F-35 Reality Check Ten Years On, Part 2: The Jobs Mirage

Conclusion

As explained in great detail in the two parts of this article, the F-35 does not back up any of the three most common claims made by partner governments to justify their decision to buy the aircraft:

1. Backers claim that only the F-35 has “fifth-generation capabilities,” including stealth and data fusion, that will ensure air supremacy in the future.

In fact, even if its development is a complete success, most of the “revolutionary” capabilities the F-35 will bring to the party in a decade or so, when it finally enters service, already exist. Its advances will mostly be a question of degree, and not the revolution that its backers allege.

And, if the F-22 is anything to go by, the F-35’s sensors and electronics will be so outdated by the time it enters service that it will require several very costly upgrades. As the latest estimate for bringing the F-22 fleet up to scratch is over $8 billion – and that’s for only part of the 150 aircraft now in service — the mind truly boggles at how much it might cost to upgrade 400 or 500 early production F-35s.

2. Backers also claim that only the F-35 allows full interoperability with US forces and within future allied coalitions.

The inanity of using interoperability to justify buying the F-35 was clearly stated by NATO’s supreme allied commander transformation, Gen. StephaneAbrial, a former chief of staff of the French air force, when he testified before the Canadian House of Commons Defence Committee on May 3.

According to a May 4 report published by Canada’s Postmedia news, Abrial told the committee that “We do not advocate a single type of aircraft, single type of ships, single type of rifles….We never wanted to make sure everyone has the same equipment: that’s not our goal.” Abrial said interoperability has to do primarily with training and ensuring all NATO forces have sufficient skills to function as one on the battlefield, not flying the same aircraft.

3. The third most common justification used by partner nations is job creation: buying the F-35 guarantees highly profitable, high-tech work for the buyer’s national aerospace industry, they claim.

As this overview makes clear, the F-35 is the only international aircraft program in recent history to guarantee no industrial benefits whatsoever to its partners. In reality, partner nations have given up the certainty of license-production and direct or indirect offsets in exchange for the chance of bidding on some contracts.

Never has the folly of giving up a bird in the hand for the faint prospect of many in the bush been so obvious. This is a further reason why soldiers should stick to soldiering, instead of thinking they can negotiate international agreements, and why politicians should take military recommendations on equipment with a fistful of salt.

Taxpayers and aerospace workers in the F-35 partner nations will now have ample opportunity, over the next 30 years, to appreciate just how good a deal their governments negotiated.

The one who fires sooner will have somewhat of an advantage. If you agree with this, then we have these results:

1) At BVR – neither jet has an advantage though the Rafale’s EW is better and frontal radar signature management is better.

With MICA having ~ 100km range with LOAL capability and the ability to launch two type of seekers, METEOR and SPECTRA I wouldn’t say neither jet has an advantage here. Rafale clearly is more dangerous.

2) At the merge the Rafale has the advantage due to much longer weapon range (MICA IR is practically a combined BVR/WVR type), so it could fire both MICA IRs before the Typhoon has a chance to respond with an advantage of close to a minute easily available.

Long before the merge, Rafale’s FSO would have provided its pilot with visual confirmation and ID of the target as well as indication about its weapon load etc. Long before the merge, Rafale’s FSO is capable to get a viable targeting solution even if the radar is jammed via the laser range finder. Long before the merge, Rafale’s FSO/SPECTRA/RBE2AA/MICA/METEOR would have make sure that Typhoon never reach the WVR area.

Should the merge happen, then unless Typhoon uses its HMD to best effect, then the super manoeuvrability of Rafale will also win any dogfight assuming equal training and luck.

The F-117 was a light bomber, not a fighter. The “F” designation is well know to have been a product of disinformation.

The F-22/F-35 are bombers with better aerodynamics. Should the USAF decide to put AtA missiles and radars on the F-117 what would you consider it?

The result is not the same. With a jammer you are letting your presence be known and have no element of surprise. Besides, I think we all can agree that in no way would an F-4 with a jammer be considered a 5th gen fighter.

An F-4 with RAM reduction, sensor fusion, jamming etc. could

To take it to the next step would a F-35 and a jammer be 6th gen fighter? Of course not, just a better protected 5th gen fighter.

It’s a matter of architecture and a few aircraft in existence today share the F-35 architecture except the weapon bay.

There are advantages of more range and therefore the CAESAR/Captor-E was rated as “head and shoulders” better. That said, most of the sensor capability gets wasted if all you are doing is strategizing without real first kill opportunity.

1) Where did you read that “head and shoulders” better?
2) Strategizing is the most important thing to do in combat. That’s why sensor fusion and reduced workload are such a big deal. When properly used nothing is “wasted”, unless you’re over enemy territory and broadcasting well in advance to everybody that you’re coming.

You could of course improve strategy and tactics and get some tactical advantages with a first look advantage. Usually the pilot that spots a target first gets a first kill from historical data – which is why the USAF focuses on this aspect.

Which is why discretion/low observability, jamming, decoy etc. are so important and why countries are spending so much money on them.
The name of the game is been aware of the enemy while remaining hiden as long as possible.

Even so, if a Rafale could use SPECTRA to switch on the RBE2AA, then the French sensors offer adequate warning time because the weapon is so under ranged. The Typhoon would have a first look but not a first shot advantage. It is therefore inefficient despite its powerful detection range.

If the two fighters are head on, then Rafale/Typhoon doesn’t have to wait to reach weapon’s range to fire. The target’s location can also be updated in flight. And unless Typhoon’s LPI mode is that good, SPECTRA will have the first look long before Captor-E.

There are other advantages of the CAESAR/Captor-E but in the area of first shot advantages over the Rafale, it would occur when dealing with a stealth opponent (as opposed to conventional jets, including each other). In that case the Typhoon would have a much better chance of early detection and firing solutions.

“Stealth” jets are pretty big on ESM… And that mean that like the Rafale they would have a chance to detect Captor-E long before it sees anything.

As for using the radar as a jammer – it can be done with a smaller set, but really, this is also highly detectable as a target (home on jam). And you have jammers for this anyhow.

Eurofighter have made so many promises before, developing a jamming capability isn’t cheap and isn’t that easy to make it work.

Concerning future weapons with a superlative range – there are really no funds in the European coffers to even conceive of this for the next decade or so. By then, there will be a slew of new jets and solutions on the market.

First the true range and capabilities of Captor-E will have to be demonstrated.

Exactly. Radar gives SA, and you want SA well beyond the reach of your weapons – especially as with high closing speeds the target that was 200 miles away may be 100 miles away three minutes later.

(Two Typhoons closing at Mach 1.4 have a closing speed in excess of 2,000 mph, or 33 miles per minute. Closing speeds increase once your Typhoons light the burners…..)

AESA receivers, increased computing power, better electronics etc. All work in favour of early detection of hostile transmission. That’s why “5th gen” aircraft like the F-22 don’t even bother with Link 16s and such.
A big radar gives you SA on a longer range, but at the cost of been detected earlier. Modern ESM will detect a radar way before the emitting aircraft gets any kind of SA. Which mean by the time you’re aware of the hostile aircraft presence, that hostile aircraft knows where you’re coming from and has a long time to choose to avoid you or be prepared for a fight. That’s not necessarily worth the 3 to 4m detection.
Countries like Russia like to put a very big radar on their fighters because they’ve a big airspace with insufficient airbases, ground radars, aircraft etc. to patrol effectively with any shorter ranged radars. But that works well in defence, not in offence.

Moreover, while Shiv and the other Rafale fanboys go on as though Rafale is unique in having passive means of detection and tracking, it isn’t. DASS can detect and accurately locate another aircraft’s emissions

The passive abilities of Rafale are stressed because it was built from the start with a kind a discretion in mind that Typhoon didn’t need (deep strike).
Rafale doesn’t have to have the biggest radar on the international scene ever because it’s likely to receive support from AWACS when fighting for air supremacy, and if sent over enemy territory alone to bomb some command and center, the very last thing you want to do is broadcast to the enemy that you’re coming.

Rafale wasn’t built to intercept Soviet bombers and escorts over the North Sea while having to cover a large coast or looking for hostiles over vast area of sea. Only the UK pushed for Eurofighter to develop such a long range radar, that Germany didn’t wanted, and Italy and Spain didn’t needed (along with pretty much everything else) because it’s first and foremost a defensive tool for those with very large area to protect.
Rafale was built from the start to be affordable and versatile enough in order to replace all other existing aircraft (air force and navy included) which was the only way France could afford the programme alone.

Because of all the strike it would have to do, Rafale was also designed with more aggressive capabilities in mind which was demonstrated in Libya and during various exercises. And if you’re confident you can survive and defend yourself when you’re fully loaded with very unstealthy bombs over enemy territory, then I should think that as long as you can retain good aerodynamics for air combat (which has been demonstrated against the F-22 in the UAE), the Rafale has nothing to fear against Typhoon or any other aircraft with a bigger radar.

and PIRATE can see enemy aircraft from further away than OSF can.

Are you sure about that? How about tracking ranges and ID? How about a TV channel for BVR ID? What about laser range finder?

The IRST is operational on some jets, but is now not in production due to fragility issues. A sophisticated new one is under development.

The French suggested the DDM-NG be used as an IRST but it is currently not programmed for that role, but as a MAWS set up.

If anything, it shows that the current use of MICA IR sensors or the Damocles imager is insufficient – otherwise why would the French want to integrate the DDM-NG as an IRST?

Really you don’t see the advantages of 360 coverages? Second LDP are been implemented all over the world as IRST in second role. Last I repeat, the IRST is operational on every jets since it’s a modular system that can be plug into any Rafales.

Prove it. It’s more likely that you don’t understand the point.

Fair enough.

-There may be some advantage to the CAESAR but it may not have enough advantage to get any first strike.
That depend on the formation and tactics used. That may change if the Typhoon is properly networked.

-You would have to assume that jets are up front just in the right position to get a good advantage, and that assumption is too much of a chance.
Well in most scenario where air battle is relevant, the enemy is likely to be in front of you. Anyway even if he isn’t, flying with half your formation in passive mod ahead of the “active” ones can prove highly effective in defeating your enemy that might focus on the “active” Typhoon and get surprised by the others assuming the enemy isn’t making the most of its radar coverage of course.

-And as you said, an AWACS radar plane can also provide an early picture, so the CAESAR may not provide real advantages at all.
Assuming AWACS are available and properly protected + properly networked. If not properly networked each aircraft will still have to lock the target themselves and as such the greater range of Captor should still be valid. It will be an advantage to update the missile over greater distances as well reducing the effectiveness of counter measures.

There are other advantages as well assuming it’s properly used.

Insufficient argument. By the time you are at the range of perhaps 60-80 KM, the Rafale is hardly stealthy by any measure – unless it can digitally trick the enemy radar. It is certainly not a “low IR” target despite some reduction measures.

Its IR signature may not be as low as the Raptor, but it’s lower than the Typhoon. As such it’s likely to detect the Typhoon first in the IR spectrum.

And just where is the IRST that you mentioned? It’s a future item, the past one was rejected.

It wasn’t rejected. It was discontinued. There is a difference. That mean the IRST already delivered are fully operational and they can be switched between aircraft. The Rafales over Libya had a fully operational ISRT.

It’s like you are not relating with your own points. Scorpion has answered that part for you if you read his posts about why the SPECTRA can be rendered ineffective by countermeasures – so did I.

If you want to read a full account about the Rafale vs F-22 you can go there.

The FSO is right now a visual ID system that won’t work well at night. Once the Sagem IRST arrives, things will finally swing in the Rafale’s favor, but using a MICA IR sensor or Damocles sensor for IR detection of a stealth target is really a half measure that’s like a temp fix.

Maybe you should make your homework about the FSO to know exactly what it is. It’s a fully modular system that can be easily upgraded and replaced. Because of budget cuts and because the IRST was due to be upgraded France decided to built only a limited number of IRST to be share between the Rafale’s fleet. As such all Rafale don’t have their own IRST, but they can easily be upgraded with one should they need to go on a mission.
Sagem is due to provide the new IRST soon but I doubt one will be bought for each and every single Rafale since they can be swapped between aircraft without problem.

Such isn’t the case with the Typhoon making the maintenance and the potential cost to upgrade its IRST pretty grim.

A PIRATE is a much more robust detection mechanism for attack in terms of range as well as tracking and integration with the HMTD.

PIRATE doesn’t have a laser range finder, FSO does. By the time you get in range to use the HMD, MICA IR will have taken care of you.

The MICA IR is an advantage – unless the Meteor also comes with an IR sensor as originally planned.

Meteor IR would be a good thing, but MICA is an advantage still because it can be used at short range and at medium range as well.

Again, you are not relating anything that was said to you. This is for the RAFALE – it would need the IRST in addition to the SPECTRA to be able to have a reliable stealth detecting mechanism. Of course, the use of IRST and high-powered radar is applicable for other jets as well.

Again you’re listening. Rafale has a fully operational IRST. It has a fully operational TV channel and a laser range finder. Typhoon doesn’t. F-35 doesn’t. F-22 doesn’t.
MICA has a effective range of 80+ km against fighters, in both IR and EM configuration. At 50 to 60+ km when the IRST becomes effective, Rafale is capable to engage any target detected with IR missiles. Typhoon can’t. Its PIRATE might detect an hostile at 50km but if that hostile is stealthy or jamming and if its radar cannot lock on it, then it can’t do a single thing until it get into ASRAAM or IRIS-T ranges.

Not at all. The French upped the azimuth by 20 degrees to 140 degrees but this is leagues lower than many other AESAs. The lack of swishplate means a range reduction as well at edge angles.

Many other AESA such as? Does the F-35 do better?

The UAE was benchmarking the RBE2AA versus the APG-80, which is an old/not especially great American AESA radar, and the RBE2AA did not have the range or ground moving target indication of this system. I think that sort of discredits your sway here. The IAF chief rated American radars as the best as well, and the UAE found that the French radar was somewhere lacking (modes, GMTI, range) compared to the American set.

At the time the UAE were complaining the RBE2AA was still in development. You and I know nothing about what happened since, but the fact that the UAE want all quiet on the technical front should give you an indication.