Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
Let's address the obvious question. Why would the United States downgrade exported F-35s?
Well, the U.S. Congress banned the export of F-22s. The F-35 is close to the F-22 in stealth. Therefore, if foreign countries obtain the full stealth version of the F-35 and make incremental upgrades then foreign countries would possess a fighter close in performance to the F-22.
Hence, to avoid foreign countries from obtaining stealth technology comparable to U.S. performance, the United States downgraded the exported F-35 to a RCS of 0.15 m2.
This means the 42 exported/downgraded F-35s expected to be bought by Japan can be easily detected and shot down by China's stealthy J-20 Mighty Dragons or modern overlapping air defense system.
Stealth rankings:
1. F-22: 0.0001 m2 RCS (from GlobalSecurity)
["size of marble" on radar]
2. J-20: 0.0001 m2 (frontal) to 0.005 m2 (rear) (from Australia Air Power)
[intermediate size between marble and golf ball]
3. F-35: 0.005 m2 (from GlobalSecurity)
["size of golf ball"]
4. Exported F-35: 0.15 m2 (see citations below)
["size of beach ball"]
5. T-50/Pak Fa: 0.5 m2 (from official Russian Embassy in India website)
[size of a gigantic beach ball]
----------
Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters - National - smh.com.au
"Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters
By Craig Skehan and Tom Allard
March 14, 2006
Like a beach ball on the radar … the former defence minister Robert Hill with a mock-up of the fighter. (Photo: Jason South)
THE ability of Australia's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to evade detection and enemy attack has been substantially downgraded by the US Defence Department.
And a Liberal MP and former senior defence analyst, Dennis Jensen, warns that the fighters - at $15 billion the most expensive defence purchase in Australia's history - will be unable to maintain air combat dominance.
"Do we really want our pilots to be caught in a knife fight in a telephone booth with an aircraft that, aerodynamically, is incapable of mixing it with the threat?" he said in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry.
A crucial aspect of the fighter's "stealth capability" - radio frequency signatures - has been downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", according to the US Defence Department website.
Peter Goon, a former RAAF flight test engineer, said that would mean the difference between it appearing as a "marble and a beach ball" on enemy radar. The problem with the fighter, Dr Jensen says, is that it can be relatively easily detected from the rear.
A Federal Government source conceded yesterday that the stealth capability definitions had been changed, but maintained that the "design requirements" for the fighter to "avoid detection" had not.
Signs that the stealth capability had been lowered first emerged last year, when key performance indicators on the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter website changed. The manufacturer of the aircraft, Lockheed Martin, insisted repeatedly to the Herald that the reported shift was an error. Australia's Defence Department also maintained there had been no change.
But those assurances have proven false. When the Herald contacted the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter program office in Washington, a spokeswoman said the latest table on its website was correct. "There is no reason to pull it from there," she said.
A Lockheed Martin spokesman said yesterday: 'We will have to defer to our clients, the US Government, if that is their decision.'"
----------
eurofighter @ starstreak.net • View topic - Typhoon for South Korea?
"Export model F-35 is revealed to have a frontal RCS rating in 0.1~0.25 m2 (Hence the LO rating) class thanks to Canada's Defense Ministry disclosure."
"Scribd
In the page 2.
F-35 has a 95% RCS reduction over 4th-gen jets according to Julian Fantino, the vice defense minister of Canada. Going by the standard RCS of a generic 4th gen fighter used by radar vendors (5 m2), that would be 0.25 m2. If he was going by CF-18's RCS of 3 m2, then it would be 0.15 m2."
Canadian government defense document page 1
Canadian government defense document page 2
Canadian government defense document page 3
Canadian government defense document page 4
Well, the U.S. Congress banned the export of F-22s. The F-35 is close to the F-22 in stealth. Therefore, if foreign countries obtain the full stealth version of the F-35 and make incremental upgrades then foreign countries would possess a fighter close in performance to the F-22.
Hence, to avoid foreign countries from obtaining stealth technology comparable to U.S. performance, the United States downgraded the exported F-35 to a RCS of 0.15 m2.
This means the 42 exported/downgraded F-35s expected to be bought by Japan can be easily detected and shot down by China's stealthy J-20 Mighty Dragons or modern overlapping air defense system.
Stealth rankings:
1. F-22: 0.0001 m2 RCS (from GlobalSecurity)
["size of marble" on radar]
2. J-20: 0.0001 m2 (frontal) to 0.005 m2 (rear) (from Australia Air Power)
[intermediate size between marble and golf ball]
3. F-35: 0.005 m2 (from GlobalSecurity)
["size of golf ball"]
4. Exported F-35: 0.15 m2 (see citations below)
["size of beach ball"]
5. T-50/Pak Fa: 0.5 m2 (from official Russian Embassy in India website)
[size of a gigantic beach ball]
----------
Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters - National - smh.com.au
"Not so stealthy: the $15b fighters
By Craig Skehan and Tom Allard
March 14, 2006
Like a beach ball on the radar … the former defence minister Robert Hill with a mock-up of the fighter. (Photo: Jason South)
THE ability of Australia's new F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to evade detection and enemy attack has been substantially downgraded by the US Defence Department.
And a Liberal MP and former senior defence analyst, Dennis Jensen, warns that the fighters - at $15 billion the most expensive defence purchase in Australia's history - will be unable to maintain air combat dominance.
"Do we really want our pilots to be caught in a knife fight in a telephone booth with an aircraft that, aerodynamically, is incapable of mixing it with the threat?" he said in a submission to a parliamentary inquiry.
A crucial aspect of the fighter's "stealth capability" - radio frequency signatures - has been downgraded from "very low observable" to "low observable", according to the US Defence Department website.
Peter Goon, a former RAAF flight test engineer, said that would mean the difference between it appearing as a "marble and a beach ball" on enemy radar. The problem with the fighter, Dr Jensen says, is that it can be relatively easily detected from the rear.
A Federal Government source conceded yesterday that the stealth capability definitions had been changed, but maintained that the "design requirements" for the fighter to "avoid detection" had not.
Signs that the stealth capability had been lowered first emerged last year, when key performance indicators on the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter website changed. The manufacturer of the aircraft, Lockheed Martin, insisted repeatedly to the Herald that the reported shift was an error. Australia's Defence Department also maintained there had been no change.
But those assurances have proven false. When the Herald contacted the US Defence Department Joint Strike Fighter program office in Washington, a spokeswoman said the latest table on its website was correct. "There is no reason to pull it from there," she said.
A Lockheed Martin spokesman said yesterday: 'We will have to defer to our clients, the US Government, if that is their decision.'"
----------
eurofighter @ starstreak.net • View topic - Typhoon for South Korea?
"Export model F-35 is revealed to have a frontal RCS rating in 0.1~0.25 m2 (Hence the LO rating) class thanks to Canada's Defense Ministry disclosure."
"Scribd
In the page 2.
F-35 has a 95% RCS reduction over 4th-gen jets according to Julian Fantino, the vice defense minister of Canada. Going by the standard RCS of a generic 4th gen fighter used by radar vendors (5 m2), that would be 0.25 m2. If he was going by CF-18's RCS of 3 m2, then it would be 0.15 m2."
Canadian government defense document page 1
Canadian government defense document page 2
Canadian government defense document page 3
Canadian government defense document page 4
