International JSF (sub) standard

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

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

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...

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"?

"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.

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.

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

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