International JSF (sub) standard

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:20:58 +1000, John Cook wrote:

By Bill Sweetman

Up to US$1 billion of the projected cost overrun on the Lockheed
Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is attributable to the
development of 'anti-tamper' (AT) technology to protect stealth
features on the JSF, together with a 'sanitized' and probably less
stealthy export configuration of the fighter.

Does this include the UK version?

The clear implication is that the 'international' JSF would have a
larger RCS than the US version, would be easier to detect by hostile
radars and would consequently be more susceptible to attack. That, in
turn, would have consequences for the overall effectiveness of the
fighter. Like other LO aircraft, it does not carry active jamming
equipment or a towed decoy, and it cannot use high-off-boresight
air-to-air missiles when in stealth mode.

Do you have anyn information on what the RCS for either version of
the F-35 will be, and how it compares with other aircraft?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 12:08:07 -0600, Scott Ferrin wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 09:25:11 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:11:09 +0200, Nemo l'Ancien
wrote:

So, the Allies who would have paid to have a fully operational aircraft
will just get an under valued one...
That's Us conception of Allies...


How does better than any alternatives for the price equate to "under
valued"?

It is a clear selling point for Eurofighters.

The Eurofighter costs a LOT more than the F-35 is *suppose* to. If
the costs keep rising (and Typhoon's doesn't) and there is a big
enough difference between a *real* F-35 and the export version then
maybe.

Eurofighters cost EUR 62 million each (at least, thatr's what
Austria is paying -- the exact price obviously depends on what mix
of features a buyer wants).

We don't know what the F-35 will cost, nor do we know what the
EUR/USD exchange rate will be. However, if an air force wants a new
plane to be in service much earlier than 2012, they'd be better off
buying Eurofighter than F-35.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:44:59 -0600, Scott Ferrin wrote:

From what I've read they're spending more $$$ trying to make it so
it's not reverse engineerable than trying to figure out how to make
two different versions. Maybe in the end they'll come down to the
export models having older generation RAM (it's already been
compromised with that F-117 shoot down) and a maybe not so fancy
radome if they can't figure out a safe way. Would hate a repeat of
the Iran/Pakistan thing.

Which was?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

ess (phil hunt) schrieb:

Maybe in the end they'll come down to the
export models having older generation RAM (it's already been
compromised with that F-117 shoot down) and a maybe not so fancy
radome if they can't figure out a safe way. Would hate a repeat of
the Iran/Pakistan thing.

Which was?

He is probably referring to the transfer on nuke production
information from Mr. Khan to Iran, to Libya and other countries - Khan
was educated in the West, he analysed and copied german and dutch
technology - like the centrifuges.

Gruss, Roman

John Cook wrote:

From Janes

JSF security technology costing up to US$1bn

By Bill Sweetman


JSF is the first US stealth aircraft to be offered for export.

And what of reports that the F-117 was offered to the
UK (and declined) years ago?

"Dweezil Dwarftosser" wrote in message
...
John Cook wrote:

From Janes

JSF security technology costing up to US$1bn

By Bill Sweetman


JSF is the first US stealth aircraft to be offered for export.

And what of reports that the F-117 was offered to the
UK (and declined) years ago?

Janes hasn't had the credibility they once had ever since Kopp scammed them
on e-bombs.

Henry J Cobb wrote in message ...
John Cook wrote:
Our considerations will cover which weapons should be carried
internally and which should be carried externally on JCA. Under
current plans, it is not considered cost or operationally effective
for JCA to carry ASRAAM and Brimstone externally, but the internal
carriage of these weapons remains an option. "

What good would it do to carry a short range air to air missile in such
a way that it increases your radar return to the extent that the enemy
will now be able to engage your fighter beyond the range of that missile?

-HJC

Thats a very good point and one I hadn't really thought about, now
does the US JSF require Aim9X's to be externally carried??, or any air
to ground weapons roughly comparable to the Brimstone?, if so why the
difference?.


cheers

John Cook wrote:
Henry J Cobb wrote in message ...
What good would it do to carry a short range air to air missile in such
a way that it increases your radar return to the extent that the enemy
will now be able to engage your fighter beyond the range of that missile?

Thats a very good point and one I hadn't really thought about, now
does the US JSF require Aim9X's to be externally carried??, or any air
to ground weapons roughly comparable to the Brimstone?, if so why the
difference?.

http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/03paris/hard01.htm
The only way to carry an AAM when the JSF is in stealth mode, with
internal weapons, is to carry it on the inner weapons bay door. The
missile's seeker has a very restricted field of view in this position,
making LOAL almost essential. The UK plans to use the AIM-9X's rival,
the MBDA ASRAAM, from the JSF bay door, presumably in a LOAL mode.

-HJC

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 21:55:45 -0700, Henry J Cobb wrote:

John Cook wrote:
Henry J Cobb wrote in message ...
What good would it do to carry a short range air to air missile in such
a way that it increases your radar return to the extent that the enemy
will now be able to engage your fighter beyond the range of that missile?

Thats a very good point and one I hadn't really thought about, now
does the US JSF require Aim9X's to be externally carried??, or any air
to ground weapons roughly comparable to the Brimstone?, if so why the
difference?.

http://www.aviationweek.com/shownews/03paris/hard01.htm
The only way to carry an AAM when the JSF is in stealth mode, with
internal weapons, is to carry it on the inner weapons bay door. The
missile's seeker has a very restricted field of view in this position,
making LOAL almost essential. The UK plans to use the AIM-9X's rival,
the MBDA ASRAAM, from the JSF bay door, presumably in a LOAL mode.

Yup thats what I read, but does the US have any plans to add
ASRAAM/HARM/Slamer and Maverick to the external stores, the LOAL mode
seems to be quite a challenge if the F-22 Aim9X's intergration is
anything to go by.

It just interested me that some weapons are not being considered for
external carraige as I assume the external carraige would be fairly
easy to accomplish.

Cheers


-HJC

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

Just seen a chart that said the Aim9x is going to be intergrated on
the F-35 externally.

Seems the US isn't worried to much by external SRAAM's

Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk