International JSF (sub) standard

[John Cook]

From Janes

JSF security technology costing up to US$1bn

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.

Some of this overrun is reflected in a supplemental contract awarded
to Lockheed Martin in November 2003, valued at US$603 million and
covering the development of an "international partner version" for the
JSF.

Building export JSFs with less sensitive - and less effective - low
observable (LO) features is practicable because the primary structure
of the JSF is conventional, with most of the LO systems being added at
the end of the assembly line. The program office has consistently
declined to clarify US policy on this issue, and people close to the
program have made conflicting statements.

Most recently, however, a JSF program official said that the export
versions "would look the same" - implying that materials under the
surface might be different. Another source says that "all JSFs will
have stealth features" but will not confirm that all of them will be
identical in LO performance. The November contract's reference to an
"international partner version" also suggests that such an approach is
being taken. The value of the contract would reflect the need to
conduct a separate radar cross-section (RCS) validation program.

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.

JSF is the first US stealth aircraft to be offered for export. Rules
on the export of stealth technologies, as well as of dual-use
technologies that are important to stealth, are not made by the JSF
program office, but by senior Pentagon leaders, who define disclosure
policy with the help of the Low Observables Executive Committee
(LO-EXCOM). The EXCOM includes representatives from the services,
intelligence agencies and all major stealth programs, including
'black' or unacknowledged programs.

The use of less sensitive materials on export JSFs is likely to be
accompanied by a range of new AT measures, an area that has received
increasing attention since 11 September 2001. The objective is "to
protect critical technologies in US weapon systems that may be sold to
foreign governments or that could possibly fall into enemy hands".

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

[John Cook]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 22:20:58 +1000, John Cook >
wrote:
Just as a follow on the UK goverment have stated this:-

"24 Mar 2004 :

Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with
what (a) short range air-to-air, (b) beyond-visual-range air-to-air,
(c) precision anti-armour and (d) other stand-off weapons the Future
Joint Combat Aircraft (JCA) will be equipped; and for what reasons the
requirement for (A) advanced short range air-to-air missiles and (B)
Brimstone systems was removed from the JCA programme. [162643]



Mr. Ingram: No final decisions have been taken on the weapons fit for
the Joint Combat Aircraft, beyond the requirement that it will have a
precision bombing capability and an air to air capability when it
enters service.

Weapons systems which we are considering integrating on JCA as the
requirement evolves include:
Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile
Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile
Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (Meteor)
Paveway IV
Storm Shadow
Brimstone
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. "


So the external carraige of ASRAAM and Brimstone not operationally
effective??, this raises some interesting questions, likely loadouts
and the JSF usage in the RAF..


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

[Nemo l'Ancien]

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...

[Scott Ferrin]

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"?

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[Henry J Cobb]

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

[Scott Ferrin]

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.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

You miss the point, there is a pattern to Mr. Cook's posts.

> 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.

Or perhaps there is only a study of what might be done.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:38:27 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> 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.
>
>You miss the point, there is a pattern to Mr. Cook's posts.


Why don't you enlighten us.



>
>> 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.
>
>Or perhaps there is only a study of what might be done.



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.

[Brett]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:38:27 -0700, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message


> >> The Eurofighter costs a LOT more than the F-35 is *suppose* to.
> >
> >You miss the point, there is a pattern to Mr. Cook's posts.
>
>
> Why don't you enlighten us.

In 12 hours there is a chance Tarver might transmit another valid
assessment....

[phil hunt]

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)

[phil hunt]

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)

[phil hunt]

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)

[Roman J. Rohleder]

(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

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

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?

[Tarver Engineering]

"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.

[John Cook]

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

[Henry J Cobb]

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

[John Cook]

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

[John Cook]

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

[Thomas Schoene]

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

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:48:57 +0100, (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.

[phil hunt]

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

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 19:01:05 +0100, (phil
hunt) wrote:

>On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 09:40:50 -0600, Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>>On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 01:48:57 +0100, (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 Keeney]

"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.

[John Cook]

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

[Lyle]

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

[Kevin Brooks]

"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

[Øystein Tvedten]

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/articles/A15927-2004Apr15.html
(http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article776731.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.

[Grantland]

(=?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/articles/A15927-2004Apr15.html
>(http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article776731.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