International JSF (sub) standard

Henry J Cobb wrote:
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?

Well, JSF will carry external bomb loads from time to time. If it's already
hauling bombs externally, it makes sense to hang self-defense missiles there
too. In theory, this will happen only after the enemy air defenses are
beaten down, but I'd really hate to be wrong.

I'm also curious how you reached your conclusion about detection vs firing
ranges. I'm sure you have no detailed knowledge of JSF's radar signature,
ASRAAM's effective range, or the detection ranges of enemy radars.


--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:48:57 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

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?

We sold Tomcats to Iran, the turned into an enemy an sent a Tomcat
complete with Phoenix missile to the FSU. We sold Pakistan F-16s and
I've read that at least one found it's way to the FSU. It would suck
to sell top of the line technology to a country who then sends it on
to China.

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:40:50 -0600, Scott Ferrin wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:48:57 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

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?

We sold Tomcats to Iran, the turned into an enemy an sent a Tomcat
complete with Phoenix missile to the FSU. We sold Pakistan F-16s and
I've read that at least one found it's way to the FSU. It would suck
to sell top of the line technology to a country who then sends it on
to China.

Or, in the case of Israel, give away top of the line technology...

--
"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 Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:01:05 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:40:50 -0600, Scott Ferrin wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:48:57 +0100, ess (phil
hunt) wrote:

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?

We sold Tomcats to Iran, the turned into an enemy an sent a Tomcat
complete with Phoenix missile to the FSU. We sold Pakistan F-16s and
I've read that at least one found it's way to the FSU. It would suck
to sell top of the line technology to a country who then sends it on
to China.

Or, in the case of Israel, give away top of the line technology...


Yeah that one slipped my mind. Patriot, Lavi, Python 3. . .

"John Cook" wrote in message
...


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

There are different levels of stealth and different needs for it
at different times. On day one of combat you need a lot but as
the war progresses satisfactorily it becomes less important as
the enemy's defenses are destroyed.
On day one planes like the F-35 will not carry weapons externally.
Later on as the threat level decreases you can start carrying
stuff externally since the loss of some stealth isn't as big an
issue.

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 02:05:58 -0400, "John Keeney"
wrote:


"John Cook" wrote in message
.. .


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

There are different levels of stealth and different needs for it
at different times. On day one of combat you need a lot but as
the war progresses satisfactorily it becomes less important as
the enemy's defenses are destroyed.
On day one planes like the F-35 will not carry weapons externally.
Later on as the threat level decreases you can start carrying
stuff externally since the loss of some stealth isn't as big an
issue.

I know I was just pointing out the differences between the RAF an US
versions, the UK don't see the need for external intergration of SRAAM
or brimstone while the US does, must be a doctrine thing.

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

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:40:42 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

Henry J Cobb wrote:
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?

Well, JSF will carry external bomb loads from time to time. If it's already
hauling bombs externally, it makes sense to hang self-defense missiles there
too. In theory, this will happen only after the enemy air defenses are
beaten down, but I'd really hate to be wrong.

I'm also curious how you reached your conclusion about detection vs firing
ranges. I'm sure you have no detailed knowledge of JSF's radar signature,
ASRAAM's effective range, or the detection ranges of enemy radars.
wouldnt the Aim-9x have a lower RCS then the Aim-120 anyway, so how
much increase to the planes overall RCS would a Sidewinder put on a
plane anyway. And take into account by the time you get in range to
use the Aim-9/ASRAAM your stealth is meaningless cause everything is
visible/IR target tracking. JMO

"Lyle" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:40:42 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

Henry J Cobb wrote:
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?

Well, JSF will carry external bomb loads from time to time. If it's
already
hauling bombs externally, it makes sense to hang self-defense missiles
there
too. In theory, this will happen only after the enemy air defenses are
beaten down, but I'd really hate to be wrong.

I'm also curious how you reached your conclusion about detection vs
firing
ranges. I'm sure you have no detailed knowledge of JSF's radar
signature,
ASRAAM's effective range, or the detection ranges of enemy radars.

wouldnt the Aim-9x have a lower RCS then the Aim-120 anyway, so how
much increase to the planes overall RCS would a Sidewinder put on a
plane anyway.

A lot. Consider that they have been dillying around with how to cover joints
at fuselage openings to maintain the stealthy characteristics of the F-117,
B-2, etc. Recall the account from the head of the Skunk Works during the
F-117 development who noted that an incorrectly set fastener blew the RCS
out of of the steathy mode during an early test. *Anything* protruding
outside of the aircraft will tend to increase its RCS--they spend a great
deal of effort finetuning the exterior design to acheive a low RCS, and new
appendages would trash a lot of that effort. As to comparing it to the AIM
120, why? As long as the missiles are carried internally, what is the point?

And take into account by the time you get in range to
use the Aim-9/ASRAAM your stealth is meaningless cause everything is
visible/IR target tracking. JMO

At night? Approaching the target from the side or quarter, outside of any IR
seeker coverage (but inside the coverage of the radars of his supporting
AWACS or ground-based systems)? And do all frontline fighters have a good
IRST? Nope. Or if you are carrying the AIM-9 as a self-defense only measure,
and your real mission is to strike the airfield that the defending aircraft
is loitering about? How about the fact that your "meaningless" stealth may
still be effective against shorter wavelength systems (like a weapons
guidance package)--you still want to toss that out the window?

Brooks

Also somewhat relevant to the JSF and international participation

"A top Norwegian Parliament official warned yesterday that the country
would abandon the Joint Strike Fighter program if project manager
Lockheed Martin Corp. doesn't help Norway's local industries secure
work on the aircraft. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Apr15.html
(http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/ir...icle776731.ece for a
norwegian version of the same story)

This is as far as I know, nothing new on the part of Lockheed. The
buy-back contracts for the F-16s we bought 30 years ago have still not
been honored in full by Lockheed as far as I'm aware.

Øystein
--
Roy Batty: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships
on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the
dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time,
like tears in rain. Time to die.

(=?iso-8859-1?q?=D8ystein_Tvedten?=) wrote:


Also somewhat relevant to the JSF and international participation

"A top Norwegian Parliament official warned yesterday that the country
would abandon the Joint Strike Fighter program if project manager
Lockheed Martin Corp. doesn't help Norway's local industries secure
work on the aircraft. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Apr15.html
(http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/ir...icle776731.ece for a
norwegian version of the same story)

This is as far as I know, nothing new on the part of Lockheed. The
buy-back contracts for the F-16s we bought 30 years ago have still not
been honored in full by Lockheed as far as I'm aware.

Øystein
-- Time to die.

Europe needs to get completely out of the JSF program. Amerika is now
the depraved mirror-image of the grotesque degenerate foulness that is
Isreal. They are rotten, and anyone who collaberates with them smears
themselves with the same filthy rottenness. Go with Eurofighter
and/or Rafale/Gripen . Let the foul torturers rot in their own
stinking juice. Death to the Whore!

Grantland