FBW[USER=”77826″]XB-70[/USER]
Turkish aerospace industries have successfully bid on F-35 contracts for years, and that continues. I don’t believe that is a point of contention, agreed?
as far as conditions of a potential divorce, “all bets are off”. Being a level 3 partner requires Turkey to pay in exchange for the right to bid on F-35 contracts and have access to program. That does not imply contractual obligation to order or receive F-35’s (see Canada). Obviously, if the current 2 Turkish F-35’s are blocked by state from leaving US soil, and future contracted aircraft are put on hold or cancelled, Turkey would have recourse to ask for compensation. Outside of that, Turkey would have little recourse, they cannot force delivery, nor refunds for development which has already benefitted Turkey. Ban US military hardware imports? That would ground the majority of their Air Force and lay up their navy. That is why I stated Ergodan is holding a pair of deuces in this.
Reality- it probably won’t come to that. The current US executive branch is dysfunctional, and if the democrats win the whitehouse in 2020, Ergodan will be facing a hostile state and dod. There will be concessions, unless he can push through an agreement with Trump.
FBWDefinition of success here is probably F-22, no multi-role and ultra expensive produced at merely 20% of the originally planed units and which failed to substitute the F-15. Its production closed before that of its predecessor btw. Some people really have nerve to mock the PAK-FA, the US 5G being a prime example of mismanagement, budget/opportunity squandering and dubious strategical decisions.
This narrative grows increasingly old. Shall we compare the production of the F-22 to the combined production of the Su-35s and the Su-57? There are 185 odd F-22’s in service (195 produced depending on parsing production from EMD airframes) When do you postulate the combined production of the Russian 4+ and 5th “generation” should reach the “dubious strategical decision” to produce the F-22? 2025? 2030?
Shall we revisit Russian statements on entry into service and projected contracts for both by 2020? Glass houses.
FBW[USER=”77292″]LMFS[/USER]
agian you have dodged the major issue and instead have focused on the particulars to suit your own view. The US threatened cutting off ALL weapons acquired through FMS this past summer. The F-35 is just the biggest piece of pie on the table. Make no mistake, this is a direct result of Turkey ordering weapons from a nation under sanctions, you can continue to ignore the elephant in the room for the tusk. Read the EU’’s sanction statements. It would sanctimonious for the US to sell the F-35 to Turkey while pushing for all allies to boycott Russia:
https://europa.eu/newsroom/highlight…aine-crisis_en
That is ignoring all of the other specific issues that have surfaced between the US and Turkey, Erdogan’’s accusations of the US involvement in the Gulen farce (read internal purge), the imprisonment of the US pastor (not endearing to the influential evangelical lobby), and the Kurds. In the opinion of this poster, the Kurds have been an ally in recent years, the Turkish government?, not so much. Sad to see the US president willing to sell the Kurds out for a frenemy. But I digress…
As far as unilateral; who owns the IP for the F-35 technology? There is no legal recourse for Turkey other than fighting for a refund, that will be an uphill battle considering contracts that have already benefitted Turkish areospace industries.
Lastly, what other US ally is ordering the S-400 from Russia since the sanctions went into effect? India? Non-aligned. Iraq? Not a US ally (and no order placed). Qatar? Not going to sign a contract while the US is supporting them in their ongoing isolation by other gulf states. That is a bit of hyperbole on your part.
FBWThis was stated over a month ago, no major disruption should Turkey be removed.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018…official-says/
i find your queries into into this matter disingenuous LMFS. You have several posters tell you essentially the same things:
The decision to ban sales of the F-35 due to the purchase of S-400 has nothing to do with proving or otherwise the stealth capabilities of the F-35 or that of the S-400 system to counter it.
It has everything to do with Turkey buying a weapon system from a country being sanctioned, not only by US, but every major NATO country… period… Germany, France, UK, Italy, shall I continue?
The US is correct in doubting the security of sensitive information contained in the F-35 program on how said system is identified and countered, if Turkey is willing to buy from a nation unfriendly to US.
it is a question of sovereignty as you stated, Turkey can choose to buy the S-400, and the US can choose to end sharing sensitive information and weapons with Turkey based on that. They cannot strongarm the US into continued participation in the F-35 program any more than the US can strongarm Turkey into cancelling the S-400 purchase if Turkey is set on following through with contract. Erdogan is playing poker with a pair of deuces. Just last summer, there was talk in Congress of suspending all FMS with Turkey. That would have a devastating impact on the Turkish military. The optimists can hope that this situation resolved itself over time and Turkey will eventually continue the F-35 contract and ties between the US and Turkey are repaired. I am not one of them. Nothing would make me happier to see Turkey never get the F-35 under the current Turkish leadership. And if Turkey wants to turn to Russia for Su-30’s or whatever, so be it (though I doubt relations between the US and Turkey will devolve to that level….unfortunately).
weapons sales have several components; financial, technological, and geopolitical. For the US, the financial implications of ending Turkey’s participation don’t outweigh the technological risks of transferring sensitive information to an unreliable ally. The geopolitical aspects between Turkey and the US are a mess right now and several NATO nation’s (not just the US) have been questioning the logic of Turkey’s continuation in the NATO alliance. What is the point of a military alliance containing an “ally” that acts counter to stated goals, and has divergent interests?
Read your Palmerston: “””We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and these interests it is our duty to follow.”””
The US and Turkey were allies due to mutual interests during the Cold War, the geopolitical landscape has changed.
FBW[USER=”64730″]Marcellogo[/USER]
The most accurate numbers from SAR report credit the F-22 with a supercruise speed of Mach 1.76, everything else is hearsay and conjecture.
The MiG-31 was designed for one mission, intercept at high Mach numbers. It should be no surprise it excels at this. That same specialization hinders it in every other mission set (though Russia recently wants to foist the idea of the MiG-31 armed with the kinzal as an unstoppable uberweapon. No interest in touching on that).
Personally, I take a dim view on the utility of supercruise stated by most manufacturers, internal fuel fraction rules supersonic persistence. Adding external tanks extends range, but with modern FCS, it also limits maneuver envelope (the term “drop tank” is an oxymoron these days).
lastly, drag index from external weapons is specifc to each aircraft. Four AMRAAMs on external pylons mounted to an F-15 may or may not have the same increase in parasitic and interference drag when compared to the same loadout on an F-18. So, for the Russians a dual launcher for the R-60 may have created an unacceptable amount of interference drag on the airframe it was mounted on. That does not translate to a dual launcher for the aim-9 being excessively draggy on a Typhoon or Superbug (well scratch the last one, with the toed out pylons, anything creates excessive drag on the F-18E/F)
edit- had to go look back on F-22 SAR report for accuracy.
FBWLMFS, first thing I would do is stop looking at this issue through the lens of defense media reports about this issue. This isn’t about whether Turkey’s purchase would “prove” or “disprove” the stealthiness of the F-35 or the S-400’s ability to detect it. It has everything to do with Turkey ignoring CAASTA (as a NATO member). A secondary issue may be sensitive information about sharing the F-35’s threat library and how it detects, identifies, and counters such systems. But mostly it’s due to an alleged ally buying a weapon system from a nation being sanctioned by the majority of NATO.
Addition- I’ve read some of the Russian sites speculation on this issues, they do tend to focus on the same non-issue “the US is worried the F-35 won’t be stealthy against the S-400”, or that it will prove or disprove this or that. I think it’s safe to assume that both the US and Russia have a rough model of what distances/vectors the F-35 can be detected by the S-400 in ideal conditions (in adverse EW environments is a whole other story). This isn’t the 1980’s where LO aircraft rely on signature reduction alone ala F-117.
FBWAs interceptor you want to reach the point of interception before an enemy carrier has released its missile payload and in case needed to shot them down, hence acceleration and speed, missile type, missile load, flight altitude and range are vital. How a 1.6 M F-35 would intercept a 2 M Tu-160 carrying 12 x Kh-101/102 is not that clear to me.
well, because the closing speed would be upwards of 1,500 knots at altitude (not a very successful intercept if it turns into a tail chase).
There are different intercept missions-
point defense intercept (QRA)- requires quick scramble, climb, acceleration. Examples: F-104, EE Lightning, Su-11.
Area intercept- long range, persistence. Examples- MiG-31, F-106, Su-15
Except for Russia, most nations don’t have any interest in a design optimized for the interception mission. Point defense interceptor tended to have poor range and utility in other mission sets, area defense interceptors tended to be large, expensive, and limited in other mission sets.
And Rafale is able to fly M1.7 (reportedly) with three “supersonic” 1250L tanks.
Sure can. Not sure of your point though. The Rafale is limited to 750kts/Mach 1.8 and the F-35 to 700kts/Mach 1.6. I’’ll never understand the obsession with top speeds for some on here (which enforce the false narrative of the F-35 being too slow for intercepts). Most fighters can maintain these speeds for only a short time before going “bingo”. If some think that a 50 knots CAS (70ish knots TAS) at 30+ thousand feet speed differential between these aircraft (especially considering fuel burn at those speeds) is a significant factor, your living in a video game reality of fighter performance.
I certainly wouldn’’t consider the F-35 to be a particularly hot point defense interceptor ala’ EE Lightning, it’s transonic acceleration is comparable to competitors loaded (multiple missiles, pylons, EFT) but suffers when compared to a slicked off Typhoon/Rafale et al. But with its considerable range, fuel fraction, and demonstrated supersonic persistence, it will be suitable in the area intercept mission (such a Canada would need).
FBWNot withstanding the usual “evil USA” comments, there are several layers to this issue.
having spent a bit of time looking into this, here are several of the issues (and heresay):
1. Croatian officials seem to be laying the blame entirely on Israel, Israeli news conveniently leaving out several key details:
US approved the transfer over two years ago contingent on Israel meeting the requirements.
2. The US agreed that Croatia could not afford new build aircraft and that the sale of used Israeli aircraft strengthened the air sovereignty of Croatia. But Israel could not offer the same deal to other nations without approval. (That’s stipulated in FMS)
3. Israel appeared to “pull a fast one” on contractual obligations for the overhaul and O&S. Basically, it would have to be an agreed upon division of work between the OEM (Lockheed now) and IAI. One part of this was also removal of some of the Israeli modifications to meet FMS rules (again most likely who would be responsible-profit- from upgrades and support)
4. The majority of F-16’s in service with the IAF were purchased with security assistance funds (or outright gifted) most of the F-16 C/D were purchased with defense security assistance through peace marble II/III. On other words, Israel is selling aircraft purchased with another nations taxpayer funded assistance, and made assurances to Croatia on the configuration of those F-16’s knowing it did not meet the conditions agreed upon by the US.
Opinion- considering the value of this contract, the US might have been willing to look the other way on Israel profiting from the sale to another US ally, but if the rumors of offers to Bulgaria et al are true, that cuts into possible US defense industry sales, violates FMS agreements. If the US was smart, they would “gift” a dozen F-16’s to Croatia with a contract to SLEP them and a separate support contract. That would avoid alienating Croatia which (at least according to what the government is saying) has been understanding of the disagreement. The added benefit would be giving Israel a rebuke as this isn’t the first time Israel has sold/attempted to sell weapons and technology subsidized by US taxpayers that could potentially hurt US industry or interests.
edit-deal looks dead, state blocked the sale this afternoon.
FBW, Croatian Defense Minister already denied that US is blocking’s sale. There might be a Hangup over specific equipment. Whatever is going on, I want some of what your smoking if you think Croatia would buy weapons from Serbia.
“The United States has consistently said what the technical requirements are for more than two years, and everyone should have known that these are the technical requirements, and so it’s a bit of a surprise to me that there is this slowdown right now,” Kohorst said December 8 in Zagreb
.
Not to mention the U.S. has every right to be annoyed with Israel profiting off the sale of F-16’s that were given to them as part of military aid. Most likely, the US want a piece of the upgrade pie for those F-16’s.
FBWSteve Trimble a respected defense journalist (now defense editor of AvWeek) correcting de Briganti’s misinformation on twitter, sad.
Defense-Aerospace is vying with “National Interest” as the most inaccurate, sensationalist, website covering defense topics. Then again, it’s been obvious for years that de Briganti’s modus operandi isn’t accuracy. It’s creative editorializing with an emphasis on promoting certain aerospace corporations.
FBWBetter acceleration and turning than F-22 especially when in clean A2A mode (no tanks).
You are of course privy to the flight performance of both at various altitudes? I think not. As with most statements containing absolutes, this one is absolute conjecture.
FBWOn the bright side, one less EOTS that will need to be replaced when advanced EOTS is integrated.
FBWSome sort of gear mishap at Eglin today. F-35 nose down on taxiway.
FBWWas a sensibility analysis conducted regarding to what happens in a peer/near peer conflict scenario if the favoured and very expensive “stealth” component turns sour because of possible developments of radar technology during the life of the plane?
Just focusing on two of your points:
1. I think amongst Russian posters (or even a widely lauded statement amongst LO luddites from a Russian General) there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of “stealth”. They tend to focus incessantly on RF reduction. Low Observable technology isn’t simply RF reduction.
First off, LO aircraft aren’t, were never claimed to be invisible to radar. What LO shaping does do it reduce distance at which a target can be dectected. LO shaping is particularly effective on mid-bands used for fire control radar. The US has always employed the strategy of balanced observables, meaning that RF, IR, electronic emissions are detectable at roughly the same range.
VHF/UHF radar isn’t a new development. And as BiO pointed out the potential for those to detect LO aircraft was studied from Very early in development of LO aircraft. Can they detect LO aircraft at tactically significant distances? Possibly, in controlled conditions. These radars also have significant drawbacks; to date not accurate enough for targeting, physically large size, susceptible to jamming, and the simple fact that what makes them seem as promising for detecting LO targets is their sensitivity that makes them susceptible to false returns, reliant on filter algorithms. How good are these?
Modern IADs with low frequency radars, passive detectors etc are being deployed now. Apparently rofar and quantum radar prototypes are already operating, while the F-35 needs to remain operative for many decades to come.
We need to separate the theoretical/experimental from practical/operational. There aren’t prototypes of either of Rofar or quantum radar. There are experimental demonstrators to test whether these developments are practical, and the level of technological readiness. It could be a decade, two, three before either become practical. Testing of Active electronic arrays were experimental in the 1950’s, prototyped in the 1960’s, and there were even (somewhat unsuccessful) attempts to field a practical operational array in the USN. The technology didn’t become truly practical until MMIC development and production reached maturity. Even then, development of a fighter sized array was considered one of the more technologically risky parts of the ATF project.
Point is won’t be one dramatic breakthrough that suddenly makes LO technology obsolete overnight. Many countries are working on developing counters, but the issue remains; there is a significant difference in being able to detect and being able to detect, track, target and engage. And a bigger issue in doing so in a contested EM environment with multiple decoys, Standoff and escort jamming, SEAD/DEAD methods (including improved ARM, cruise missile strikes, unmanned swarming attacks on AD assets).
FBWEngine performance is very important, I don’t know how this could be disputed. Determines lots of aspects of BVR and WBR combat. You cannot put all your hopes in avionics or supporting assets when designing a plane for A2A role, the advantage is not always going to be there in the needed amounts to compensate for worse kinematics. SW for avionics specifically is a field that can and will be developed by other countries with cheaper labour costs than US to the point where it is going to be difficult to maintain the technological gap. As to weapons, their size and amount are limited in a small VLO airframe, so this is also not a positive for the F-35
Well to discuss this piece by piece:
1. Engine performance, by which I believe you are referring to thrust to weight, acceleration, etc.
Reality is, that it is not a determining factor in the merge. The USAF did multiple studies on “dogfighting” both during and directly after the Cold War. One specific thing that was determined was that in the time that it takes for superior thrust to become a factor, the fight would be over. It was not a determinate of success. Not to say that acceleration isn’t critical in combat, it is, just not so much in the WVR arena. And the F-35 has excellent subsonic acceleration.
2. Speaking on one factor that was determined to be important in WVR combat “dogfighting” was situational awareness. So “putting your hopes in avionics” is exactly what research showed. Aircraft die in the merge because they lose track of overall tactical situation, become easy prey. And again, kinematic performance is not a determinant factor between fighter aircraft in a merge.
Looking at what I had written in previous post above, vis a vis F-22/-35. The F-22 was designed to operate at higher altitudes and speeds than the F-35 (or most any other fighter). It will outperform the F-35 at higher altitudes, and enters the fight with more energy. In BFM exercises with “canned” setups, different simulated weapon performance, etc. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn the F-35 is at a slight disadvantage to the F-22, Typhoon, Rafale. On the other hand, in simulated combat scenarios like Red Flag, I also am not surprised how welll the F-35 performs.
In regards to the exercises mentioned above, the RoE determining the setups would be interesting to know.
Sign In
