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

[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.

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!

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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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: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/...

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: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?

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: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: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?

[AC-x]

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