Britain told "No Access" to F-35 Software codes

Britain told "No Access" to F-35 Software codes

Author
Discussion

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Sunday 21st August 2016
quotequote all
aeropilot said:
Mave said:
Evanivitch said:
Completely agree. As I said, it's a political decision. Similarly, the Tucano or T-6 can't replace the A10Warthog either as neither would last 2 seconds against a semi-competent GBAD.
The A10 didn't do too well either in GW1 did it? Too much damage taken in the first few days to be allowed to stay below 12k feet...
Huh.....?

I guess you believe the senior USAF officers 'reasons to retire the A10' book of excuses......rather than what the A-10 and its pilots achieved in GW1 and in the 25 years of ops since.
Are you saying that it wasn't limited to flying above 12k' due to damage sustained in the first week of GW1?

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Sunday 21st August 2016
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Mave said:
The A10 didn't do too well either in GW1 did it? Too much damage taken in the first few days to be allowed to stay below 12k feet...
From accounts, I thought it did okay against a fairly well equipped Iraqi force. It flew a huge number of sorties and took some losses, but certainly not what you could call unreasonable given the role. At the end of the day it's an aircraft designed to take fire, not avoid it.
But it very quickly took fire, took damage, and tactics were changed to avoid fire. What proportion of CAS missions ended up being performed by the A10? Pretty few in the scheme of things.

Evanivitch

19,802 posts

121 months

Sunday 21st August 2016
quotequote all
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
And when is that likely to happen then?

Sure against an insurgency it might be the case but, given that everyone and his dog can get their hands on MANPADS and HMGs these days, I wouldn't be so sure.

Super Tucano / PC9 whatever isn't an ideal solution by any stretch of the imaginatione but they are a hell of a lot more manoeuvreble than an Albert.
Again, we're talking about low-risk. If there was a risk, I doubt anyone would want to be in a Tucano or an Albert at low level.

If there is a risk, I'd want a fast jet, no doubt.

Mave

8,208 posts

214 months

Sunday 21st August 2016
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Again, we're talking about low-risk. If there was a risk, I doubt anyone would want to be in a Tucano or an Albert at low level.

If there is a risk, I'd want a fast jet, no doubt.
A fast jet, or a slow jet? ;-)

Ginetta G15 Girl

3,220 posts

183 months

Sunday 21st August 2016
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Again, we're talking about low-risk.
A fictional scenario then.

RobDickinson

31,343 posts

253 months

Sunday 21st August 2016
quotequote all
In an 'easy' war against poorly equipped limited opposition it seems stupid to risk the A-10 in CAS when you dont need to, and can attack with other lower risk means.

I doubt it would be the same in any serious conflict where the outcome was in doubt. We dont do things like in WWII any more because we dont have to.

Evanivitch

19,802 posts

121 months

Sunday 21st August 2016
quotequote all
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
A fictional scenario then.
Yes, the last 15 years have all just been a horrible dream that could never possibly repeat.

Ginetta G15 Girl

3,220 posts

183 months

Sunday 21st August 2016
quotequote all
Ah so you are a one who would fight wars as are, not as they might be?

People like you are dangerous, not least because you have never faced putting your life on the line.

In your world we wouldn't have Typhoon.

In your world we wouldn't have Carriers.

In your world we wouldn't have F35.

In your world we wouldn't have T45.

In your world we wouldn't have Rapier FSC or Starstreak.



For all that you claim you work for a Defence Contractor, you really are a bit blinkered.


It's quite apparent that you have never 'placed yourself into danger'.

Edited by Ginetta G15 Girl on Sunday 21st August 23:10

Evanivitch

19,802 posts

121 months

Sunday 21st August 2016
quotequote all
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Ah so you are a one who would fight wars as are, not as they might be?

People like you are dangerous, not least because you have never faced putting your life on the line.
Oh jeesus. Are you always looking for conflict? Do you miss something in your life? Why must everyone know you're a former pilot and therefore believe everything you say is sacred?

You described the last 15 years as a "fictional scenario". Simple. That's a ridiculous statement.

Your last statement, hilarious. I work in defence, an industry named as a legitimate terrorist target, and I'm also actively perusing a role in the reserves.

Ginetta G15 Girl

3,220 posts

183 months

Sunday 21st August 2016
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Oh jeesus. Are you always looking for conflict? Do you miss something in your life? Why must everyone know you're a former pilot and therefore believe everything you say is sacred?
Excuse me? What the fk is your problem sunshine? You don't like my response so you resort to an attack.

Yes I am former RAF ergo I have experience as to the application of Air power

Evanivitch said:
You described the last 15 years as a "fictional scenario". Simple. That's a ridiculous statement.
It's a fictional scenerio you muppet precisely because neither you nor I can predict the next one FFS!

Evanivitch said:
Your last statement, hilarious. I work in defence, an industry named as a legitimate terrorist target, and I'm also actively perusing a role in the reserves.
So my 25 years as a Regular Officer, you know, doing it for real, writing defence requirements, understanding how wars work, is trumped by you working in Industry, and never having, you know, actually done it.

Yeah right.

Good Luck with that.

Sylvaforever

2,212 posts

97 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Sylvaforever said:
I won't call you a rude name, however just point out the airframes marginal (and that's being kind) transonic acceleration in full afterburger (or as real airmen say reheat).
However, if I may ask? do you know what happens to air when you compress it, like in a transonic shock wave...
I'm an Aerospace Engineering graduate with several years in UK defence industry.

You keep up the Walt work and I'm sure you'll prove engineers and users wrong.
To add a little perspective to your comments all I will say is

Come back when you have started to shave and join the Adult conversation.





Mansells Tash

5,713 posts

205 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Evanivitch said:
Oh jeesus. Are you always looking for conflict? Do you miss something in your life? Why must everyone know you're a former pilot and therefore believe everything you say is sacred?
Excuse me? What the fk is your problem sunshine? You don't like my response so you resort to an attack.

Yes I am former RAF ergo I have experience as to the application of Air power


So my 25 years as a Regular Officer, you know, doing it for real, writing defence requirements, understanding how wars work, is trumped by you working in Industry, and never having, you know, actually done it.

Yeah right.

Good Luck with that.
Ooh I love it when they make you all angry! Tell me, how often does your fella have to tell the lads down the pub he "walked into another door" because he questioned your opinion hehe

Sylvaforever

2,212 posts

97 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
IanH755 said:
Just to clarify, non of those above actually counter the points in my post regarding the range/speed/weapons carriage. Plus the points you raised are incorrect -

1. Superior DL's with legacy assets - No it doesn't. MADL is only F35 to F35, AWACS and legacy A/C only have a Link 16 DL to the F35 so it's no better at distributing any info than a F-15/16 according to the people who built it ( http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/SDRs/D...).

2. 100+ mile AMRAAM's - No it doesn't, that's hysterically inaccurate!
Why does the F35 need superior speed, range and weapons if it has superior target acquisition and BVR capability? You're applying cold ware top-trumps to a 21st century platform. How many guns does a T45 have?

You've missed my previous points on datalinks. The F35 can easily bridge a legacy Link 16 platform to a paired MDAL F35.

And regarding AMRAAM. Well, pick your source.
Perhaps he was he was getting mixed up with Meteor but that won't work/fit either hehe


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology

"An exhaust plume contributes a significant infrared signature. One means to reduce IR signature is to have a non-circular tail pipe (a slit shape) to minimize the exhaust cross sectional area and maximize the mixing of hot exhaust with cool ambient air (see Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk). Often, cool air is deliberately injected into the exhaust flow to boost this process (see Ryan AQM-91 Firefly and Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit). According to the Stefan–Boltzmann law, this results in less energy (Thermal radiation in infrared spectrum) being released and thus reduces the heat signature. Sometimes, the jet exhaust is vented above the wing surface to shield it from observers below, as in the Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk, and the unstealthy Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II. To achieve infrared stealth, the exhaust gas is cooled to the temperatures where the brightest wavelengths it radiates are absorbed by atmospheric carbon dioxide and water vapor, dramatically reducing the infrared visibility of the exhaust plume.[44] Another way to reduce the exhaust temperature is to circulate coolant fluids such as fuel inside the exhaust pipe, where the fuel tanks serve as heat sinks cooled by the flow of air along the wings.[citation needed]"




Moving one heat load to another location does not eliminate the observability of that heat source, in the B2 the engine exhaust is bled over the wing, further using the fuel as a medium to transfer heat in this particular case (if it does) would work very well as it has large tanks and flies high where the ambient temperature is very very cold it would need careful management however..

The F35 has none of these luxuries being a small tactical aircraft, there may be a level of reduction granted, however it has been proven that using Pirate RAF Typhoons are able to passively detect and engage raptor at long range in air combat exercises.....


Reducing radio frequency (RF) emissions

"In addition to reducing infrared and acoustic emissions, a stealth vehicle must avoid radiating any other detectable energy, such as from onboard radars, communications systems, or RF leakage from electronics enclosures. The F-117 uses passive infrared and low light level television sensor systems to aim its weapons and the F-22 Raptor has an advanced LPI radar which can illuminate enemy aircraft without triggering a radar warning receiver response."

F22 has been retrofitted with radio sets to enable tactical comms with other non F22 units such was the level of emission control applied to the aircraft.
Now we have F35 being retrofitted with Link 16, when does the stealth label no longer apply?

Now the issue is this program is approaching it's 30th year, they won't say that by attempting to obscurate, but after this time we are being expected to purchase sub optimal aircraft that will requite billions to rework up to an operational state.

Add in the fiasco of the B variants weapon bays and really, could we not have done better in both carrier and aircraft choice?

It's not too late to reverse these decisions, it would go a long way to revitalise the the RN surface fleet from the death spiral that it is in and go a long long way to protect the UK's borders and overseas territories..



http://www.reuters.com/article/us-uk-military-navy...



Edited by Sylvaforever on Monday 22 August 11:10

Evanivitch

19,802 posts

121 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Excuse me? What the fk is your problem sunshine? You don't like my response so you resort to an attack.
Haha your comprehension skills are amazing. You stated "people like you are dangerous". That's an attack. But you get all pissy when you have it back? Incredible!

Ginetta G15 Girl said:
Yes I am former RAF ergo I have experience as to the application of Air power
And that can be a very useful perspective into a discussion like we're trying to have here. But not in the way you put it forward as if any other opinion is completely false.

Ginetta G15 Girl said:
It's a fictional scenerio you muppet precisely because neither you nor I can predict the next one FFS!
So if I read a book on WW2 tactics, it would be fiction? Grab a dictionary. Again, we weren't talking about the next conflict, we were talking about a very specific scenario of that we've just seen.

Ginetta G15 Girl said:
So my 25 years as a Regular Officer, you know, doing it for real, writing defence requirements, understanding how wars work, is trumped by you working in Industry, and never having, you know, actually done it.

Yeah right.

Good Luck with that.
And my comment was completely in response to "People like you are dangerous, not least because you have never faced putting your life on the line".

Context. Content. Comprehension.

I'm more than happy to have a discussion with you about air tactics, but you do not seem able to have a civil conversation or able to follow the context of a discussion.

Evanivitch

19,802 posts

121 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
Sylvaforever said:
Perhaps he was he was getting mixed up with Meteor but that won't work/fit either hehe
Except you just said that it could. Now, whether those parameters align with op scenario or not, you've confirmed yourself that it can... Oh yeah, you might want to redact that info, I've not seen it in the public domain myself.


Sylvaforever said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology
Add in the fiasco of the B variants weapon bays and really, could we not have done better in both carrier and aircraft choice?

It's not too late to reverse these decisions, it would go a long way to revitalise the the RN surface fleet from the death spiral that it is in and go a long long way to protect the UK's borders and overseas territories..
You can discuss aspects of stealth all day if you want. The fact is that it's called low observation and signature management because the only way to be invisible is to not be there in the first place.

What aircraft would you suggest? An independent British 5th gen Harrier? We can't afford it. It would still be ITAR to the nuts. We haven't got time.

Mansells Tash

5,713 posts

205 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
I'm more than happy to have a discussion with you about air tactics, but you do not seem able to have a civil conversation or able to follow the context of a discussion.
You've never come across Squadron Leader Angry Pants before have you? Well let me tell you sunshine, she doesn't like it one bit! I'm pretty sure there is a huuuge list of people who would agree you only need to come across her once before it gets very messy and everyone wishes they'd never bothered.

Vitorio

4,296 posts

142 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
Evanivitch said:
Politically, it's designed to replace the A10 warthog, there was no way it would be accepted for that role (CAS) without a gun.
aeropilot said:
Yes, only the A version has an internal 25mm GAU-22 multi barrel cannon.........with a rate of fire of 3,000 rds/m........which sounds great until you find it can only carry 180 odd rds of ammo.... banghead
Hah, that'll go over well, trying to replace the king of BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT with 180 rounds of 25mm.

I always figured these types of guns (with only 2-3 seconds worth of ammo) where supposed to allow a jet to scare an opponent away from a dogfight when empty on sidewinders.

Sylvaforever

2,212 posts

97 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
Vitorio said:
Evanivitch said:
Politically, it's designed to replace the A10 warthog, there was no way it would be accepted for that role (CAS) without a gun.
aeropilot said:
Yes, only the A version has an internal 25mm GAU-22 multi barrel cannon.........with a rate of fire of 3,000 rds/m........which sounds great until you find it can only carry 180 odd rds of ammo.... banghead
Hah, that'll go over well, trying to replace the king of BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT with 180 rounds of 25mm.

I always figured these types of guns (with only 2-3 seconds worth of ammo) where supposed to allow a jet to scare an opponent away from a dogfight when empty on sidewinders.
Best bit was cancelling the "survivability" trials to try (and failing) to get the program back on track!

as in tank/ intake hydrostatic and projectile trials.

Oh does it now have a fire suppression system? it was deleted under a weight saving program but may have been reinstated.

Evanivitch

19,802 posts

121 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
Mansells Tash said:
You've never come across Squadron Leader Angry Pants before have you? Well let me tell you sunshine, she doesn't like it one bit! I'm pretty sure there is a huuuge list of people who would agree you only need to come across her once before it gets very messy and everyone wishes they'd never bothered.
Oh I have, and on similar topics. It's entertaining nonetheless.

Ayahuasca

27,427 posts

278 months

Monday 22nd August 2016
quotequote all
Can't help(from my non-expert perspective) thinking that parallels (PH pub parallels, granted) between the F35 and the German King Tiger tank can be drawn. The Tiger was technologically far in advance of any tank that the allies had, but it was so expensive and so complicated that the allies, provided with much greater number of less powerful, inferior tanks, like the Sherman, managed to win.

The Germans failed to appreciate that their dwindling resource was not individual tank capability, but the industrial and financial capacity to build and maintain them in sufficient numbers. You have a finite number of tank factory man-hours available so do you build lots of cheaper tanks or fewer expensive tanks? The Germans chose the latter, and they lost.