooldri]

"modern" long wavelength radar?

Here's an article a quick Google search brought up about the F-117 and British radar... from the Los Angeles Times... from 1991. http://articles.latimes.com/19... - and this was using radar considered then to be obsolete, having been "new" in the 1970s. Basically, during Gulf War One, British warships were detecting the location of these stealth fighters at about 40 miles away. From 40 miles out, it is enough time to get your fighter planes in the air to combat the stealth planes. L-band radar may not be precise enough for anti-aircraft weapons on the ground but in combination with air-to-air combat it is good enough - your response just needs to be super fast.

Re:Salesmanship

[Lehk228]

lack of accuracy can be compensated with volume of fire. also put some modern high performance silicon in charge of interpreting the results from your old long wave radar, and the noise won't matter nearly so much as it did back when those types of radar were new.

Re:Salesmanship

[Cederic]

From 40 miles out, it is enough time to get your fighter planes in the air to combat the stealth planes.

By the time you've merely communicated the command to take off, the vector and the altitude, half of those 40 miles have already been covered by an attacking aircraft.

These are military attack aircraft, not pushbikes.

Re:Salesmanship

[angel'o'sphere]

And he probably even meant land miles :D

Better Hide Because it Can't Fight.

[BrendaEM]

What we are not hearing about is the pilots had said it can't dogfight, just like the F4 Phantom.

Re:Better Hide Because it Can't Fight.

[MFriis]

Seeing the F4 is still in service, Widely used up until the 90s, still holds several world records and supports a wide variety of mission types. I think we should be lucky if the F35 is anything like it. Neither were dogfigthers, but maybe neither deserves to be compared to an F-15. I am sure we can find many other things to critize that it actually claims to be good at. Denmark (where i am from) are replacing our fleet of F16's with the F35. I think were getting about 27. This is an odd choice since our primary purpose for the jets is to engage Russian fighters when they press our airspace. We need a detterent (radar visible) air supremecy jet, and chose the F35 for that. Great idea right?

Until another Serbian modify the radar :)

[Anonymous Coward]

There is alwais a trick :) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_F-117A_shootdown

Really good stealth vs US radar.

[Ecuador]

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.

Re:Really good stealth vs US radar.

[Aighearach]

Low frequency radar has been around for a long time, and no there is no country using that instead of higher frequency radar.

They use that in addition to. And the thing about actual low frequency radar; yes it can detect stealth technology at a higher rate than regular radar. But it doesn't give you a specific position. You're basically using an intermediate radar that is less like a combat radar, and more like a weather radar. It isn't new. In the ancient past they didn't both with that, because they cared mostly about getting an accurate reading to guide missiles. You don't guide missiles with low frequency radar. It is an early warning system, so that when none of your regular radar is showing anything, and something blows up, you know "was that an air attack, or a ground attack, or an accident, or what?" You want that extra tool when the enemy has stealth. You want the command center to be able to have the generals get in the bunker when the stealth bombers invade, even if you can't shoot at them.

Different frequencies of radar have real, physical differences in what they can tell you. There isn't a magic anti-stealth beam yet, sorry kids.

Re:Really good stealth vs US radar.

[cheesybagel]

http://defense-update.com/2014...

A phased array low frequency Chinese radar.

Re:Really good stealth vs US radar.

[Aighearach]

Right, I talked about it being around for a long time. That is the hint that I know something about it. I also expressed ideas about why that isn't very relevant, or at least, why they are doing it, what their use case is.

You just said the name of the thing. You didn't say anything. It seems obvious but... I don't care what a particular model is called, I care about how it relates to the subject. You need more than just a name of a thing for that thing to be relevant.

It isn't a magic spell where you say the name of a thing and the enemy airplanes fall from the sky. You might want to look it up and see what it does.

It's called "PSYOPS", not hype.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Expensive in the short run, yes. And good

[raymorris]

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.

Re: Wow

[Frosty Piss]

Seriously true. Of course we have become a pansy "politically correct" society that is afraid of offending anyone and everything. Poor trans-this and LBGTQXYZ thats that can't live outside the bubble without getting butt hurt. Buy the way, I'm gay and have been out for 30 years, so get fucked with your "Oh, another hater" bullshit.

I find it hard to believe

[WaffleMonster]

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.

Re:The next great military technology?

[Anonymous Coward]

They did , they just cant find where they left it.

Interview questions

[nitehawk214]

"What is your greatest weakness."

"I am just too honest."

Re: Wow

[nmnilsson]

I used to think like that when I was younger, but I don't any more.
Guess I've listened to enough of people feeling genuinely hurt by that kind of name calling - eventually, I decided to stop. I don't feel like it's cost me anything.

~$4000 per USA man, woman, child

[millertym]

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).

On the contrary

[DerekLyons]

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.

Re: Wow

[Plus1Entropy]

Yeah, it's called empathy. Most people have it, except those with narcissistic personality disorder or psychopathy or something like that.

Re:Wow

[K. S. Kyosuke]

People around should be 1) emotionally mature enough to handle trolls unfazed (and without feeding them) and 2) aware of Postel's law. Sadly, not all are, as witnessed here.

Re:The next great military technology?

[arglebargle_xiv]

You're thinking of the F-9 3/4, which is so stealthy that even its own pilots can't find it. Costs 200 billion apiece. The money is going to the Pentagon somewhere, but no-one can figure out where the resulting aircraft are.

Re:The next great military technology?

[stealth_finger]

Sounds like one of those bugs that can disguise its self as a leaf. That's what they should call it, the leafy bug.

Wrong exercise

[seksi-seppo]

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.

MEANINGLESS

[PortHaven]

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?

Re:The next great military technology?

[AC-x]

Stop posting FUD, the F9¾ stealth project was a stunning success! Here's a whole squadron of them being proudly displayed.

this is a

[Triklyn]

humble brag

I would think it would be pretty easy to track.

[jimbob6]

Shouldn't have a problem tracking the trail of tax payer money blowing out of its ass.

Re: Wow

[Coren22]

You can see the profiles of AC users? Perhaps you should start outing APK and other trolls, that would be a great use of your newfound power.

Re: Wow

[Coren22]

LOL, look who's talking.

No, I am not stinging from your pathetic attempts to make yourself look like an expert APK. Considering I did more in middle school than you seem to have done in your life, I don't think you have any room to talk about how awesome you are.

where you came into that conversation

Where you implied that I was an AC that was responding to you, you mean? Because that was just your delusions, not reality.

trolling him yourself

Is it really possible to troll the biggest troll around? I suppose it is...but it just shows that you are bad at trolling. No, I did not troll you, just responded to your silly assertions.

impersonating him also?

Um, when? Where? I have never impersonated you...that would be rather silly as my handle shows at the top of my posts, so what would be the point of claiming I was APK?

Grow up loser. You're a waste of life. We all know it, why don't you realize it too?

Funny, isn't that what I said to you earlier?

Re: Wow

[Coren22]

https://slashdot.org/comments....

Already answered that question. Many things that I am unwilling to share with you.

Re: Wow

[Coren22]

It is not evasion, it is the only answer you will get out of me. I am not willing to be harassed in real life by people like you, so I will not give you the ability to track down who I am. You can continue to ask all you like, but it really doesn't matter. I don't need to prove my credentials to show you where you are wrong, it is much easier than an expert level of knowledge as you aren't an expert in anything.

Keep asking, won't change anything.

Re:Hahahahaha bigmouth can't back it up

[Coren22]

Funny, but I haven't lied at all, but I can see you lying right here acting like you are some third party instead of yourself.

Re:Hahahahaha bigmouth can't back it up

[Coren22]

Do you speak English, or just act like you do?

Coren22 what commercialware's your code as APK's is?

That sentence does not parse. Please, learn to speak English, and come back again.

You try to act like I have to provide proof of my superiority in order to criticise your work, I do not, and I will not. Get over yourself, you haven't done anything special.

Re:Bwaaahahaha you prove your inferiority loser

[Coren22]

Funny, where do you get the impression that I haven't done anything? Being unwilling to out myself to a psychopath is not equivalent to not ever having done anything.

Also, since when did being published and talked about (mostly negatively...just Google your name to see it all) have anything to do with actual expertise? Also, since when did expertise have anything to do with ability to point out technical and logical failures in your postings?

When you can satisfactorily answer any of that, I will be sure to get right on your requests, until then, I prefer not telling crazy people who come unhinged at the slightest provocation who I am and where I live.

Re:hypocrite much Coren22?

[Coren22]

You seem to have selective hearing. I was using your argument against you. I don't expect you to post your medical degrees, as it isn't needed. Just as my qualifications to point out your idiotic missteps should not need to be proven, as your missteps are so obvious a five year old could see the issues.