Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

The Flying White Elephant

Discussion in 'The Americas' started by Picdelamirand-oil, Feb 13, 2013.

  1. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,008
    Likes Received:
    2,258
    Country Flag:
    United States
    French Military Power Gets a Boost With New Fighter Jets and Surge in Defense Spending
    [​IMG]
    Cristina Silva
    NewsweekMarch 24, 2017
    [​IMG]
    France is overhauling its popular Rafale multi-role fighter jet to better serve in combat missions, the French defense ministry said this week. The makeover comes as France is pouring millions of new dollars into defense spending to bolster national security.

    France has directed contractor Dassault Aviation to upgrade the Rafale with changes to its missiles, engines and new capabilities. The new fighter jets could enter service in 2025 with the goal of the French Air Force using an all-Rafale fleet. Both the French Air Force and French Navy use the Rafale.

    "The defense minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, decided at the March 20 ministerial investment committee to authorize the launch of work on development of a new F4 standard of the Rafale fighter," the ministry said in a March 22 statement. "This new standard is in pursuit of the continuous evolution of this aircraft, which will gradually make up the whole fleet of manned French combat aircraft."

    Trending: Why Are We Waging War on Coyotes?' data-reactid="17">Trending: Why Are We Waging War on Coyotes?

    France has sought to update its military services in recent months after a series of terrorist attacks in Paris, Nice and other cities. France announced last year it would increase its military equipment spending by $337 million and its total defense budget to about $32.7 billion, up from $32 billion in 2016.

    In December, the country's chief of the defense staff called for France to increase its military spending to 2 percent of gross domestic product by 2020, a standing goal for France and all other members of the NATO military alliance. France currently spends 1.77 percent of its GDP on defense.

    Les Echos[/a], two days after a terrorist killed 12 people by driving a truck through a Christmas market in Berlin. "Peace no longer happens by itself."

    distances of up to 2,360 miles.[/a]

    More from Newsweek" data-reactid="22">More from Newsweek
     
  2. Picdelamirand-oil

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    7,530
    Likes Received:
    5,075
    Country Flag:
    France
    The high unreliability (baked into the aircraft), high costs to maintain, ridiculous maintenance per flight hour, loss of autonomic operations (ultimately, you can do whatever you want with the F.F-35 as long as you notify the USA first and they accept your proposal), non-funtioning systems, work-arounds, complexity of support infrastructure, high dependancy on stealth and communications for survivability makes the F.F-35 UNsuitable for Australia.
     
  3. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,008
    Likes Received:
    2,258
    Country Flag:
    United States
    At least they are not flying targets like the Rafale.
     
  4. Picdelamirand-oil

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    7,530
    Likes Received:
    5,075
    Country Flag:
    France
    :sarcastic::sarcastic::sarcastic::rafale:
     
  5. BMD

    BMD Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2012
    Messages:
    9,148
    Likes Received:
    2,489
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    They were still debugging the Rafale in the middle of a war - see second column.

    [​IMG]
     
  6. Picdelamirand-oil

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    7,530
    Likes Received:
    5,075
    Country Flag:
    France
    Revealed: How to Kill a F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
    [​IMG]
    Dave Majumdar
    February 23, 2016

    The United States has poured ten of billions of dollars into developing fifth-generation stealth fighters such as the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. However, relatively simple signal processing enhancements, combined with a missile with a large warhead and its own terminal guidance system, could potentially allow low-frequency radars and such weapons systems to target and fire on the latest generation U.S. aircraft.

    It is a well-known fact within Pentagon and industry circles that low-frequency radars operating in the VHF and UHF bands can detect and track low-observable aircraft. It has generally been held that such radars can’t guide a missile onto a target—i.e. generate a “weapons quality” track. But that is not exactly correct—there are ways to get around the problem according to some experts.

    Traditionally, guiding weapons with low frequency radars has been limited by two factors. One factor is the width of the radar beam, while the second is the width of the radar pulse—but both limitations can be overcome with signal processing.

    The width of the beam is directly related to the design of the antenna—which is necessarily large because of the low frequencies involved. Early low-frequency radars like the Soviet-built P-14 Tall King VHF-band radars was enormous in size and used a semi-parabolic shape to limit the width of the beam. Later radars like the P-18 Spoon Rest used a Yagi-Uda array—which were lighter and somewhat smaller. But these early low frequency radars had some serious limitations in determining the range and the precise direction of a contact. Furthermore, they could not determine altitude because the radar beams produced by these systems are several degrees wide in azimuth and tens of degrees wide in elevation.

    Another traditional limitation of VHF and UHF-band radars is that their pulse width is long and they have a low pulse repetition frequency [PRF]—which means such systems are poor at accurately determining range. As Mike Pietrucha, a former Air Force an electronic warfare officer who flew on the McDonnell Douglas F-4G Wild Weasel and Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle once described to me, a pulse width of twenty microseconds yields a pulse that is roughly 19,600 ft long—range resolution is half the length of that pulse. That means that range can’t be determined accurately within 10,000 feet. Furthermore, two targets near one another can’t be distinguished as separate contacts.

    Signal processing partially solved the range resolution problem as early as in the 1970s. The key is a process called frequency modulation on pulse, which is used to compress a radar pulse. The advantage of using pulse compression is that with a twenty-microsecond pulse, the range resolution is reduced to about 180 feet or so. There are also several other techniques that can be used to compress a radar pulse such as phase shift keying. Indeed, according to Pietrucha, the technology for pulse compression is decades old and was taught to Air Force electronic warfare officers during the 1980s. The computer processing power required for this is negligible by current standards, Pietrucha said.

    Engineers solved the problem of directional or azimuth resolution by using phased array radar designs, which dispensed with the need for a parabolic array. Unlike older mechanically scanned arrays, phased array radars steer their radar beams electronically. Such radars can generate multiple beams and can shape those beams for width, sweep rate and other characteristics. The necessary computing power to accomplish that task was available in the late 1970s for what eventually became the Navy’s Aegis combat system found on the Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. An active electronically scanned array is better still, being even more precise.

    With a missile warhead large enough, the range resolution does not have to be precise. For example, the now antiquated S-75 Dvina—known in NATO parlance as the SA-2 Guideline—has a 440-pound warhead with a lethal radius of more than 100 feet. Thus, a notional twenty-microsecond compressed pulse with a range resolution of 150 feet should have the range resolution to get the warhead close enough—according to Pietrucha’s theory.

    The directional and elevation resolution would have to be similar with an angular resolution of roughly 0.3 degrees for a target at thirty nautical miles because the launching radar is the only system guiding the SA-2. For example, a missile equipped with its own sensor—perhaps an infrared sensor with a scan volume of a cubic kilometer—would be an even more dangerous foe against an F-22 or F-35.

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/revealed-how-kill-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-15296
     
  7. halloweene

    halloweene Major MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    May 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,235
    Likes Received:
    2,191
    True. Usually they are GROUNDED targets...
     
    Picdelamirand-oil likes this.
  8. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,008
    Likes Received:
    2,258
    Country Flag:
    United States
    FMS pilots reach 100th F35 sortie milestone
    By Staff Sgt. Nestor Cruz, 944 Fighter Wing Public Affairs / Published March 10, 2017



    [​IMG]


    1 of 3
    DOWNLOAD HI-RES / PHOTO DETAILS




    Maj. Michael “Frog” Hobson, 944th Operations Group Detachment 2, takes-off on an F-35A Mar. 7 during the 100th sortie milestone at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Louis Vega Jr.)

    [​IMG]


    2 of 3
    DOWNLOAD HI-RES / PHOTO DETAILS




    Maj. Michael “Frog” Hobson, 944th Operations Group Detachment 2, poses for a photo Mar. 7 before taking off on the 100th sortie milestone at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Louis Vega Jr.)

    [​IMG]




    LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. -- Student and instructor pilots working under the Foreign Military Sales program reached a historic milestone today when they flew their 100th sortie here at Luke Air Force Base.

    The milestone is significant for the team making the mission happen on a daily basis.

    “It was truly a reflection of the teamwork between operations and maintainers, and also the collaboration between the 944th Operations Group Detachment 2, Japan Air Self-Defense Force, and Lockheed Martin,” said Maj. Michael Hobson, 944th OG Det. 2 assistant director of operations, who flew the history-making sortie with one of four Japanese F-35A jets.

    Luke acquired the Japanese jets for the FMS program, thus enabling JASDF pilots to train here. The first of three classes started in December and is already on the fast track to reaching all training goals ahead of schedule and graduating its first two students in May. The students include a JASDF commander and director of operations.

    “They’ve got thousands of flying hours and they’re extremely experienced pilots with the F-2 and F-4, so they have flown 4th generation fighters before,” said Lt. Col. Eric Puels, 944th OG Det. 2 director of operations. “So this is really a transition course which is similar to what we do on the U.S. side but tailored to their needs and what they do in their country as far as training and execution.”

    The course is a mix of classroom academics, simulators and flights. Upon completion of the course, the students will have the tools they need to create their own F-35 training program back home.

    “(Our students) are going through the transition program now, teaching them how to fly the aircraft and execute operationally as wingmen, then they’ll undergo instructor pilot upgrade added on to what they know so they can go home and instruct their teammates and build their own program from scratch,” said Puels.

    The 100th sortie is just one of many successes under the team’s belt. Puels credits the success to the synergy and efficiency of the team.
    “This is probably just one of a dozen firsts we’ve experienced in the past two months alone,” said Puels. “Operationally, it means a great deal to be able to reach this milestone as quickly as we have. It shows that the innovative scheduling process and relationship that we have with our maintenance folks and with the operations folks is working and we’re excited about that. We’ve taken innovative steps to do things outside of the box.”

    The pride in reaching this historic sortie is also shared by Team Luke’s partners from JASDF.

    “We have accomplished our 100th sortie with only three months of flight operations here at Luke AFB and I would like to celebrate this milestone with each and everyone here,” said JASDF Maj. Toru Tsuchiya, Japanese F-35A foreign liaison officer. “I’m honored to work with the elite U.S. Air Force pilots and Lockheed Martin employees. I appreciate the outstanding support they have given us during this endeavor.”
     
  9. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,008
    Likes Received:
    2,258
    Country Flag:
    United States
  10. halloweene

    halloweene Major MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    May 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,235
    Likes Received:
    2,191
  11. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,008
    Likes Received:
    2,258
    Country Flag:
    United States
  12. Picdelamirand-oil

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    7,530
    Likes Received:
    5,075
    Country Flag:
    France
    The F-35 still has a long way to go before it will be ready for combat. That was the parting message of Dr. Michael Gilmore, the now-retired Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, in his last annual report.

    The Joint Strike Fighter Program has already consumed more than $100 billion and nearly 25 years. Just to finish the basic development phase will require at least an extra $1 billion and two more years. Even with this massive investment of time and money, Dr. Gilmore told Congress, the Pentagon, and the public, “the operational suitability of all variants continues to be less than desired by the Services."

    Dr. Gilmore detailed a range of remaining and sometimes worsening problems with the program, including hundreds of critical performance deficiencies and maintenance problems. He also raised serious questions about whether the Air Force’s F-35A can succeed in either air-to-air or air-to-ground missions, whether the Marine Corps’ F-35B can conduct even rudimentary close air support, and whether the Navy’s F-35C is suitable to operate from aircraft carriers.

    He found, in fact, that “if used in combat, the F-35 aircraft will need support to locate and avoid modern threat ground radars, acquire targets, and engage formations of enemy fighter aircraft due to unresolved performance deficiencies and limited weapons carriage availability.”

    In a public statement, the F-35 Joint Program Office attempted to dismiss the Gilmore report by asserting, “All of the issues are well-known to the JPO, the U.S. services, our international partners, and our industry.”

    JPO’s acknowledgement of the numerous issues are fine as far as it goes, but there’s no indication that the Office has any plan—including cost and schedule re-estimates—to fix those currently known problems without cutting corners. Nor, apparently, do they have a plan to cope with and fund the fixes for the myriad unknown problems that will be uncovered during the upcoming, much more rigorous, developmental and operational tests of the next four years. Such a plan is essential, and should be driven by the pace at which problems are actually solved rather than by unrealistic pre-existing schedules.

    What will it take to fix the numerous problems identified by Dr. Gilmore, and how do we best move forward with the most expensive weapon program in history, a program that has been unable to live up to its own very modest promises?

    [​IMG]

    http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/w...-lightning-ii-news-discussions.21525/page-328
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2017
  13. Averageamerican

    Averageamerican Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    15,008
    Likes Received:
    2,258
    Country Flag:
    United States
    Anti military site, if we can put a man on the moon over 30 years ago, we can build a decent fighter aircraft.
     
  14. Picdelamirand-oil

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    7,530
    Likes Received:
    5,075
    Country Flag:
    France
    It is rather a site that monitors what the government does, in France it is respectable. It was not Lockheed Martin who put a man on the moon and it was not 30 years ago but 48 years ago. There has been a lot of loss of skill since, your fathers would probably have built an F-35
     
  15. Picdelamirand-oil

    Picdelamirand-oil Lt. Colonel MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2012
    Messages:
    7,530
    Likes Received:
    5,075
    Country Flag:
    France
    Electronics Used to Justify Cost Not Delivering Capabilities

    The F-35 is being sold to the American people based in no small part on its mission systems, the vast array of sophisticated electronics on board the jet. A quick perusal of any of the hagiographic articles about the F-35 will find that they nearly always point to its capabilities to gather massive amounts of information. This information is supposed to come through its onboard sensors and the data links to outside networked sources, and then be merged by the F-35’s computer systems to identify and display for the pilot the specific threat, target, and accompanying force picture (i.e. “situational awareness”). This process is designed to allow the pilot to dominate the battlespace. Based on the actual test performance of these systems during developmental testing, however, it appears the electronics actually interfere with the pilot’s ability to survive and prevail.

    Overall, problems with the F-35’s sensors, computers, and software, including creating false targets and reporting inaccurate locations, have been severe enough that test teams at Edwards Air Force Base have rated them “red,” meaning they are unable to perform the combat tasks expected of them.

    One system, the Electro-Optical Targeting System (EOTS), was singled out by pilots as inferior in resolution and range to the systems currently being used on legacy aircraft. EOTS is one of the systems designed to help the F-35 detect and destroy enemy fighters from far enough away to make dogfighting a thing of the past. Mounted close to the nose of the aircraft, it incorporates a television camera, an infrared search and track system, and a laser rangefinder and designator. These sensors swivel under computer control to track targets over a wide field of regard and display imagery on the pilot’s helmet visor display.

    But the limitations of EOTS, including image degradation with humidity, force pilots to fly in closer to a target than they had to when using earlier systems just to get a clear enough picture to launch a missile or take a shot. The report says the problem is bad enough that F-35 pilots may need to fly in so close to acquire the target that they would have to maneuver away to gain the distance needed for a guided weapon shot. Thus, the system’s limitations can force an attacking F-35 to compromise surprise, allowing the enemy to maneuver to a first-shot opportunity. Surrendering the element of surprise and enabling an opponent to shoot first is what we want to force the enemy to do, not ourselves.

    http://www.pogo.org/straus/issues/w...-lightning-ii-news-discussions.21525/page-328
     

Share This Page