Defpro.com, a wonderful networking site for defense industry types, has the most remarkable commentary today. The headline is phrased politely as a question, but the text is a stinging and informed argument against the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. There have been many arguments against the multi-national jet -- with few public rebuttals from its muzzled supporters, who don't wish to the dilute their F-22 argument -- but few have had the rhetorical strength and factual analysis as this piece.
I've tried various ways to excerpt certain portions, but gave up. I encourage you to visit defpro's web site to read the commentary there, but I've also pasted it below to jump-start a discussion here.
I've tried various ways to excerpt certain portions, but gave up. I encourage you to visit defpro's web site to read the commentary there, but I've also pasted it below to jump-start a discussion here.
Is American Air Power on the Verge of Collapse?
By John Halldale
The Australian think-tank, Air Power Australia (APA), has released another in their series of techno-strategy papers, this time analysing the advancements in Russian-built Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS) (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-02.html), and what it means in global strategic terms for the Americans. The APA report is direct and unequivocal - Russian radar and missiles have improved to the point where the US fleet of F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s, as well as the planned Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), are not capable of surviving against these systems and unless the Americans build another four hundred-plus F-22s, they will lose the strategic advantage they have held since the end of the Cold War.
The result will be nations such as China, Iran and Venezuela thumbing their noses at the Americans, knowing that no President will commit to using force in the knowledge that hundreds of jets and pilots would be lost.
The paper comes a month after APA savaged the JSF (http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html). APA's Dr. Carlo Kopp, who completed his PhD in radar engineering, simulated the radar signature of the F-35 and showed exactly how vulnerable it will be to the Russian radar systems and missiles that have emerged since the specification for the JSF was drafted over a decade ago. Lockheed-Martin has not publicly disputed Kopp's findings yet.
The APA IADS study confirms, in tedious detail, what many of us have suspected or known for some time and what U.S. Air Force generals said repeatedly before being forcefully muzzled by the Bush Administration. That is the simple fact that the globalised economy has given Russian radar and missile designers the technology to close the gap with the US and EU designers in most areas which matter. The Russians have used this technology to digitize many Cold War missile and radar designs, and vastly improve post-Cold War designs. The new S-400 has no equivalent in the West, having outstripped and outgrown the Patriot.
The Russians obviously spent a lot of time thinking about how the Americans busted the Iraqi IADS in 1991 and the Serbian IADS in 1999. Like chess players, they looked at what the Americans used, where they were going, and figured out how to checkmate the mighty US Air Force.
Russian industry is now building and marketing short-range missile systems specifically built to shoot down American HARM anti-radar missiles and cruise missiles. They are also putting electronic countermeasures and decoys on their radars to prevent missiles and smart bombs from hitting them. Further, the Russians are currently testing a 400 km range missile, the 40N6, so they can shoot down or drive off American jamming aircraft like the Prowler, Growler and Compass Call. These same missiles can be used to keep the Rivet Joint and AWACS electronic reconnaissance systems out of useful range.
In strategic terms, the Americans are now in real trouble. China is fielding around 500 Russian Flankers and the latest Russian IADS. Iran is fielding the SA-20, and already has the SA-5, upgraded Chinese SA-2s and, some people claim, the HQ-9s - cloned SA-20s. Further, the US aerial tanker fleet is 40-years-old, and the fighter fleet was mostly built twenty-five years ago - many of the F-15s are now older than the pilots flying them. Iraq and Afghanistan have bankrupted the U.S. defence budget and now Wall Street has bankrupted the U.S. economy.
The only modern and credible fighter the Americans have is the F-22, and it is the only way they can recapitalise their collapsing fighter fleet in the next decade, with an aircraft which can actually survive the first day of an air war. The F-35 is not an F-22 and can never become an F-22. The F-35 is, first and foremost, an export fighter program.
We should not mislead ourselves about the seriousness of this matter. Leading American analyst Dr. Richard Hallion, in a recent interview commented: "Today, if NATO wanted to establish an air exclusion zone over Georgia, it could not do so with any aircraft other than the 5th Generation F-22 Raptor...".
Who is most to blame for American air power now teetering on the edge of collapse?
Clearly it has been the Bush Administration, who considered the EU fighter industry a more important enemy to kill than exported Russian Sukhoi fighters and Almaz SAM systems. Rather than sticking with the conservative US Air Force plan for 700+ F-22s, they chopped the number down to 180 aircraft. Why? To force every American service and every American ally to buy into the F-35 monopoly.
Where does this leave us Europeans? We have, since the start of the Cold War, depended on the Americans to provide the fighter top cover, the SAM suppression and the standoff radar jamming none of us were prepared to fund. We, much like the Americans, overindulged in the peace dividend and downsized several times over.
The mighty collective NATO air forces are now a pale shadow of what they were in 1989.
If the Obama Administration decides to follow the Bush Administration policy to terminate F-22 production, the strategic consequences will be just as grave for America's NATO allies as they will be for America.
on February 3, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply
sorry Steve,
DefPro is another bastion of anti F-35 thinking. The thought that the Bush administration (a huge proponent of globalization and the free markets) would set out to destroy the European fighter industry is beyond laughable, its pathetic. Further the focus on the US defense industry from a European point of view is a non starter. The Europeans have neglected their own forces for decades, have treated their arms industries as public work agents and now have the temerity to actually criticize our procurement policies?? AMAZING! Blanket statements that the US has no competitor to the S-400 is also false. The THAAD system is certainly capable of being called at the very least an equal if not superior system and is coming online with the US Army. The US Navy is fielding missiles with similar capabilities, the SM-6 which is now finishing testing. Finally to the actual subject of this article, the F-35. Despite ongoing competitions that the Lightning 2 is winning, regardless of the idea that the US govt. has so far been unwilling to sell that (F-22) plane to other nations and despite that aircraft's (F-35) superiority to other available platforms currently or projected to fly (F-22 not being compared here)--why is it thought that the destruction of European aviation is the reason for its existence? The purpose was to field an affordable contemporary to the F-22, a plane that would be stealth and could fight in a high threat environment on day one. Its here and still the nay sayers are not satisfied. I'm reminded of teenagers that just want their MTV or in this case the F-22. In either situation, they shouldn't get what they want.
on February 3, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply
Great to hear another reasoned viewpoint. THAAD is engineered as more of a anti-missile system than the primarily anti-aircraft S-400, but I take your point. I also take your point on the European perspective about the F-35's original purpose. Obviously, the USMC needed an AV-8B replacement and the USAF and USN at least at the time thought they needed an F-16/F-18 replacement. If crushing the European fighter industry was the point, it was a) at best, a secondary bonus and b) a big failure.
on February 3, 2009 5:29 PM | Reply
Solomon, google for "Lampyridae" to see why the Europeans don't develop true stealth aircraft - there was an important U.S. involvement.
on February 3, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply
Well, this guy lost all credibility with me the moment Carlo Kopp was cited as an expert, much less a radar engineer. That man needs to stick to telephones.
He grossly underestimates the F-35's stealth capabilities- and he knows damn well that neither the DOD or Lockheed Martin can comment because of the security issues surrounding stealth technology. It's still classified despite what some would have you believe.
I would comment on the other aspects of the article, but Solomon beat me to it. But I will add that the F-35 was meant primarily as a replacement for our horde of legacy jets, not primarily for export.
One last thing to add since I know this is coming:
Scream all you want about how much you think the F-35 sucks. No one of any consequence i.e. people who make policy, gives a damn what your opinion is. They have internal DOD data and professional analysts for their decision making processes.
on February 3, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply
"despite that aircraft's (F-35) superiority to other available platforms currently or projected to fly"....
At this time, until there is a significant amount of flight testing and in spite of marketing spin, this statement has no proof. But yes, believe LM and JPO press releases wholesale.
on February 3, 2009 8:19 PM | Reply
I am not an F-35 basher. My job is to report as many different reasonable perspectives as possible. But I'm curious, Dave. Why so much confidence in the judgment of DOD's professional analysts? It's not like they have a clean track record.
on February 3, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply
Sorry Solomon....
It never ceases to amaze me how proponents of the JSF use personalized argument ("......another bastion of anti F-35 thinking") to vanguard their responses which are clearly designed to deflect any attempt at critical debate on this jet and the JSF Program, yet seem incapable of providing substantive arguments, inclusive of any data and facts or reasoned evidence, to support their strident adherence to the JSF Program mantra. This all seems somewhat precious.
There has been some great engineering done under the JSF Program, although on the quite expensive side of the ledger and, increasingly, a long time coming as well as somewhat off the mark.
Most of the aerospace professionals I know certainly had hoped the JSF Program would fulfil its promise but the hyperbolic marketing coupled with the myriad of less than truthful (let alone believable) claims require, if not demand, frank and fearless interrogation in the sunlight, rather than being concealed behind a cloak of false secrecy.
Turning to the JSF Program mantra. Affordability? I think we can all agree the program has failed on this score and, as evidenced by the JET, there is more to come. Lethality? Yet to be demonstrated but the limited payload, less than stellar aerodynamic and kinematic performance the design affords (when compared with the current and near future threats), and the limited growth margins in volume, electrical power, thermal management and thrust strongly suggest otherwise.
Survivability? The threats have changed and markedly since the JSF specification, which is based upon threats from an era past, was sealed. CAIV has done much to reduce this capability while boisterous overmarketing with little attention to the Laws of Physics has led to checks being signed which the jet will not be able to honour. Even now, the absence of a certificated ejection system is holding back the test program. Then there is the less than appropriate maximum speed at low altitudes (in the CAS and battlefield interdiction part of the JSF specification) due to the canopy birdstrike limit.
Supportability? Again, yet to be demonstrated but Autonomic Logistics and its sister systems are, as those who understand such things, the holy grail of the support contractor - the aerospace version of Microsoft Support. Handing the sovereign control of ones air combat capability over to an international congolmerate does not bode well for the future and does nothing for retaining the skills and competencies needed to support the defence of one's Nation. Then there are the physical attributes of the aircraft's design, such as the very high approach speeds (~180 knots over the fence for the F-35A), less than stellar take off performance, inordinately high noise levels, multiple (and quite heavy) adaptors required in the stores suspension system, and the unique, expensive fastener systems, to name but a few of the less well known issues.
Don't you think it is time for some honest, critical and, as Tom Burbage says, "strong debate" about this program?
Finally, on your claim that what has been said about "the S-400 is also false". Why are you comparing a specialised ABM system like the THAAD with a multi role, high mobility, self defending SAM/ABM system like the S-400? How will the THAAD handle cruise missiles, particularly of the super sonic variety? Same questions would apply to the Navy SM-6 system.
on February 3, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply
To Dave....
Ditto on the ad hominem stuff - it just weakens any argument you might want to put. You should check your claims with the facts before making such defamatory comments. One does not get published in Skolnick without being an expert in radar systems.
I suggest you check out Dr Kopp's CV, then apologise. If you can't do that, then it is you who has no credibility, either professional or as a person.
As for your assertion that "the DOD or Lockheed Martin can(not) comment because of the security issues surrounding stealth technology", remember it was they who put the stealth issue into the public domain, through their blue sky and less than correct marketing.
It is interesting that in some of their presentations, the RF KPP is set at VLO yet in others seen over in Europe (Norway and Denmark) the KPP is set at LO.
No doubt the jet will have a VLO signature on the nose (+/- ~ 30 degrees). In fact, the nose design is quite impressive, pedigreeing off the F-22 Raptor design, though without the AlBeMet structure and a few other bibs and bobs.
However, the rest of the airframe will be LO and Observable, particularly in bands other than X and Ku for which the design has been optimised.
LM and the JSF Project office do not have to breach any security classification to give an honest and truthful assessment of the JSF observables. A simple comparison, in relative normalised terms as they do for other performance parameters, with the F-22 Raptor observables across the RF and optical spectrum and around the aircraft would suffice.
This is important because LM and the JSF Project Office have made it so by marketing the JSF as "an equivalent to the F-22". If the JSF is not as stealthy as their marketing claims would have everyone believe, then it is neither fish nor fowl - just a very expensive, single engine, heavy mid performance machine built to a specification from an era past with little if any growth margin to allow for future threats that is likely to be obsolete before its time.
Finally, Steve has asked you a quite valid and incisive question which I hope you will take the time to answer.
However, if you intend to continue to use the argument along the lines of "How can all these govts/people be so wrong!", just take a look at how the Global Financial Crisis came into being. Compare the sophistry and spin that emanated from the Mercantiles and Wall Street as well as the Regulatory Community and governments around the world with that which underpins the JSF Program mantra. Then ask yourself, "Why?"
on February 3, 2009 10:07 PM | Reply
>>>Why so much confidence in the judgment of DOD's professional analysts?
The comment was't actually directed at you Stephen. But the problem with talking about any of this stuff in a public setting is that most of the information that is pertinent to the discussion is not available due to security reasons. If you only see part of the information, you can't have an informed discourse. It's not so much I have faith in the Pentagon- it's just that most of the public discourse is simply uninformed.
on February 3, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply
> I suggest you check out Dr Kopp's CV
Kopp has a vested interest in seeing the F-35 fail so he can sell his super-vark upgrade plan
as always, follow the money
PS his CV has no stealth expertise (besides what he makes up for APA)
on February 3, 2009 11:45 PM | Reply
...but Dave, you haven't answered the question!
Why so much confidence in the judgement of organisations who have suppressed independent thought, shunned reality, and are unable to take advantage of learning from mistakes because they are not permitted to admit to any?
As for the 'security reasons' smoke screen - see my last on the low observables. The marketing folks are the ones that have put this issue into the public domain. Besides, since this is such an important part of what the JSF is supposed to be, it should be brought out into the light of day. This can be done without breaching any security classification. I swear, some of those who use 'security reasons' as an excuse not to discuss such important matters would most likely want to classify the radar range and Navier-Stokes equations!
This is the pinnacle of hubris of those who would appear not to understand such things.
How do you know people are 'simply uninformed'? Do you think anyone who does not agree with the JSF mantra lacks integrity?
What is so secret about the costs? Is it because of the way they have been misrepresented all this time?
What is so secret about the risks associated with pushing the weapons clearance programs beyond SDD, into the operational phase where, if the high probability risks that have been identified end up materialising, then the jet will be near to useless as even a bomb truck?
What is so secret about the aerodynamic and kinematic performance? Why can't these be discussed openly?
Give us all a break and let's have the "strong debate"!
on February 3, 2009 11:47 PM | Reply
"I can tell you but it is secret" is a pretty weak marketing gimmick.
on February 3, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply
Some interesting CV stuff on Kopp
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aesa-comlinks-did-reader-has-done-prior-research-01762/
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=76uF2Xebm-gC&pg=PP14&lpg=PP14&dq=skolnik+lynch+kopp&source=bl&ots=vTGMzlOcLQ&sig=u7ZrDzBL2vepGHImuxWrQqIcipg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP232,M1
http://www.rfc-editor.org/internet-drafts/draft-tyson-lgsp-01.txt
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/publications/2004/tr-2004-161-full.pdf
on February 3, 2009 11:51 PM | Reply
"The Australian think-tank, Air Power Australia (APA"
That's as far as I made it. Looks like the DEW Line is on the Ares bandwagon when it comes to the F-35.
on February 3, 2009 11:52 PM | Reply
Some interesting CV stuff on Kopp
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/aesa-comlinks-did-reader-has-done-prior-research-01762/
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=76uF2Xebm-gC&pg=PP14&lpg=PP14&dq=skolnik+lynch+kopp&source=bl&ots=vTGMzlOcLQ&sig=u7ZrDzBL2vepGHImuxWrQqIcipg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPP232,M1
http://www.rfc-editor.org/internet-drafts/draft-tyson-lgsp-01.txt
http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/publications/2004/tr-2004-161-full.pdf
on February 4, 2009 12:36 AM | Reply
Where to begin...
(1) VHF radar is not (much) effected by the stealth shaping of the F-35, F-22, B-2, or F-117. Sophisticated nations (including Russia) have many VHF SAM systems.
So, we could not establish a no-fly zone over Georgia using F-22s!
(Try SAMS?)
The F-22 is not a magic "silver bullet".
Stealth should only be seen as part of the overall electronic warfare capability of the force. (Comparable to submarines in a naval force.)
(2) Suppose for a moment that we decide that it is ~not~ in our best interests to start a conventional war with a nuclear armed superpower, against the wishes of the Russian citisens we would be flying over. I think this would be a more constructive point from which to debate military requirements.
(3) Europe ~has~ been funding its own fighter top cover, SAM suppression, and standoff radar jamming.
(4) We have never deployed stealth fighters in any conflict. This has not prevented presidents deploying forces in the past - why would it prevent them in the future? (Remember: advanced SAMS can see and kill F-22s - unless something else has killed/jammed them first, of course.)
...I can't work out the nationality of the author... is he really European? If so, and the USA is unreliable, then isn't the solution to go for a European competitor to the F-22?
However, in response to the question in the title, my answer would tend towards "yes", due in large part to the cost of attempting to build an all-stealth air superiority force!
- How does stealth help me shoot down cruise missiles?
- How does stealth help me shoot down incomming bombers? (That dont have any AAMs or air intercept radar.)
- How does stealth help me intercept incomming penetration attack aircraft that are going after a surface target? (In the 1982 Falklands war, incomming Mirages would often abandon their attack runs when they _detected_ the harriers trying to intercept them. Stealth would increase the chance of killing them, but also increase the chance of the enemy getting to fire upon the asset you are trying to protect.)
The experience from the Navy, when they first got submarines, is that many tried to use them defensively, but that proved a massive waste of resources, and they turned out to best use offensively.
Of course, Offensive Anti Air and SEAD do both benefit greatly from stealth, so it has it uses... but for the entire Air Superiority requirement?
on February 4, 2009 1:57 AM | Reply
I think APA's credibility, and anyone who chooses to cite them as a primary source, was conclusively shattered when, trying to argue in favor of the F-22 by exaggerating the supposed unreliability of modern BVR missiles, they wound up arguing in favor of a modern Mig-21, essentially Sprey's (not entirely specious) argument. That they would employ such poor logic (with unsupported premises) in order to prove a point, whilst shooting themselves in the foot, cannot occasion confidence on the part of any objective, disinterested observer.
As for the F-35, I don't think the argument against it rests in its supposed inadequacy versus a modern IADS. Despite Kopp's claims, it is highly improbable that by merely *looking* at an aircraft's overall shape one can deduce its RCS with any degree of accuracy as in LO shaping, the devil's in the details. The real question is, given limited resources, whether the F-35 is the best alternative. More to the point, the *only* alternative, as has been trumpeted by Gates and his minions like Gordon England. I believe that for the USAF, close to 350 F-22s, some 500 F-35s, and about 1,000 UCAVs is about the right mix. As for the USN, forget the F-35C and wait for UCAV-N. Let the Marines have outrageously expensive F-35Bs, just like they got their outrageously expensive V-22s (frankly, the Marines are a huge, effing problem for the U.S. armed forces, when they are rather less than necessary - when was the last time an amphib landing was instrumental in war, for Chrissakes??? - and yet eat up a huge part of the defense budget to pay for ridiculously expensive programs that have, at best, limited utility and don't work nearly as well as advertised). But there is no doubt that an ultra-stealthy, tailless UCAV would be more survivable, have longer range and would be less expensive to operate than the F-35. The only reason the F-35 is being shoved down the USAF's and USN's throats is because of the goddamned Marines and because LM wants to export it for (relatively) cheap. And that, my friends, does not constitute sound national security policy...
on February 4, 2009 7:38 AM | Reply
The entire fault for the current situation is laid at the feet of the Bush Administration, really? How about the about 5 fighters we bought in the entire decade of the 90's while still quite heavily using them in various hot spots and no fly zones. Clinton also cut the aquisition staff causing the currrent poor weapons buying structure or is that Bush's fault to?
There is definately a perspective amongst media types that you gain instant credibility if you blame Bush and company. Please read the constitution Congress controls the purse strings if they wanted to build 1000 F-18 E/F's and F-15C/E's they could.
Defense planning has been disfunctional for awhile I do not know the solution.
on February 4, 2009 7:55 AM | Reply
Solomon and Dave nailed the referenced article and it's simple promotion of Kopp's anti-F-35 drumbeat.
I would only add the following few points:
Calling Kopp's piece a 'study' does an injustice to real studies. I'd call it more of an 'advocacy' paper with a pretty good undergrad-quality radar literature review, and perhaps part fishing expedition. No measurements, no data = no study. That planform picture in the 'study' with its red/yellow/green zones as it is presented, is only what we in the biz call a 'cartoon'. I can draw one with 360 degree blue zones but it wouldn't be any more or less real or authoritative.
Citing Kopp's CV is merely a form of 'appeal to authority'. Indeed, I find it one of the more objectionable forms, because he is not an expert in the most important field relevant to RF low observability: Computational Electromagnetics (CEM).
As a EE PhD colleague of mine (RF specialist who would not presume to claim expertise in CEM) best puts it : "For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD". So in balance to Kopp's fantasies of being able to determine the LO signature of the F-35 through an analysis of its shape without an understanding of its structure and OML coatings, let us refer to a PRACTICING expert in the design and development of LO aircraft, and his thoughts on the subject - expressed upon receiving a Kelly Johnson briefing on the LO technology that was part of the SR-71:
"...I all of a sudden realized that an RCS engineer can't obviously interpret an external configuration of an airplane as an RCS treatment unless he has some other information, indication, or suspicion."
--John Cashen (as cited in a book on the A-12 debacle, The $5 Billion Misunderstanding, pg 22.).
Pick your expert: successful practitioner or outsider critic. I believe the guy with the verifiable data.
Finally, I've said it before but it bears repeating: At least Bill Sweetman admits it when he's guessing.
on February 5, 2009 12:15 AM | Reply
If anything you should agree with the Kopp paper. It states that the F-35 will meet its low observable requirements.
on February 5, 2009 12:21 AM | Reply
To Mike Wheatley -
Very good points with some fine laterals.....but a bit off the mark re B-2 & F-22 in relation to lower band detection systems. Fortunately, the overall capabilities for penetrating IADS are much better than you suggest, though the B-2 is restricted to night ops unless escorted by the likes of the F-22. That is a potent force and is able to penetrate modern day and, with appropriate technology insertion upgrades, future IADS.
To Solomon, Dave, irtusk, sferrin, Obamanite and SMsgt Mac -
Thank you all, gentlemen, for proving my earlier proposition:
"It never ceases to amaze me how proponents of the JSF use personalized argument to vanguard their responses which are clearly designed to deflect any attempt at critical debate on this jet and the JSF Program, yet seem incapable of providing substantive arguments, inclusive of any data and facts or reasoned evidence, to support their strident adherence to the JSF Program mantra."
You have all demonstrated one of the big malaise afflicting many of the JSF proponents - a propensity to argue on the basis of the 'who...' as opposed to the 'what is right'.
Clearly, for whatever reason, you don't like this Dr Kopp or the Air Power Australia Think-Tank group. That is your perogative. However, don't make it perjorative and let it blind side you to the data, information, knowledge and arguments available from APA and others.
Speaking of others, experts in the UK, France, Germany and the USA as well as the lands of the Bear, Dragon and Elephant agree with what Dr Kopp is saying about the JSF observables. In my discussions, I have heard said - "...Kopp's work is right on the money", "...their results are well inside the ball park", and "...this is further proof of the farce that is the JSF" as well as "Finally, someone has been prepared to say publicly what we all privately knew. Bravo!".
SMsgt Mac -
You cite a Dr John Cashen quote:
"...I all of a sudden realized that an RCS engineer can't obviously interpret an external configuration of an airplane as an RCS treatment unless he has some other information, indication, or suspicion."
I would suggest the 'suspicion' that prompted Dr Kopp and APA to undertake the study and resulting analyses to get the data and information was two fold -
1. The axisymmtric nozzle configuration; and,
2. The underbelly lumps and bumps.
Anyway, why don't you just ask John?
And while you are at it, ask others like those who worked with John.....such as his former boss, Dr Dave Lynch, and others who have been published in Skolnick et al?
I am prepared to wager, their professional views will more closely align with those of Dr Kopp and APA than with the marketing influenced assertions coming out of the minds and mouths of what some have referred to as "the JSF cheer leaders".
Any takers?
on February 5, 2009 6:10 AM | Reply
RE: Kopp agreeing F-35 meets specs.
***
Hmm,. That IS just "damning with faint praise" though isn't it? My point, that Kopp couldn't possibly 'evaluate' the susceptibility of the F-35 design (or any other design) in any part of the spectrum without knowing more than what the design 'looks' like on the outside, is still standing.
But let's take this one step further and think about what else is missing in Kopp's 'study'. The one BIG thing. The gorilla in the room....
How about the combat environment as shaped by all the other actors in the environment (friend and foe)? Any 'study' that ignores the battlespace and the well known 'friction' inside it is conducting little more than an academic exercise of the 'all other things held constant' variety. The F-35 is a system in a system of systems and has to be viewed in such a context.
****
RE: Anyway, why don't you just ask John?
And while you are at it, ask others like those who worked with John.....such as his former boss, Dr Dave Lynch, and others who have been published in Skolnick et al?
I am prepared to wager, their professional views will more closely align with those of Dr Kopp and APA than with the marketing influenced assertions coming out of the minds and mouths of what some have referred to as "the JSF cheer leaders".
****
Well hello there, Brave Sir Robin!
First of all, if Lynch disagrees with Cashen then your comment only supports my "Equal and Opposite PhD" point doesn't it? What’s with all the angst?
Second, assuming we haven't crossed paths before, you should know I'm pretty much on record all over the place as believing we don't need as many F-35s in the AF as is currently planned, but the Navy needs lot more than they're getting. I'm on record as being FOR all the F-22s the AF wanted as of about 1993. I'm also on record that I believe we need more long-range strike heavy bombers....hardly a 'cheer leader' eh?
Third, if your knowledge of the early players in modern LO was more than cursory, you would not have committed ANOTHER flawed appeal to authority in referencing Dave Lynch. Lynch, while being the grand midwife of the Low Probability of Intercept Radar, and who like John Cashen came out of the IR/optics world, is best known as an 'emitter' guy.
Finally: When (and if) Kopp ever produces 'data' I'm sure there'll be more than just one Brave Sir Robin yelling and pointing to it. Until that time Kopp and Co are the ones doing the 'marketing'.
BTW 1: WHICH "Skolnick et al"? Would that be the Radar Handbook Skolnick? - another 'emitter' guy?
BTW 2: And don't think some of these comments in here don't look like thinly disguised fishing expeditions. Sorry, but you'll only get public data references from this direction, and it looks like others are on to the game as well.
on February 8, 2009 1:10 AM | Reply
Dear SMsgt Mac,
Sorry for taking a while to get back to you but have been somewhat busy.
Have sent you comments, along with this thread, to a dear friend to the deep South of me, so will hold on addressing all you points till I hear back.
Intermediate replies to some of your more pointed comments follow -
"ANOTHER flawed appeal to authority"....given your own appeal to a "a EE PhD colleague of mine" and Dr John Cashen, this is a bit 'pot and kettle', if not disingenuous of you, don't you think?
"Fishing".....I don't need to fish to put food on the table. Please don't confuse a genuine and honest desire to inform, the implementation thereof being somewhat constrained by circumstances, with the childish (or should that be childlike) games employed by newsgroup trolls and other wannabes.
What have you got against, as you call them, "another 'emmiter' guy"? All are more than capable of interpreting and applying the works of Maxwell et al and associated tools as, I suggest, is Dr Kopp.
While we are waiting to hear back from my Southern friend, suggest you might consider re-reading Kopp's paper, including the annexes. From some of your comments, it is clear this would be a worthwhile and informative thing for you to do.
By the way, would you be interested in taking up the wager?
on February 9, 2009 6:07 AM | Reply
"Appeal to authority" is not a difficult concept, just a fairly specific one.
Arguing for deference to an opinion because the opinion comes from someone with 'expertise' may, under certain circumstances, become a fallacious 'Appeal To Authority'. Those circumstances can include a number of factors, but in this case, referencing Kopp’s expertise in the form of his degrees, his papers, or other elements of his CV, can be considered fallacious on two counts.
One, arguably, is on the basis of 'perceived bias' - Kopp writes less like a scientist or engineer and more like a politician or advocate on his website. This might not seem that way to others; hence my use of the term 'arguably'. But the other and more concrete case against referencing Kopp's credentials is that they are not in the area of expertise relevant to designing and building low observable systems.
In just considering the CEM aspects of ‘LO expertise’, we find a highly-specialized subset of theoretical mathematics/physics, but in also considering the other aspects of what might be called RF ‘Stealth’, we find that to determine an optimum design we do not just need to understand the varying ways/techniques of managing or reducing RCS described in engineering or physics textbooks, of which ‘shape’ is only one (see Knott’s ‘Radar Cross Section’ 2nd Ed, Ch 7), but the ‘how’, ‘how much’ and ‘where’ LO are determined by all the other design considerations that are driven by material chemistry mission and the operational environment.
Mission and operational environments are outside the realm of Maxwell in determining all the varying ways that an aircraft design’s susceptibility can be reduced most efficiently. A physicist, mathematician, EE (even an ‘RF Emitter Guy’) can BECOME an expert in LO, but they are not defacto expert in LO by virtue of their general specialties. One would think this should not be news to anyone in just about any technical field these days. From what I’ve read and heard to date of Lynch, it could be said that he, as an avionics systems guy par excellence, became expert in LO through the necessity of designing systems that would not compromise observability of the vehicles carrying the systems he developed. I’ve also not seen anything in Lynch’s own writings that would contradict the aforementioned statements, but in fact have read similar sentiments expressed in his own writing (i.e. “Introduction to RF Stealth”).
Let’s summarize:
1. RE: Differences between citing Kopp and Cashen. One has demonstrated expertise in design and fielding an LO system as a lead engineer. One does not. One is known most for designing and fielding an LO system. One is not. Referencing one (Kopp) as having relevant experience in LO is committing a fallacious appeal to authority. Referencing the other (Cashen) commenting on his impressions from a briefing given by another authority (Kelly Johnson) on the application of LO, is not. As an aside, my specific citation of Cashen was expressed so that anyone reading it would know without a doubt I was not speaking out of school
2. RE: Implying the reference to a EE PhD on the ‘equal and opposite PhD’ maxim as a fallacious Appeal to Authority. Since the quote is a) an obvious reference to someone’s opinion and b) expressed as an obvious inside joke used by a PhD to convey the idea that ‘opinions can differ’ among experts, and one which you, Brave Sir Robin, subsequently and perhaps unintentionally reinforced by bringing in yet another ‘expert’, opinion (and which of course I pointed out the last round SUPPORTS ‘equal and opposite PhD maxim) then my answer is obviously NO: referencing the ‘equal and opposite’ PhD quote from a PhD, does not constitute a fallacious ‘appeal to authority’.
3. RE: Lynch and Disagreement with Cashen. In my last post I readily acknowledged Lynch as the doyen of a subset of LO (LPIR), but as critical of a subset that it is, it is still a subset. If Lynch disagrees with Cashen on the points above, fine. As I said earlier ‘pick your expert’. As Cashen has lead the LO design team in the design, development and fielding of a major combat-proven weapon system, it is difficult to see how any claim might be made that Lynch is MORE ‘expert’ than Cashen. If Lynch is AS expert as Cashen (pick your own metrics), then introducing the third expert is a fallacious Appeal to Authority in the form of asserting one correct answer exists where the matter is not settled among those with expertise (back to my equal and opposite PhD point again). If Lynch is not AS expert, then to assert he is, is an obvious fallacy. BTW: Introduction of a disagreement involving a third party expert into a discussion on the differences in judgment and analysis between a LO non-expert (Kopp) and an LO expert (Cashen) could also be viewed as a ‘red herring’ logical fallacy.
4. The puerile ‘bet’. ~Sigh~. As you had not surmised that the existence of a disagreement between Cashen and Lynch on the subject at hand is irrelevant the last time, I’m hoping you have been able to figure it out by now.
Last subject--Fishing expeditions. Reread the thread. It wasn’t all about you, Sir Robin.