All Things Stealth

[cybermax]

I guess they managed to fix the tailhook problem.

[Mr King]

I found it interesting and worrying that an unmanned drone made its first tail hook landing on carrier before the F-35C has.

[CaptLuke]

I found it interesting and worrying that an unmanned drone made its first tail hook landing on carrier before the F-35C has.

 

Time from F-111 contract award to successful F-111B carrier trials: less than six years.

 

Time from F-35 contract award to successful carrier trials: TBD but more than 12 years and coming up on 13 . . .

 

. . . or, to look at it another way, the F-111B was developed, cancelled, and then the F-14 was developed and achieved IOC in less time than it is taking the F-35 to do its first carrier trap.

 

Also keep in mind that the first trap of a combat ready F-35C won't be till 2018 at the earliest and more likely 2020 or so.

[Josh]

And the P-51 was designed in 30 days.

 

But no one had to write 10 million lines of code for a P-51.

[Guest Charles]

And the P-51 was designed in 30 days.

 

But no one had to write 10 million lines of code for a P-51.

Do we know within OPSEC limits, just how many lines of code have been written for the F-35?. I've seen 20 million for the F-22 and 2 - 5 million for the F-15C.

 

Charles

[Josh]

I had read something like 2 million for F-22 and close to 10 million for F-35. Not all lines of code are equivalent and I think F-22 used ADA where as F-35 uses a flavor of C, but the basic point I was trying to make was 'a lot', as opposed to adjusting the carborators on a P-51. Software is your weapon system now. You cannot separate software development from a major weapons system; how well it will kill or provide SA is directly linked to how well it is written and tested. And that is a tedious process that gets logarithmically harder the more code / complexity you have.

[Guest Charles]

I had read something like 2 million for F-22 and close to 10 million for F-35. Not all lines of code are equivalent and I think F-22 used ADA where as F-35 uses a flavor of C, but the basic point I was trying to make was 'a lot', as opposed to adjusting the carborators on a P-51. Software is your weapon system now. You cannot separate software development from a major weapons system; how well it will kill or provide SA is directly linked to how well it is written and tested. And that is a tedious process that gets logarithmically harder the more code / complexity you have.

I believe that C is closer to the embedded than ADA, so will require more lines of code to implement the same instruction as ADA. That being said, there are more Engineers who can write in C than ADA, and more available COTS applications.

This does not change the fact that the F-35 is being asked to do so much more (as an airframe) than the F-22.

 

Charles

[CaptLuke]

And the P-51 was designed in 30 days.

 

But no one had to write 10 million lines of code for a P-51.

 

No one had to write 10 million lines of code for an F-35, it was a design choice and, like many other ones, was made to maximize capability without regard for delay or expense, exactly the opposite of what both the USAF and program were telling congress to sell the design.

 

Also the F-111 didn't have 10 million lines of code but it was built by people using slide rules. Yes the F-35 is a far more complex airplane but the tools being used by its designers are far more capable.

[DB]

On the other hand, when the F14 was put into service, its engines were essentially a POS and it couldn't realistically bring back a full weapons load either. And it didn't have a modern A2G capability, or the sensor suite that the F35 has. Don't look at the past through rose tinted specs. (And no, Stuart, that's not aimed only at you )

 

If there is one thing I've discovered through reading the unexpurgated views of the people who flew the aircraft from the salad days of the UK aviation industry, it's that they were all flawed to the point that not one of them would survive scrutiny in the modern era. (Now there's a bold claim.)

[CaptLuke]

On the other hand, when the F14 was put into service, its engines were essentially a POS and it couldn't realistically bring back a full weapons load either. And it didn't have a modern A2G capability, or the sensor suite that the F35 has. Don't look at the past through rose tinted specs. (And no, Stuart, that's not aimed only at you )

 

If there is one thing I've discovered through reading the unexpurgated views of the people who flew the aircraft from the salad days of the UK aviation industry, it's that they were all flawed to the point that not one of them would survive scrutiny in the modern era. (Now there's a bold claim.)

 

Not quite sure what a bad engine has to do with aircraft design timelines, but they knew at the time at the TF-30 sucked and were planning on the F-401. It's development failure left them stuck till the F-110 came along. Also kind of humorous that were talking about this while the F-35 fleet is grounded for an engine fire (and yes, I know that that does not mean the F135 is the same as the TF30).

 

Can't bring back a full weapons load? Yes that's an issue but the F-35B has the same issue both ways. If Grumman had arbitrarily pulled pylons off of the F-14 to reduce its weapons load, they would have addressed the issue the same way the LockMart did with the F-35B.

 

As for sensor suites, of course its more far advanced. The point is that, for its day, the F-14 broke new ground and, in that sense, it is equivalent to the F-35 development program.

 

The lesson of all this is, I believe, the opposite of your final point. When faced with a bad design, the USN cancelled it. It is the F-35 that never would have survived the scrutiny of the F-111/F-14 era, never mind earlier, not the other way around.

[JWB]

Stuart, the F-111 required 30 hours.

[sunday]

 

On the other hand, when the F14 was put into service, its engines were essentially a POS and it couldn't realistically bring back a full weapons load either. And it didn't have a modern A2G capability, or the sensor suite that the F35 has. Don't look at the past through rose tinted specs. (And no, Stuart, that's not aimed only at you )

 

If there is one thing I've discovered through reading the unexpurgated views of the people who flew the aircraft from the salad days of the UK aviation industry, it's that they were all flawed to the point that not one of them would survive scrutiny in the modern era. (Now there's a bold claim.)

 

Not quite sure what a bad engine has to do with aircraft design timelines, but they knew at the time at the TF-30 sucked and were planning on the F-401. It's development failure left them stuck till the F-110 came along. Also kind of humorous that were talking about this while the F-35 fleet is grounded for an engine fire (and yes, I know that that does not mean the F135 is the same as the TF30).

 

Can't bring back a full weapons load? Yes that's an issue but the F-35B has the same issue both ways. If Grumman had arbitrarily pulled pylons off of the F-14 to reduce its weapons load, they would have addressed the issue the same way the LockMart did with the F-35B.

 

As for sensor suites, of course its more far advanced. The point is that, for its day, the F-14 broke new ground and, in that sense, it is equivalent to the F-35 development program.

 

The lesson of all this is, I believe, the opposite of your final point. When faced with a bad design, the USN cancelled it. It is the F-35 that never would have survived the scrutiny of the F-111/F-14 era, never mind earlier, not the other way around.

 

 

 

Actually, the F-14 program ran out of DoD money once and was on the verge of being cancelled, situation that was averted by the direct intervention (and funds) of the Shah of Iran.

[DB]

I'm not sure why you're defending the F14 program by noting that the F35 program has faults.

 

I'm not saying that the F14 was rubbish, by the way, just that people seem to have this vision of the past that contains the claim that everything was just fine back then. If you'd rather, I'll pick on the English Electric Lightning - which never had enough range and leaked oil so badly from the upper engine that it should probably have been tech'd out for every flight ever attempted.

 

And yet it served the RAF for 30 or more years.

 

The F35 isn't perfect, it's never going to be perfect, but it's without any doubt a step forward in capability from previous systems. Judge it on its own merits, not on an impossible standard that comes from a rose-tinted view of never was.

[chino]

 

The Chinese reveal their black projects as part of intentional chest thumping propaganda. The PRC is much more about appearing to be strong to coerce neighbors than actual capability. This is not to say that they haven't made great strides across the board in technology and training, just to say that the primary goal in revealing their numerous 'black' projects is political driven and less about war fighting capability. Most of the photos of new stealth jet projects were pretty clearly taken by insiders and likely rolled out to the web by agents of the PRC (with plenty of fan bois jumping on of course). I consider it part of a broader 'look at what we're capable of' type media campaign.

 

I think they stand to benefit from seeming more capable than they are by having projects that seem revolutionary but may not hit IOC any time soon or ever. Consider: the 'carrier killer' DF-21D. Its got lots of armchair generals spooked and people declaring the CVBG obsolete. They only known test however was against a static outline of a CV in a desert; something that could easily be done with any standard IRBM using, ironincally, USAF run satellite guidance. No other publicly known test has been carried out and its not known to be operational. Its not like they could hide a test from an IRBM sized weapon against a moving target in the ocean inside the first island chain very easily even from civilian eyes. But its much more useful for them to imply they might have a weapon that works by rolling out these projects than to truly test them and potentially prove that they don't. There's some deterrence value there. There is no reason to assume that high tech, software integration intensive projects in the PRC don't meet with the same engineering problems they do in the west. Its just that since they don't print budgets, schedules, etc their projects are never over budget or behind and just their existence at all makes it look like the PRC is capable of perhaps more than it truly is. I'm sure there are plenty of actual black projects that we aren't privy to because the PRC truly considers them too sensitive or simply not sufficiently adding to the propaganda effect to be worth giving away.

 

Life is often a mixed bag: I'm sure some of their capabilities are there, and some are not. And as you said, some we don't even know are there. Just like Israel's possession of nuclear weapons. Everyone is certain they do, but no one can prove otherwise.

 

China definitely did the stealth plane test for propaganda. They plane may even be s hoax as many continue to believe. But time will tell.

 

While I know little about technology, I thought China's demonstration of shooting down a satellite notable. To the point where the US immediately responded by shooting down one or more satellites themselves to show that they "also can". Or is this again something that can be done by any one? I honestly don't know.

 

My simple logic goes that if China can shoot down a satellite in the vastness of space, wouldn't it then make sense that hitting a ship that's the size of a small town quite doable? Even if it is moving in a vast ocean?

 

Again, my lack of knowledge shows because I don't know the size of the satellite they shot down compared to a CV or even if satellites stay still in space or they orbit about in general. Because in movies they always look like they are not moving.

 

Finally, demonstration of military prowess is something everyone does. Not just China.

 

Little Singapore on a regular basis take pains to make our huge neighbours with their equally huge pens of asinine leaders understand they are dealing with a little military power. (Singapore's leaders are less asinine by comparison.)

Edited July 12, 2014 by chino

[Mr King]

Mitsubishi ATD-X-S Prototype Stealth Fighter. Interesting what they censored on the photo.

 

[Mistral]

Also , it looks quite small.

[mnm]

Looking like a mini F-15 with a beautifuly contoured inlet top. Speaking of the inlet top, if they wanted to censor it would have been much more interesting if instead of blanking the inside they stuck an image of a fake engine front or whatever deep inside the inlet for disinformation I can't read Japanese, but I assume one of the phrases means "Ahmanidejad, suck this!"

[JasonJ]

Nice find Mr King, had to go scramble on google looking for the TV clip.

 

But anyway, the craft is pulled out of the hangar at the 1 minute mark.

 

http://youtu.be/x6SUttlA_vo

 

The big green font says "First domestic stealth aircraft"

Edited July 13, 2014 by JasonJ

[Mr King]

It is pretty interesting. I didnt have more info than what I posted. Is this a experimental aircraft in the sense its for testing technology, or is it meant to eventually go into production?

 

 

It looks to me like the a F-17, F-16, and a F-35 had a threesome.

[JasonJ]

It is pretty interesting. I didnt have more info than what I posted. Is this a experimental aircraft in the sense its for testing technology, or is it meant to eventually go into production?

 

 

It looks to me like the a F-17, F-16, and a F-35 had a threesome.

 

Its a tech demonstrator. Its official name is ATD-X (Advanced Technological Demonstrator-X). According to the Japanese wiki, the name "ShinShin" was used only during the early stages within the department and is not at present officially or unofficially used.

[Mr King]

 

It is pretty interesting. I didnt have more info than what I posted. Is this a experimental aircraft in the sense its for testing technology, or is it meant to eventually go into production?

 

 

It looks to me like the a F-17, F-16, and a F-35 had a threesome.

 

Its a tech demonstrator. Its official name is ATD-X (Advanced Technological Demonstrator-X). According to the Japanese wiki, the name "ShinShin" was used only during the early stages within the department and is not at present officially or unofficially used.

 

 

Thanks JasonJ. I just found it hard to believe that they would go to all that trouble and end up building such a small aircraft when they want something in the league of a F-22.

[JasonJ]

 

 

It is pretty interesting. I didnt have more info than what I posted. Is this a experimental aircraft in the sense its for testing technology, or is it meant to eventually go into production?

 

 

It looks to me like the a F-17, F-16, and a F-35 had a threesome.

 

Its a tech demonstrator. Its official name is ATD-X (Advanced Technological Demonstrator-X). According to the Japanese wiki, the name "ShinShin" was used only during the early stages within the department and is not at present officially or unofficially used.

 

 

Thanks JasonJ. I just found it hard to believe that they would go to all that trouble and end up building such a small aircraft when they want something in the league of a F-22.

 

 

I'm far from being qualified in giving a reason but my hunch is that if Japan could avoid the cost of developing its own stealth fighter, then they would go with the F-22 in a heart beat. But if they feel the need to develop their own, then they'll develop something a little more specific for their situation. A smaller size seems to suggest a defensive interceptor role and no emphasis in deep pentration capabilities But of course, this is just a tech demonstrator. If an F3 was to be developed out of the ATD-X, the F3 may be larger.

Edited July 13, 2014 by JasonJ

[Archie Pellagio]

Reminds me of an enlarged Golden Eagle more than a true fighter.

Plus the RCS features don't seem too hectic.

[swerve]

From a story I saw on Aviation Week online today, the F-3 should be much bigger. AW said it had seen official documents which referred to IHI developing a 15 tonne thrust engine for the F-3.

[swerve]

While I know little about technology, I thought China's demonstration of shooting down a satellite notable. To the point where the US immediately responded by shooting down one or more satellites themselves to show that they "also can". Or is this again something that can be done by any one? I honestly don't know.

 

My simple logic goes that if China can shoot down a satellite in the vastness of space, wouldn't it then make sense that hitting a ship that's the size of a small town quite doable? Even if it is moving in a vast ocean?

 

Again, my lack of knowledge shows because I don't know the size of the satellite they shot down compared to a CV or even if satellites stay still in space or they orbit about in general. Because in movies they always look like they are not moving.

Satellites follow entirely predictable paths, & have nowhere to hide. Once spotted, you know where they'll be whenever you want them. You can see 'em with telescopes every time they come over, to confirm it.

 

Aircraft carriers follow unpredictable paths, You can spot them with satellites - except that the carriers know the orbit of everything that might be a recce satellite, & can often arrange to be somewhere else when a satellite passes over. And even if spotted, & fired at immediately, it has time to move a significant distance before anything you shoot at it gets there.

 

In wartime, spotting a carrier with aircraft, ships, or submarines means getting past its escorts & fighters. Encountering them will tell you where the carrier group is, but not where the carrier is within it - & a carrier battle group can cover a large area, big enough that you can't just fire a weapon into it & hope to hit the carrier.