The F-35, the AESA radar, and the ability to beam down a computer virus from the sky

a reply to: [post=18888999]boomer135[/post

Boomer perhaps yourself or Zaphod might be able to answer this . Will the planes that Australia are purchasing have this capability . The reason i ask this is below .

Controversially, Australia was promised by its US ambassador back in 2000 that it would get “the stealthiest aeroplane that anybody outside the United States can acquire”.
But will that be enough given that the aircraft is so inferior to its opponents without its optimal stealth abilities?
The US ambassador again:
“Having said that, the aeroplane will not be exactly the same aeroplane as the United States will have. But it will be a stealth fighter; it will have stealth capabilities; and it will be at the highest level that anyone in the world has outside the United States.”

This sounds like it will be a more than capable aircraft although most articles i read seam to label it as a white elephant .
Also this

a flying supercomputer pumping an unprecedented level of information into a $500,000 helmet that allows pilots to “see” through the floor of their own aircraft.

If this is true i want one .

a reply to: hutch622

Here's my take. Australia has been a stalwart ally of the US since day one. You've been generous enough to allow the US to share some of your bases for a common goal. It's a mutual relationship between the two countries. I doubt the US will screw Australia on the F-35. It will be exactly what they say. The finest Stealth Fighter in the world for it's roll outside the ones the US will have.

a reply to: hutch622

The primary differences in the different countries aircraft are the systems and weapons installed. For example, the US is going to use the AMRAAM on their aircraft, while the UK is looking at the Meteor missiles for theirs. Israel will install a home built EW system into theirs, while others will go with a "stock" system.

There is a slight difference in the RAM coating applied to other countries aircraft, but it's the difference between a BB and a small marble to the radar.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Here's my take. Australia has been a stalwart ally of the US since day one. You've been generous enough to allow the US to share some of your bases for a common goal. It's a mutual relationship between the two countries. I doubt the US will screw Australia on the F-35. It will be exactly what they say. The finest Stealth Fighter in the world for it's roll outside the ones the US will have.

I understand that we are going to have a very capable fighter but the last time i looked Australia wasn't looking to go to war with the US any-time soon . Would not Australia having a fighter on a level equivalent to yours be effectively the same as adding another 72 aircraft to the total at your disposal .

a reply to: hutch622

Exporting planes, or really any military system, means an increased probability that the enemy will get their hands on one- or at least figure out the airplane's true capabilities. There are a few things on the F-35 that the US absolutely doesn't want anyone else to know(like a couple things in the RAM) that they will leave off of exported aircraft. Australia is pretty on top of things and it's highly unlikely that anyone will get their hands on an F-35, but the US doesn't want to risk letting out some of those things that can end up making the difference if the airplane has to go to war one day. But the differences on the exported versions won't be game changing or anything by any means.

a reply to: hutch622

No, it means that they're in a position to defend themselves if the need arises, a lot better than with Hornets flying around.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thing is that the electronic systems could always be retrofitted on different airframes. Like the F-22 and BASSPLYR's magic triangle. Physics of airframes stay forever. Electronics & software change every 10 years. Computers can fit into all sorts of shapes.

How good would a F-22/C with this stuff be?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
There is a slight difference in the RAM coating applied to other countries aircraft, but it's the difference between a BB and a small marble to the radar.

BB is 0.44 cm, small marble is about 1.3 cm in diameter.

So cross section ratio is (1.3/0.44)^2, but radar return is on 4th power (squared each way), so relative detection distance is (1.3/0.44)^(1/2) = 1.8

So 10km US detection distance is 18km export detection distance.

a reply to: mbkennel

Except for things like cooling, computer power, electrical power, etc. A platform that doesn't already have an AESA radar, and the on board computer to handle this aren't going to refit easily if at all. The APG-83 SABR antenna had to be specially designed for the F-16 because it's right on the edge of it's ability to power and cool. An APG-83 being installed on an F-15 would be too powerful to fit in an F-16.

a reply to: mbkennel

That was just a spitballing example. I don't have the actual numbers for the F-35, but the two are going to be close, with the US being slightly stealthier.

originally posted by: Bedlam
theon. I'll see if I can dredge it up.

Heh. Speaking of blinding sensors, an IR target designator is good at blinding 'sensors' too. I wonder if people have wised up and started putting IR filters in rifle scopes and binocs?
.

you know if some ISIS #heads started needing opthamology appointments stat, I don't think the world would really be so unhappy

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mbkennel

Except for things like cooling, computer power, electrical power, etc. A platform that doesn't already have an AESA radar, and the on board computer to handle this aren't going to refit easily if at all.

Clockspeed is not going up much any more, but gigaflops per watt is still getting significantly better with new semiconductor process upgrades.

a reply to: mbkennel

The F-16 and older legacy aircraft just don't have the computer power to do it. And they can't swap out the older computers for newer ones, because they're already running just about at the limits of their power and cooling abilities. The newer computers they're getting are about as good as they're going to be able to get. Legacy aircraft are reaching the point of diminishing returns. The F-35 is doing things other aircraft simply can't do.

a reply to: Zaphod58

No, it means that they're in a position to defend themselves if the need arises, a lot better than with Hornets flying around.

I would hope our biggest defence is the fact that if anyone invaded from the north our deserts and lack of roads would be very hard to overcome . That being said it would be nice to never have to be in that situation . Personally if my taxes were increased to make my country over armed when it came to defence i would be down with that . However not all Australians are in the same position as me . Hornets , well even if they aren't the most capable thing flying they are still cool to see pulling hard turns .

a reply to: hutch622

They don't have to invade. Just hit the infrastructure hard enough, and they can do a lot of damage and cause a lot of problems.

a reply to: Zaphod58

They don't have to invade. Just hit the infrastructure hard enough, and they can do a lot of damage and cause a lot of problems.

Lets hope that never happens . I just want the very best my country can afford , or even cant afford . By hitting infrastructure i am guessing bombing . Pretty much every state has its own infrastructure . For instance bombing Brisbane should have little to no affect on me . Not good for the people there obviously . But it would be better to be a country where it is perceived to be not worth the trouble .

a reply to: hutch622

Bombers or cruise missiles. If you're in an area that imports or exports everything from food to oil to everything else, if they hit the ports and take out your ability to offload and turn ships, or land planes carrying emergency supplies, sit back and wait. Give it a month or two and it's all over.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Australia doesn't have enemies as such, but there are several countries in our region that would rather we were somewhere else. These countries are Malaysia, Indonesia, Myanmar and the Solomon Islands. Australia can be quite vocal and direct in the promotion of democracy. This rattles the nerves of some of our Asian neighbours where there are governments in power not used to international scrutiny. Sometimes they take our well intentioned nudges to do the right thing as interfering in their affairs. This is especially so with nations with large Islamic populations or authoritarian (military) governments.

Lets hope none of the above feel the need to attack us , and i believe China , North Korea are also to added to that list . China for obvious reasons and NK for their increasing ability to launch missiles .

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: [post=18888999]boomer135[/post

Boomer perhaps yourself or Zaphod might be able to answer this . Will the planes that Australia are purchasing have this capability . The reason i ask this is below .

Controversially, Australia was promised by its US ambassador back in 2000 that it would get “the stealthiest aeroplane that anybody outside the United States can acquire”.
But will that be enough given that the aircraft is so inferior to its opponents without its optimal stealth abilities?
The US ambassador again:
“Having said that, the aeroplane will not be exactly the same aeroplane as the United States will have. But it will be a stealth fighter; it will have stealth capabilities; and it will be at the highest level that anyone in the world has outside the United States.”

This sounds like it will be a more than capable aircraft although most articles i read seam to label it as a white elephant .
Also this

a flying supercomputer pumping an unprecedented level of information into a $500,000 helmet that allows pilots to “see” through the floor of their own aircraft.

If this is true i want one .

Unfortunately we probably will never know exactly if Australia will get this capability. I would venture a guess and say that EW in general is highly classified and most likely comes with a separate export version. The reason I say that is because of the classification level.

Let's say that ew on the American f35s is classified TS (which is probably the case). TS can be shared with other countries to a certain point and on a certain level. As a boom operator, we had to have a TS clearance for the SIOP/OPLAN 8044 stuff (basically nuclear war). Now that clearance came in handy when you start talking about refueling things in the Nevada desert of course. But even the new booms who just got there out of school were granted interim TS clearances for siop, because the TS investigation can take a long time, sometimes over a year. Booms were not considered mission qualified until after siop training so it made sense anyway.

I got side tracked a bit. Lol. But back to sharing info with other countries. Some TS material and even some SECRET material had the words NOFORN behind it, which means no foreign. Any thing with that clearance cannot be shared with another country, without congressional approval to lower the classification. I'm willing to guess that the EW suite has that mark behind the TS stamp. Hell some of our siop stuff that you wouldn't even think would be classified let alone TS/NOFORN (like who our primary enemy, secondary enemy, and five axis of evil countries were) could not be shared with even the UK during SIOP ORIs when they were training with us. Cause let's face it if nuclear war breaks out the US, the UK, Australia, and a couple other close allies will be flying right along side us. Yet we can't even share simple details with them in certain circumstances.

Having said all that, the UK and Australian F-35s will be the most advanced fighter in the world outside of our own.

a reply to: boomer135
And Canada, thats why they call us the ABC's