F-35 Fantasy or Fake F-35 Discussions Debunked

[Palnatoke]

In regard to the electronics;

The F35 has to be seen in comparison with Gripen, eurofighter and Rafale (We don't have to consider Russian or chineese planes, since the relevant customer base of the F35 won't buy Ch/Ru of strategical reasons). While the 3 last are older and in service (and therefore probably do not have cutting edge tech) I will remain sceptical that these planes can't be updated and that the industrial "muscles" behind these planes can't assure that they can be updated in a cost realistic fachion to stay modern for a long future, say, 30+ years.
The new kid on the block, F35, are naturally/hopefully more advanced than it's older cousins, though it's also an airplane not in full scale production and when it some day reaches "the front" in adequate numbers, it too will have electronics that are "of yesterday", just like what happened to Gripen, eurofighter and Rafale .

So from my point of view the interesting question is not the electronics suite in the sales document, but the update potential and cost realismn of such an update. I would like to emphazies the cost-realismn of the matter. If the airplane f.ex. turns out to be overly expensive, then there will be less money for updates. It's not a great thing if you have an airplane with a great update potential, but no money for the updates. This might not be a big question for the USAF, but for smaller nations (like my country) where the procurement cost is allready thouching the pain thresshold... I am pretty sure that should the situation be that my country has just spend -relatively - large amounts of money on getting cutting edge F35s and a few years later the airforce wants the equvivalent of another 1-2 hospital to make the now outdated F35s modern again, ordinarry people might start thinking that their tax money is better spendt on something else... Maybe in such a scenario it would have been better to go for a cheaper less potent plane but having money for extra updates.

 

[Palnatoke]

In respect to the missile detection discussion.

Now not being very knowledgeable on air combat, Still, don't you guys think that modern, f.ex. AESA radars will change the idea that you (an airplane) should stay "silent". The search beam of these radars are highly directed and should an enemy notice it at all, it's highly improbable that he can determine the position of the emitter.
So maybe the radar will be on and scanning the surroundings all the time, minimizing the need for passive systems?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

In respect to the missile detection discussion.

Now not being very knowledgeable on air combat, Still, don't you guys think that modern, f.ex. AESA radars will change the idea that you (an airplane) should stay "silent". The search beam of these radars are highly directed and should an enemy notice it at all, it's highly improbable that he can determine the position of the emitter.
So maybe the radar will be on and scanning the surroundings all the time, minimizing the need for passive systems?

Detecting an incoming missile shot with your FCR is critical to successfully evading it, simply because it gives you time to increase your energy state and start evasive manoeuvres earlier. However FCR's only point forward, thus MAWS will always have a significant roll in providing a 360 degree view of incoming shots. This stands for GBAD as well as airborne threats. Its the ones you dont know about that are likely to kill you.

 

[Palnatoke]

Detecting an incoming missile shot with your FCR is critical to successfully evading it, simply because it gives you time to increase your energy state and start evasive manoeuvres earlier. However RCS's only point forward, thus MAWS will always have a significant roll in providing a 360 degree view of incoming shots. This stands for GBAD as well as airborne threats. Its the ones you dont know about that are likely to kill you.

What you are saying is that the radar only searches forward of the airplane?

If so, OK and tkz.

 

[Palnatoke]

All these acronyms:

MAWS:

Midwives Association of Washington State
OR
Marijuana Anonymous World Services


FCR
Fitness Center Rules
OR
Family Community Relationships

RCS
Royal College of Surgeons
OR
Red Cross Society

GBAD
Ground-Based Attitude Determination

So substituting gives us:

Detecting an incoming missile shot with your Family Community Relationship is critical to successfully evading it, simply because it gives you time to increase your energy state and start evasive manoeuvres earlier. However Red Cross Society only point forward, thus Midwives Association of Washington State will always have a significant roll in providing a 360 degree view of incoming shots. This stands for Ground-Based Attitude Determination as well as airborne threats. Its the ones you dont know about that are likely to kill you.

 

[Bonza]

In regard to the electronics;

The F35 has to be seen in comparison with Gripen, eurofighter and Rafale (We don't have to consider Russian or chineese planes, since the relevant customer base of the F35 won't buy Ch/Ru of strategical reasons). While the 3 last are older and in service (and therefore probably do not have cutting edge tech) I will remain sceptical that these planes can't be updated and that the industrial "muscles" behind these planes can't assure that they can be updated in a cost realistic fachion to stay modern for a long future, say, 30+ years.
The new kid on the block, F35, are naturally/hopefully more advanced than it's older cousins, though it's also an airplane not in full scale production and when it some day reaches "the front" in adequate numbers, it too will have electronics that are "of yesterday", just like what happened to Gripen, eurofighter and Rafale .

So from my point of view the interesting question is not the electronics suite in the sales document, but the update potential and cost realismn of such an update. I would like to emphazies the cost-realismn of the matter. If the airplane f.ex. turns out to be overly expensive, then there will be less money for updates. It's not a great thing if you have an airplane with a great update potential, but no money for the updates. This might not be a big question for the USAF, but for smaller nations (like my country) where the procurement cost is allready thouching the pain thresshold... I am pretty sure that should the situation be that my country has just spend -relatively - large amounts of money on getting cutting edge F35s and a few years later the airforce wants the equvivalent of another 1-2 hospital to make the now outdated F35s modern again, ordinarry people might start thinking that their tax money is better spendt on something else... Maybe in such a scenario it would have been better to go for a cheaper less potent plane but having money for extra updates.

Ah I see, that's a fair concern. I do think the nature of the F-35's system architecture will work in its favour with regard to upgrades, due to the ease with which it can incorporate advancements as Aussie Digger mentioned - this would hopefully be reflected in cost. Upgrading the electronics on the Eurocanards to a similar standard as found on the F-35 would be very expensive, I imagine - given the differences are so substantial, and would require not only software development but extensive work within the airframe itself, as Aussie Digger mentioned. However I know you're not necessarily suggesting upgrades to that standard, but upgrades such as make the platforms viable for a nation's needs.

But as I said I understand the concern, I think I misconstrued the thrust of your previous comments - I'm Australian myself, so I'm very interested to see how the whole thing plays out too.

 

[Todjaeger]

In respect to the missile detection discussion.

Now not being very knowledgeable on air combat, Still, don't you guys think that modern, f.ex. AESA radars will change the idea that you (an airplane) should stay "silent". The search beam of these radars are highly directed and should an enemy notice it at all, it's highly improbable that he can determine the position of the emitter.
So maybe the radar will be on and scanning the surroundings all the time, minimizing the need for passive systems?

No... For the basic reason that excepting LO aircraft, modern fighters do not often operate 'silent'. The nose-mounted radar on a fighter is the primary method for the aircraft to detect what else is around it, unless there is offboard support from something like an AEW. However, passive systems like RWR, MAWS, etc will still have to be relied upon to detect many incoming threats for the time being. This is because the nose-mounted FCS radar can only detect other aircraft within the frontal aspect of the scanning fighter. Anything outside of that frontal arc is not going to be detected via radar. In the future, perhaps, it might be possible to mount flat panel arrays along the wings and sides of the aircraft to enable all-aspect radar scanning, but at present that is not a possibility. This is where the EO DAS for the F-35 is so interesting, in that it is an all-aspect systems to detect airbourne threats and targets, albeit not radar based.

As for the advantages of AESA, yes they give modern fighters a potential advantage in that a fighter can scan an area in a LPI (Low probability of Intercept) mode and not set off the RWR on a detected fighter. This is something of potential use for all fighters, but it becomes particularly useful for LO aircraft because it can give them a picture of the battlespace without giving away their presence within the battlespace.

As for any future avionics being developed... Of course that can be expensive. One benefit to such a massive programme though is that there are many partners to help share the burden of such development. A particular nation would IMO only face the sole burden of developing an avionics upgrade or adaption if either it was the first nation to make the attempt for a particular system or use, or if they were the only ones interested in a particular system or capability.

Given the varied areas and conditions which US pilots (USAF, USN and USMC) operate in, I would expect that the US would have upgrade programmes which partner and/or customer nations could participate in and due to economies of scale would likely not be all that expensive on a per unit basis.

As for looking at the upgrade potential of the Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen, or for that matter, any of the US 4th/4.5 gen fighters, they should over time have ample room for further upgrades. Even with upgrades though, they will still have certain barriers to performance which cannot just be overcome with an upgrade programme. One of the hallmarks of a 5th gen platform is an advanced and integrated avionics package to provide the pilot with a complete picture of the battlespace. Another characteristic is the ability to participate high capacity network centric systems. With time (and money of course) some of these areas can be upgraded on older designs to a degree. As mentioned before though, some things, like all aspect sensors, are not something which can just be added on without engaging in significant redesign of the aircraft.

Lastly, aside from switching to an AESA with LPI and perhaps a change in comm systems, none of the avionics upgrades would make the aircraft any more difficult to detect. All else being equal, a LO 5th gen platform when engaging a 4th or 4.5 gen fighter with electronics upgraded to be comparable, will still have the advantage. In order for the advantage to be with the older design, it needs to be operating with supporting elements (like AEW) at a time when the 5th gen does not. That or have avionics upgraded to be significantly better than those available to the 5th gen. Since the 5th gen would start out with the better electronics pre-upgrade, I expect that would be a difficult and expensive proposition.

-Cheers

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

All these acronyms:

MAWS:

Midwives Association of Washington State
OR
Marijuana Anonymous World Services


FCR
Fitness Center Rules
OR
Family Community Relationships

RCS
Royal College of Surgeons
OR
Red Cross Society

GBAD
Ground-Based Attitude Determination

So substituting gives us:

:lol2...... Nice!

That would be:

MAWS (Missile Approach Warning System)

FCR (Fire Control Radar)

RCS (Radar Cross Section)

GBAD (Ground Based Air Defence)

 

[Palnatoke]

Todjaeger

Without having the necessary insight, I would be surprised if the platforms of f.ex. eurofighter, Rafale or GripenNG doesn't hold the same practical avionic/electronic update potential as the F35.

In my, un-informed, oppinion Each of these planes holds their own "specialities", F.ex. the F35 has (maybe only some) LO, while the gripen are reported to have some (in lack of a better word) deployment/maintenance " tricks".

And then ofcourse there is the price tag and the maintenance plus operating costs.
I have noticed that the "cost" part of the equation is not something very popular on this board and I suspect that many millitaries aren't so keen on that either. But I, in all modesty, point to the historical truth that it was not the side with the best and most elaborate tanks that won WWII, but the side with the best tanks per dollar (or rubies).

From the perspective of my country, a small NATO member enjoying an all time fortunate security situation, "best" airplane is a question that cannot be answered without attention to; "What's the need" and "where do we get most for the money".

The "need", in my country, is in my oppinion, simply dominated by the need for maintaining "an airforce" or rather maintaining the cababilities and competences needed to have an airforce.
As a secondary task this airforce needs to have the competence to do some "showing the flag" and other stuff in the "softer" department.
as a ranked Third task, this airforce needs to have the compentences to be able to ferry in weapons on 3rd world cavemens armed with AK47s, RPGs and IEDs.

This is so because we don't expect to find ourself in a territorial defense war in an unforseeable future and in "international missions" we don't expect our national defense to A) stand alone, B) that our allience partners will have a great need for a few planes to tasks more complicated than bombing cavemens. What's left is ordinary "service" to the public and inforcing sovereignity. And, importantly, the ability to "ramp up" our airforce cababilities should the need arise after an forseeable future. This could f.ex. be to buy "enough" of the "best" planes avaliable at that point in time, which is in unforseeable future.

And this is my main concern with the part of the JSF project that is oriented towards smaller countries: It's too complicated, too cabable and too expensive.
It doesn't meet the need in a forseeable future, it far overreaches the need, and that is a waste of money, money which could instead have been used for something that has a real "use".

 

[Feanor]

I like the currency rubies... assuming you're not referencing the red gemstone, we have a combination of rupies (India) and rubles (Russia)....

Keep in mind that this airforce of yours also needs to be up to date on modern warfare. Because while you may not need advanced LO aircraft right now, the experience of operating them is still desirable. Same with the sensors package. And of course all of this is granted the rather optimistic assumption then you'll never have to fight another modern power.

 

[Palnatoke]

I like the currency rubies... assuming you're not referencing the red gemstone, we have a combination of rupies (India) and rubles (Russia)....

Keep in mind that this airforce of yours also needs to be up to date on modern warfare. Because while you may not need advanced LO aircraft right now, the experience of operating them is still desirable. Same with the sensors package. And of course all of this is granted the rather optimistic assumption then you'll never have to fight another modern power.

lol, yeah "rubies" I was also thinking that it sounded strange when I wrote it....

With regard to modern warfare, I believe that f.ex. the GripenNG is applicable with modern warfare (Ofcourse mentioning one type brings up the pricetag question - which I can't answer). More generally, and to avoid naming a type, a less cabable, though still battleworthy, but cheaper plane seems to me to be the best in the current situation.

And of course all of this is granted the rather optimistic assumption then you'll never have to fight another modern power

In my most humble oppinion; In a forseeable future it's not only an optimistic assumption, it's a very realistic assumption for my country's airforce. It doesn't really matter what I or you or third party thinks, because we have a defense strategy from which you can easely deduct that we don't expect to fight an "equal war" in a forseeable future, at most we will fight wars abroad and that will only happen as a minor partner to a major allience.
If we accept this strategical notion of a scenario of relativly high "security" in a forseeable future, then buying an aircraft suited for a scenario of relativly high "threath", doesn't rhyme - it's out of balance.
If we do not accept said notion, then we have other and bigger problems than selecting an airplane "type", then we need to recast the entire defense of the realm.
Secondly should danger appear in an unforseeable future, we can allready now forsee that *this* modern plane can't be expected to be modern in the unforseeable future, because.. exactly! it's unforseeable. Rather, the wise choise seems, at least to me, to be to maintain the option of getting modern equipment at that future point in time (ie. to maintain the cabability of "an airforce", which can then be strenghtened).

This I stress is not necessarely applicable to nations with other options and interests than my country. The Luftwaffe, RAF or USAF have other obligations, other possibilities and serve different interests than my country's airforce. Therefore it's likely that they have other needs.

 

[Grand Danois]

Excse me for butting in.

Todjaeger

Without having the necessary insight, I would be surprised if the platforms of f.ex. eurofighter, Rafale or GripenNG doesn't hold the same practical avionic/electronic update potential as the F35.

Rafale is the only one anywhere near F-35 in this aspect.

In my, un-informed, oppinion Each of these planes holds their own "specialities", F.ex. the F35 has (maybe only some) LO, while the gripen are reported to have some (in lack of a better word) deployment/maintenance " tricks".

F-35 is "full" LO. Signature wise, mission planning wise, avionics wise.

And then ofcourse there is the price tag and the maintenance plus operating costs.
I have noticed that the "cost" part of the equation is not something very popular on this board and I suspect that many millitaries aren't so keen on that either. But I, in all modesty, point to the historical truth that it was not the side with the best and most elaborate tanks that won WWII, but the side with the best tanks per dollar (or rubies).

If you search these boards you'll find that the cost part is perhaps the most discussed item.

From the perspective of my country, a small NATO member enjoying an all time fortunate security situation, "best" airplane is a question that cannot be answered without attention to; "What's the need" and "where do we get most for the money".

F-35 is most bang for buck. Gripen NG is unaffordable in life cycle because of development and upgrade costs split on few airframes which are already as expensive in acquisition. The savings on a 3-4000 piece fleet over life are enormous and makes a 100 million dollar value jet as cheap as an an 100 copy 30 million dollar value jet.

The "need", in my country, is in my oppinion, simply dominated by the need for maintaining "an airforce" or rather maintaining the cababilities and competences needed to have an airforce.
As a secondary task this airforce needs to have the competence to do some "showing the flag" and other stuff in the "softer" department.
as a ranked Third task, this airforce needs to have the compentences to be able to ferry in weapons on 3rd world cavemens armed with AK47s, RPGs and IEDs.

This is so because we don't expect to find ourself in a territorial defense war in an unforseeable future and in "international missions" we don't expect our national defense to A) stand alone, B) that our allience partners will have a great need for a few planes to tasks more complicated than bombing cavemens. What's left is ordinary "service" to the public and inforcing sovereignity. And, importantly, the ability to "ramp up" our airforce cababilities should the need arise after an forseeable future. This could f.ex. be to buy "enough" of the "best" planes avaliable at that point in time, which is in unforseeable future.

I'd suggest you read this piece (in Danish). Might give you some inspiration.
F-35 til det danske forsvar - Kronikker

And this is my main concern with the part of the JSF project that is oriented towards smaller countries: It's too complicated, too cabable and too expensive.
It doesn't meet the need in a forseeable future, it far overreaches the need, and that is a waste of money, money which could instead have been used for something that has a real "use".

Not if it's more capable and cheaper than other air power solutions available. You could have made the same argument when we entered the F-16 project - to paraphrase: "digital FBW? Expensive, unecessarily complex and can be retrofitted to all existing fighters?"

 

[Aussie Digger]

This I stress is not necessarely applicable to nations with other options and interests than my country. The Luftwaffe, RAF or USAF have other obligations, other possibilities and serve different interests than my country's airforce. Therefore it's likely that they have other needs.

All of these discussions are VERY much a case of what you think your Air Force should be able to do. This need should include the international obligations, which most European nations have, being relatively wealthy nations that DO have an extant or latent capability of deploying forces throughout Europe or even overseas, should the need arise.

If "flying the flag", the odd airshow and the odd laser guided bomb dropped in a low intensity environment with no air threat is all you think they should do, then even an aircraft such as the F/A-50 or an evolved Hawk variant would suffice. Why bother with a 4th/5th gen supersonic fighter?

If your Country currently has F-16's, than you already have an aircraft more than capable of such activities. Buy the Falcon or STAR airframe upgrades or new-build Block 52 airframes and you will have a fighter that more than covers these roles.

If you think you might have to fight another defence force that is comparable (or greater) than your own however, then you need to start to seriously think about the attributes you are going to need to do so.

On top of this, you need to think about 30 years time, because no-one, not even the USA has a bottom-less pit of money, that they can reach into if things get a bit tough in later years...

F-35 should provide an outstanding capability. It's detractors make all sorts of points against it, but these are easily countered, if one bothers to do their homework. Quite simply, there is no aircraft in existence or planned (to the best of my knowledge) that will match it's capability in EVERY role a combat aircraft is required to perform.

There most definitely are other options to it however. I think the fact that it has attracted so much International support, that is unwavering in the face of SO much criticism, mostly unfounded of course, but extant nonetheless, is rather re-assuring to those of us who don't believe the naysayers, who are so vociferous in relation to this particular aircraft...

 

[Todjaeger]

Todjaeger

Without having the necessary insight, I would be surprised if the platforms of f.ex. eurofighter, Rafale or GripenNG doesn't hold the same practical avionic/electronic update potential as the F35.

In my, un-informed, oppinion Each of these planes holds their own "specialities", F.ex. the F35 has (maybe only some) LO, while the gripen are reported to have some (in lack of a better word) deployment/maintenance " tricks".

And then ofcourse there is the price tag and the maintenance plus operating costs.
I have noticed that the "cost" part of the equation is not something very popular on this board and I suspect that many millitaries aren't so keen on that either. But I, in all modesty, point to the historical truth that it was not the side with the best and most elaborate tanks that won WWII, but the side with the best tanks per dollar (or rubies).

From the perspective of my country, a small NATO member enjoying an all time fortunate security situation, "best" airplane is a question that cannot be answered without attention to; "What's the need" and "where do we get most for the money".

The "need", in my country, is in my oppinion, simply dominated by the need for maintaining "an airforce" or rather maintaining the cababilities and competences needed to have an airforce.
As a secondary task this airforce needs to have the competence to do some "showing the flag" and other stuff in the "softer" department.
as a ranked Third task, this airforce needs to have the compentences to be able to ferry in weapons on 3rd world cavemens armed with AK47s, RPGs and IEDs.

This is so because we don't expect to find ourself in a territorial defense war in an unforseeable future and in "international missions" we don't expect our national defense to A) stand alone, B) that our allience partners will have a great need for a few planes to tasks more complicated than bombing cavemens. What's left is ordinary "service" to the public and inforcing sovereignity. And, importantly, the ability to "ramp up" our airforce cababilities should the need arise after an forseeable future. This could f.ex. be to buy "enough" of the "best" planes avaliable at that point in time, which is in unforseeable future.

And this is my main concern with the part of the JSF project that is oriented towards smaller countries: It's too complicated, too cabable and too expensive.
It doesn't meet the need in a forseeable future, it far overreaches the need, and that is a waste of money, money which could instead have been used for something that has a real "use".

As has been indicated by GD, the Rafale is really the only other aircraft (currently) which comes close to the F-35 in terms of avionics and upgrade potential for avionics. Though it is worth noting that apparently the way a pilot interacts with the Rafale is somewhat counter to the 'conventional' way a pilot interacts with a fighter. This is apparently one of the reasons why no country apart from France has ordered any.

Other aircraft like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet or the EF Typhoon will of course have upgrade paths available to further improve their avionics beyond what they are already capable of. The question here though comes in two parts, the 1st being just how much further can the avionics go without needing to make significant modifications to the aircraft/airframe, the 2nd being how expensive said upgrades and/or modifications become...

I deliberately did not include the Gripen NG the list because at present, it does not 'really' exist. What there is consists of a Gripen C/D which has been somewhat modified to act as a testbed for Gripen NG systems. Between that and the fact that no one has placed any orders for it yet, IMO it is premature to be contemplating itsfuture upgrade potential.

With respect to costs, as GD did mention, causes are very frequently discussed here on DT, because they so often have an impact on what occurs with system integration and unit procurement. When looking at the costs of something like the F-35, there are a number of key things to keep in mind. Yes, an initial per-unit procurement is going to be expensive, the F-35 perhaps somewhat more so than other current fighters but all modern frontline fighters are. I do not believe that it will be significantly more than others, particularly when the cost of systems integration for weapon and strike packages are factored in.

Again looking at the Gripen NG, IIRC when Norway considered it for their future fighter requirement, they found that the Gripen NG was a less expensive fighter for them to purchase relative to the F-35. The RNoAF still went with the F-35 though because once the desired mission systems and packages were factored in, the Gripen NG became more expensive per unit with the added negatives of the RNoAF potentially operating an 'orphan' aircraft version as well as having to bear the potentially significant cost and risk of integration for desired weapons and mission systems.

Another item which seems to be getting overlooked, or perhaps the significance of has not been fully appreciated, is the potential economies of scale for any future development of the F-35. Take a hypothetical upgrade programme X (what is being upgraded does not matter for purposes of illustration) for the F-35 which the US might choose to undertake at some point in the future... Assuming that the upgrade programme costs US$1 billion, that puts it outside of the scope and budget of most air forces. When examining the per-unit cost though, the costs drop dramatically to around US$400,000 per aircraft. Such a figure should be well within the capabilities of even modest air forces as long as the remain on good terms with and/or participate alongside the US.

Lastly with respect to the comments made about WWII tanks, that side which won was the one which could make the best tanks per dollar is not strictly true. In terms of WWII tank production the Germans had the most capable tanks overall, with the Allies not achieving parity until the very end of the war and only in very limited numbers (some 6 Centurions and ~20 M-26 Pershings in the European theatre at wars end). Where the Germans failed, and the US/Canada and the Soviet Union succeeded though was in creating tanks which was easy for them to produce in large quantities and then maintain. Germany built some 25,000 tanks of all types during the course of the war compared with the ~100,000 tanks of all types built in the US & Canada, and the 100,000 - 150,000 tanks of all types built in the Soviet Union.

This point again does sort of illustrate the point Josef Stalin had, that quantity is a quality all its own.

The last bit, about looking at the situation from a small european country does of course make a difference. One cannot escape factoring in local conditions when making decisions about equipment. What needs to be considered are what roles need fufilling and what is realistically affordable. If one is procuring for a small country with a limited budget, then perhaps modern frontline fighters (of all types) are not realistic in terms of price, and perhaps role as well. I believe that the world has realised at this point that defending ones airspace from the likes of the USAF and allied NATO air forces is something which only a handful of countries (perhaps not even that many) are capable of. With that in mind, it might make more sense for a country of limited means to focus more on purchasing aircraft which can intercept straying aircraft from the region as well as conduct CAS and/or strike missions in support of ground and naval forces. Again, the needs of a country need to considered.

-Cheers

 

[Scorpion82]

As has been indicated by GD, the Rafale is really the only other aircraft (currently) which comes close to the F-35 in terms of avionics and upgrade potential for avionics.

Why because other aircraft might use a couple of distributed computers to do the same what a MDPU, ICP or CIP is doing with a number of processor boards? How are their avionics less well integrated or less advanced for that matter? You merely have a number of systems linked to each oher and on one aircraft the data are processed by a central computer, while in the other aircraft many of these systems use individual computers. You might be forced to update the software on various computers separately and not at once (not necessarily the case), but other than that what's the proof of their avionics being less well integrated or automated?

Though it is worth noting that apparently the way a pilot interacts with the Rafale is somewhat counter to the 'conventional' way a pilot interacts with a fighter. This is apparently one of the reasons why no country apart from France has ordered any.

So you can describe us how the pilot has to interact in a Rafale and other types with the aircraft's systems and avionics?

 

[Grand Danois]

Maybe this will clear things up a bit?:

Integrated defence: DAS evolves to warn aircraft of emergent threats

By Martin Streetly

13 March 2008

In a world where advances in military technology are often taken for granted, it is easy to forget that a truly integrated - rather than federated - defensive aids suite (DAS) for an air vehicle is a relatively new phenomenon that is continuing to push the boundaries of possibility.

An integrated DAS is defined as a self-contained capability that incorporates both warning and countering (active and/or passive as appropriate) functions; is managed by its own control system; is capable of self-execution of a full cycle of actions (from detection to response); and is integrated into its host weapon system in such a way as to complement other onboard functionalities without disrupting them or being disrupted by them.

The key difference between these types of DAS and federated systems, which are frequently mistaken for integrated applications, is their functionality. A federated DAS uses discrete elements that work together but are not capable of an automatic and sequenced response.

In terms of the DAS themselves, a hierarchical sampling would start with 'high-end' systems - such as those developed for the F-22 and F-35 combat aircraft - moving on to 'high to mid-level' systems such as the United States' AN/ALQ-178(V), AN/ALQ-211(V) and Falcon Edge systems; the French Spectre and Integrated Countermeasures Suite (ICMS) applications; the Israeli Advanced Self-Protection Suite (ASPS); the multinational EuroDASS system; and the Swedish EWS39 suite.

Then there are the 'application-dedicated systems', such as the US Guardian and Jeteye systems; the Danish Apache Modular Aircraft Survivability Equipment (AMASE) and Chinook Aircraft Survivability Equipment (CHASE); the French SPS-H/-TA suites; the Turkish Aselsan electronic warfare (EW) self-protection system (ASES); and the UK's Helicopter Integrated DAS (HIDAS).



More here : Integrated defence: DAS evolves to warn aircraft of emergent threats - Jane's Defence Systems News

 

[Scorpion82]

Maybe this will clear things up a bit?:
]

No because what is described with regards to the DAS is merely what a DASS or Spectra are able to to right now...

 

[Palnatoke]

GD

F-35 is most bang for buck. Gripen NG is unaffordable in life cycle because of development and upgrade costs split on few airframes which are already as expensive in acquisition. The savings on a 3-4000 piece fleet over life are enormous and makes a 100 million dollar value jet as cheap as an an 100 copy 30 million dollar value jet.

If you are reffering to the "Norwegian calculation" I rate it's value below WC-paper. And they are not going to sell 4000 F35 (btw much of the economic decission basis rest on an overly optimistic 2002 sales estimates of 5k-6k by, yes ofcourse, the manufactor).
see f.ex Market analysis Joint Strike Fighter- How many JSF?s will be produced?|CEOWORLD Magazine

I'd suggest you read this piece (in Danish). Might give you some inspiration.
F-35 til det danske forsvar - Kronikker

His only relatively convincing argument is that "we should do like the others" which is what can be expected by a merchant (buisness school professor).

Not if it's more capable and cheaper than other air power solutions available.

Remains to be determined.

You could have made the same argument when we entered the F-16 project

No, I could not. The strategical situation when we bought the F16s were that we could expect 15 nukes the first days of war to saturate the defenses of the isles followed by amphibious landings in Fakse- or køgebugt (bays on zeeland). If the mine weapon could not be deployed it was unlikely that the defense of the isles could repell the attack. We thus needed the very best air defense we could get.

All of these discussions are VERY much a case of what you think your Air Force should be able to do. This need should include the international obligations, which most European nations have, being relatively wealthy nations that DO have an extant or latent capability of deploying forces throughout Europe or even overseas, should the need arise.

If "flying the flag", the odd airshow and the odd laser guided bomb dropped in a low intensity environment with no air threat is all you think they should do, then even an aircraft such as the F/A-50 or an evolved Hawk variant would suffice. Why bother with a 4th/5th gen supersonic fighter?

If your Country currently has F-16's, than you already have an aircraft more than capable of such activities. Buy the Falcon or STAR airframe upgrades or new-build Block 52 airframes and you will have a fighter that more than covers these roles.

Keeping the old F16 are fine with me, though I don't know the economics in making them fly (and be somewhat "battleworthy" as in dropping bombs on the average insurgent) in the longer future. Our F16s can serve us untill the end of 2020ties according to the "milage" beyound that I don't know.

If you think you might have to fight another defence force that is comparable (or greater) than your own however, then you need to start to seriously think about the attributes you are going to need to do so.

I fully agree - thing is that "we" don't expect so - in an unforseeable future. By "We" I mean the danish state.

On top of this, you need to think about 30 years time, because no-one, not even the USA has a bottom-less pit of money, that they can reach into if things get a bit tough in later years...

True. though it depends on what you expect of the future. Also A potential enemy will also need time to arm himself. One could say that all we - a smaller NATO country - need is to be able to match such an development - in coorperation with our allies.

F-35 should provide an outstanding capability. It's detractors make all sorts of points against it, but these are easily countered, if one bothers to do their homework. Quite simply, there is no aircraft in existence or planned (to the best of my knowledge) that will match it's capability in EVERY role a combat aircraft is required to perform.

Not discussing the technical exellence of the plane. I am sure it's great.

Again looking at the Gripen NG, IIRC when Norway considered it for their future fighter requirement, they found that the Gripen NG was a less expensive fighter for them to purchase relative to the F-35. The RNoAF still went with the F-35 though because once the desired mission systems and packages were factored in, the Gripen NG became more expensive per unit with the added negatives of the RNoAF potentially operating an 'orphan' aircraft version as well as having to bear the potentially significant cost and risk of integration for desired weapons and mission systems.

I think that if you ask the swedish side, they will tell you that the norwegian findings were crotesquely skewed in disfavour of gripen. I heard (don't know the validity) the following example of how accountants lie, without lieing. It appears that the norwegians calculated to loose a number of planes during the next years who's then replacement cost turned out to be (much) more expensive than buying the same number of gripens now and keeping them on stock to be pulled out when a gripen crashed, ofcourse the report cited the higher price. I find that amusing.

I am not advocating the gripen, I am advocating a less cabable and less expensive "intrim" solution for smaller nations, than F35s like. Or rather I am saying that the F35 is unsuited for many smaller nations, which ought to be a fundamental problem for an aircraft that wants to export it self to smaller nations.

Another item which seems to be getting overlooked, or perhaps the significance of has not been fully appreciated, is the potential economies of scale for any future development of the F-35. Take a hypothetical upgrade programme X (what is being upgraded does not matter for purposes of illustration) for the F-35 which the US might choose to undertake at some point in the future... Assuming that the upgrade programme costs US$1 billion, that puts it outside of the scope and budget of most air forces. When examining the per-unit cost though, the costs drop dramatically to around US$400,000 per aircraft. Such a figure should be well within the capabilities of even modest air forces as long as the remain on good terms with and/or participate alongside the US.

I think they factor such positive things in and write it in bold.

The last bit, about looking at the situation from a small european country does of course make a difference. One cannot escape factoring in local conditions when making decisions about equipment. What needs to be considered are what roles need fufilling and what is realistically affordable. If one is procuring for a small country with a limited budget, then perhaps modern frontline fighters (of all types) are not realistic in terms of price, and perhaps role as well. I believe that the world has realised at this point that defending ones airspace from the likes of the USAF and allied NATO air forces is something which only a handful of countries (perhaps not even that many) are capable of. With that in mind, it might make more sense for a country of limited means to focus more on purchasing aircraft which can intercept straying aircraft from the region as well as conduct CAS and/or strike missions in support of ground and naval forces. Again, the needs of a country need to considered.

That is at the heart of what I am suggesting.

 

[Todjaeger]

So you can describe us how the pilot has to interact in a Rafale and other types with the aircraft's systems and avionics?

To be honest, I cannot. I am not a pilot and am not sure exactly what the difference is. From what I understand having read some different sources, is that there is something different or counter-intuitive about how a pilot has to interact with a Rafale when compared to other 'conventional' fighters. As I have said, what exactly that is, I do not know and would myself like to find out. It could be the fighter equivalent of an American driving a car built for the British market for the first time, or it could be something else entirely different.

Why because other aircraft might use a couple of distributed computers to do the same what a MDPU, ICP or CIP is doing with a number of processor boards? How are their avionics less well integrated or less advanced for that matter? You merely have a number of systems linked to each oher and on one aircraft the data are processed by a central computer, while in the other aircraft many of these systems use individual computers. You might be forced to update the software on various computers separately and not at once (not necessarily the case), but other than that what's the proof of their avionics being less well integrated or automated?

As I understand it, there is a bit more to the F-35 avionics than the above. Part of the advance is just what the avionics are supposed to be able to do, scanning of ground and air simultaneously, terrain and target recognition, being able to relay the information to other assets, as well as how the information is displayed to the pilot. An example of the type of display I am writing about was posted here by GF, post #11. It is not just about discrete systems performing their tasks, but having an aircraft and avionics package be able to collect, collate and display so much information to the pilot in a usable form, as well as being able to relay the same information to other systems.

-Cheers

 

[Scorpion82]

To be honest, I cannot. I am not a pilot and am not sure exactly what the difference is. From what I understand having read some different sources, is that there is something different or counter-intuitive about how a pilot has to interact with a Rafale when compared to other 'conventional' fighters. As I have said, what exactly that is, I do not know and would myself like to find out. It could be the fighter equivalent of an American driving a car built for the British market for the first time, or it could be something else entirely different.

Fair enough. Your statment did sound as if you was convinced about that and that's why I asked, albeit I didn't expect any different answer. Maybe the best approach would be let a pilot used to russian aeroplanes fly those different western fighters and let him report about his feelings about the MMI of those fighters. I have read the same comments as you, but I have also read the opposite elsewhere so whom should I believe? I personally tend to assess such things on my own. While not being a fighter pilot, I have at least flown in real military simulators and have plenty of experience with PC sims. So I have a rough idea on how things work and what might be more or less productive for a pilot.

As I understand it, there is a bit more to the F-35 avionics than the above. Part of the advance is just what the avionics are supposed to be able to do, scanning of ground and air simultaneously, terrain and target recognition, being able to relay the information to other assets, as well as how the information is displayed to the pilot. An example of the type of display I am writing about was posted here by GF, post #11. It is not just about discrete systems performing their tasks, but having an aircraft and avionics package be able to collect, collate and display so much information to the pilot in a usable form, as well as being able to relay the same information to other systems.

-Cheers

That's what is known as sensor fusion and what can be found on existing fighters like the Rafale, Typhoon or F-22 to mention some examples. The F-35 will certainly built on top of that, but it remains to be seen how it works out in the end. What I want to say with that is that the approach itself is neither new, nor unique to the F-35. The level of that might be higher on the F-35, depending on how existing designs will be further developed.