Spokesman reaffirms CNO’s faith in F-35

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/07/navy-cno-greenert-reaffirms-faith-f35-071512/

By Joshua Stewart – Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Jul 15, 2012 10:05:07 EDT
Despite what’s circulating in the blogosphere, Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert is firmly committed to the F-35C Lightning II, a Navy spokesman said.

Greenert recently raised eyebrows with an article in the July issue of Proceedings, the magazine for the U.S. Naval Institute, in which he touched on the limits of stealth technology. Some interpreted these comments as a slam on the stealthy F-35, even though that aircraft was not specifically mentioned.

Suggestions that the CNO is hesitant about the jet are inaccurate, said Capt. Danny Hernandez, a spokesman for Greenert.

“He has always been firmly committed to the F-35,” Hernandez said. “To make it clear, we are not walking way from the F-35.”

Greenert, in the Proceedings article, said technological developments such as low-frequency radars and multiple active-radar networks will chip away at stealth’s effectiveness and limit how close a stealthy plane or ship can get to a target.

As such, the Navy needs to find new “payloads” to operate around stealth-defeating capabilities, including long-range precision weapons and electronic warfare systems.

1) How can LM possible have space aviable in the fuselage of the F-35A, never mind the B model..

There are two things that need space, the active jammers and any supporting avionics.
…A) They planned for the possibility of jammers in the future so space was left in the same sensor bays that the ESM sensors reside in. They do not have to trade any of their current fuel load.

…B) As far as the aft bay, that was freed up when they were in the early SDD cycle (see pic). They were able to move the ICP into just a single space due to going from a Single Core processor to a Quad Core processor. This rear ICP bay can still be used in future upgrades as the customer needs increase. Also, future Core upgrades will allow the ICP to do more in the Forward ICP bay.

2) Its not a simple matter of just craming in additional systems after all the weight and CG have been dealt with..
My point is, the CG is a very important issue.

Yes it is, which is why the fuel can be re-routed around the aircraft to maintain CG. What do you think all the asymmetric weapons tests were about? By the time that the mismatch in CG is evident (if it ever is), the F-35 will be on min fuel, very light, and have it’t best P:W ratio. The FBW system will do it’s job and the pilot will never feel it.

Besides, the greatest weight will be added in the leading/trailing edges of the wings in the sensor bays. The will effectively cancel each other out and the change in CG will be minimal.

That is WAY too many spares. Western jets are sold with maybe a 15-20% spare rate, not a 400% spare rate!

Here is the order for 193 engines that covers 84 F-15SA fighters to Saudi Arabia.

http://www.dsca.osd.mil/pressreleases/36-b/2010/Saudi_Arabia_10-43.pdf

This works out to be 15 sets of spares for 84 fighters.

When you see 2-4 spares PER fighter, you are in essence saying that the engines are disposable (not worth repairing/rebuilding).

That is not Quiet Bird but the McDonald Douglas QAA (Quiet Attack Aircraft) which is from 1972-73.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA496936

There were also some design studies which never resulted in an operational system, but were delivered as technology demonstrators which were successful in promoting the evolution of sophisticated low observable technologies. In 1972-1973 McDonnell Douglas designed the Quiet Attack Aircraft Project (Figure 19), which attempted to achieve lower radar, infrared and acoustic signatures than former attack aircraft, increasing survivability in high threat environments. The design included hidden inlets and a blended shape which avoided all vertical surfaces and contained no straight, leading, or trailing edges. However, the edge returns resulted in a contradiction. Entire curved platform edges produced a flare spot, which resulted in a relatively strong diffracted return from part of the edge, perpendicular to the line-of-sight [13] at nearly every viewing aspect.

More at http://retromechanix.com/article/attack/mcdonnell-douglas-model-226-458-quiet-attack-aircraft/

1/5 It doesn’t mean it can’t be detected, just the odds of detecting it are lower.

2. Neither the operating frequencies of the MAWS nor the frequency coverage of the AN/ALR-94 are known so your claim is pure speculation.

3. Proof?

4. Leaky EM of F-22s might be detected as well

1/5: I never said that it could not be detected, just that the chances are “Low”.
2: Considering that the AN/ALR-94 is the single most expensive and complex component in the F-22 and designed to be the primary detection device, this is exactly what it was designed to look for.
3: See#2
4: Never said it could not.

Remember that I was just answering MSphere’s question as to how the F-22 could be superior. Notice he was not asking if it was, only why.

It will, if everyone plays to their full capability.

Well, considering that F-22 have spanked Growlers, then I would say that DASS or Spectra would not be a significant problem.

Nobody has claimed F-22 levels of LPI performance for ES-05 Raven, RBE-2AA or CAPTOR.

btw, LPI was only one of 4 ways to detect the EF. You seemed to ignore the ACTIVE MAWS of the EF.