F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

[StealthFlanker]

If it is using MMW radar to engage its target then it will have no idea if it is hitting the actual radar or a truck sitting next to it. It would be better off using an image recognition system like the AASM uses to discern targets.

Actually, a MMW radar can help you see the image of target thanks to its very narrow beam width.Beamwidth is a measure of how a transmitted beam spreads out as it gets farther from its point of origin. In radar, it is desirable to have a beam that stays narrow, rather than fanning out. Small beamwidths are good in radar because they allow the radar to “see” small distant objects, much like a telescope. A carefully designed antenna allows microwaves to be focused into a narrow beam, just like a magnifying glass focuses sunlight. Unfortunately, small beamwidths require large antenna sizes, which can make it difficult to design a good radar set that will fit, for example, inside a cramped airplane cockpit.Thankfully, the use of millimeter-length microwaves has allowed engineers to overcome this antenna size problem. For a given antenna size, the beamwidth can be made smaller by increasing the frequency, and so the antenna can be made smaller as well. The MMW radar has been applied to precision missile guidance for its high frequency, narrow beam-width with small antenna aperture, and well-developed integrated devices, especially in the active terminal guidance. While optical systems (visible and IR) require clear atmospheric conditions for reliable operation, MMW imaging is relatively immune to weather conditions such as cloud, fog, snow,and light rain. For example, the atmospheric attenuation in the range of millimeter wave frequencies is 0.07 to 3 dB/km in drizzle and fog conditions, whereas it is one to three orders of magnitude higher at optical frequencies (exceeding 100 dB/km in foggy conditions). MMW imaging has shown distinct advantages for the detection of terrestrial targets under optically obscuring conditions such as cloud, haze, snow, and light rain

 

[Armand2REP]

a hypersonic missile likely can fly 1000-1200 km, at that distance, stealth is not very necessary.

If stealth isn't necessary than neither is a stealth strike fighter.

Neither F-15 or F-16 can take off from carrier
also after launch, F-35 can probably ditch the pylon and become stealthy against

If it can travel thousands of miles then there isn't much point for carrier strike groups. They could stick them on strategic bombers and launch them from another country.

 

[Armand2REP]

Actually, a MMW radar can help you see the image of target thanks to its very narrow beam width.Beamwidth is a measure of how a transmitted beam spreads out as it gets farther from its point of origin. In radar, it is desirable to have a beam that stays narrow, rather than fanning out. Small beamwidths are good in radar because they allow the radar to “see” small distant objects, much like a telescope. A carefully designed antenna allows microwaves to be focused into a narrow beam, just like a magnifying glass focuses sunlight. Unfortunately, small beamwidths require large antenna sizes, which can make it difficult to design a good radar set that will fit, for example, inside a cramped airplane cockpit.Thankfully, the use of millimeter-length microwaves has allowed engineers to overcome this antenna size problem. For a given antenna size, the beamwidth can be made smaller by increasing the frequency, and so the antenna can be made smaller as well. The MMW radar has been applied to precision missile guidance for its high frequency, narrow beam-width with small antenna aperture, and well-developed integrated devices, especially in the active terminal guidance. While optical systems (visible and IR) require clear atmospheric conditions for reliable operation, MMW imaging is relatively immune to weather conditions such as cloud, fog, snow,and light rain. For example, the atmospheric attenuation in the range of millimeter wave frequencies is 0.07 to 3 dB/km in drizzle and fog conditions, whereas it is one to three orders of magnitude higher at optical frequencies (exceeding 100 dB/km in foggy conditions). MMW imaging has shown distinct advantages for the detection of terrestrial targets under optically obscuring conditions such as cloud, haze, snow, and light rain

If you are going to plagairise someone elses article you can at least post the link. https://augsignals.com/MMW.pdf

None of that addresses target selection in a cluttered environment which is where imaging seekers are preferred. In the case of short range Hellfire, the target is within visual range. In the case of JASSM, it has an infared seeker the same as French missiles. Once you get to stand-off ranges and have no eyes on the target, you must have something that can discern the targets in a cluttered environment. MMW is not capable of doing that.

 

[asianobserve]

If you are going to plagairise someone elses article you can at least post the link. https://augsignals.com/MMW.pdf

None of that addresses target selection in a cluttered environment which is where imaging seekers are preferred. In the case of short range Hellfire, the target is within visual range. In the case of JASSM, it has an infared seeker the same as French missiles. Once you get to stand-off ranges and have no eyes on the target, you must have something that can discern the targets in a cluttered environment. MMW is not capable of doing that.

The principle is the same. Terminal phase sensor looks at target and compares the target signature to its threat library for identification.

IR based terminal seeker constantly takes visual (IR) picture of the target and compare it with its threat library to lock onto it. Once it identifies the target then it will lock onto it.

More or less the same procedure happens with MMW radar seeker. The difference is that MMW radar takes the radar signature of the target (instead of visual) and compares it with its threat library. Once identified it will then lock onto target dueing terminal phase.

Between these 2 kinds of terminal phase guidance I think overall radar guidance is more reliable since it is immune from weather or atmospheric factors.

And BTW, what happened to Germany's IR sensored ARM?

 

[asianobserve]

To illustrate the effectiveness of MMW radar sensors, the USN is now using SM-6 for anti-ship and even ground targets. The only downside with SM-6 for those duties is its relatively small warhead which is optimized for smaller aerial targets.

 

[StealthFlanker]

If stealth isn't necessary than neither is a stealth strike fighter.

But the point is, launching a missile from thousand km away is not the only mission of fighter aircraft, furthermore you do not magically know exactly where your enemy located at all time, especially when SAM have camouflage as well. So there are plenty of situation where you have to get closer and use your own sensor to detect target. A standoff missile doesn't help in these situation but stealth help

If it can travel thousands of miles then there isn't much point for carrier strike groups. They could stick them on strategic bombers and launch them from another country.

How many strategic bombers do you have vs how many tactical fighter do you have ? nevermind that a carrier strike group can hold the position for an extended amount of time which bomber incapable of.

 

[StealthFlanker]

None of that addresses target selection in a cluttered environment which is where imaging seekers are preferred. In the case of short range Hellfire, the target is within visual range. In the case of JASSM, it has an infared seeker the same as French missiles. Once you get to stand-off ranges and have no eyes on the target, you must have something that can discern the targets in a cluttered environment. MMW is not capable of doing that.

That is utter nonsense, JASSM use IIR seeker because first and foremost, it is a stealth missile, and using a radar will alert enemy of its direction.
The Longbow radar on AH-64 is also MMW radar and it can discriminate target just fine
There is literally nothing stop MMW radar from seeing its target in the form of image thanks to its extremely narrow beam width

France no longer has need of anti-radiation missiles as they are useless against enemies that turn their radars off, We use either AASM or Scalp that has an imaging seeker that discerns targets from an extensive database and recognition software. Finding the identification of radars is done by Spectra or a satellite constellation made for mapping enemy air defences.

Modern anti radar missile are not useless against enemy with their radar offline
AARGM has 3 different form of guide: GPS/2 way data link / MMW terminal seeker, so even if enemy have their radar offline it still has plenty of way to find them.
SCALP doesn't have a data link and fly at subsonic speed so it is literally useless against any SAM system that can move which is what? S-300, S-400, Bulk, Tor, Pantris-s1 ..etc and any SAM on a ship.
AASM is a guided bomb with 60 km range from high altitude and 15 km from low altitude, which put the the launcher fighter well within the coverage of most medium / long range SAM. It also lack stealth or high speed capability which mean it can be shot down much easier than JSN, LRASM, JSOW, SCALP, AARGM, HARM. Furthermore, unlike SDB II, AASM do not have redundancy guidance such as MMW radarb and datalink which make it quite useless in bad weather.

 

[asianobserve]

Another important feature of AARGM-ER over the current AARGM is its speed. Current AARGM dashes to its target on terminal phase at 2x the speed of sound while the new AARG-ER dashes to its target on terminal phase at 3x the speed of sound. That's why the new ARRGM-ER missile has a new heat resisting coating in its radome to protect it from the extreme heat at terminal phase dash.

 

[StealthFlanker]

To illustrate the effectiveness of MMW radar sensors, the USN is now using SM-6 for anti-ship and even ground targets. The only downside with SM-6 for those duties is its relatively small warhead which is optimized for smaller aerial targets.

To be fair though, SM-6 use an enlarged version of AIM-120 seeker, which is at I-band (8-10 Ghz) if i recall correctly so that actually longer wavelength than MMW (and therefore worse resolution than MMW seeker of the same size)

 

[asianobserve]

To be fair though, SM-6 use an enlarged version of AIM-120 seeker, which is at I-band (8-10 Ghz) if i recall correctly so that actually longer wavelength than MMW (and therefore worse resolution than MMW seeker of the same size)

I meant the use of radar sensor for terminal targeting.

 

[Armand2REP]

The principle is the same. Terminal phase sensor looks at target and compares the target signature to its threat library for identification.

It is the same principle, but not the same result in a cluttered environment. Taking an IR image brings far more resolution for software recognition to analyse than a few lines of varying radar lengths.

IR based terminal seeker constantly takes visual (IR) picture of the target and compare it with its threat library to lock onto it. Once it identifies the target then it will lock onto it.

It has mid-course guidance before it gets there just like all of the other stand-off missiles.

More or less the same procedure happens with MMW radar seeker. The difference is that MMW radar takes the radar signature of the target (instead of visual) and compares it with its threat library. Once identified it will then lock onto target dueing terminal phase.

The MMW has nothing to do with mid-course guidance, it is terminal guidance. The iNS/GPS provide the mid-course updates. The MMW has a limited threat library that can tell a truck from a tank, but not if that truck has a radar mounted to it If it is approaching a SAM battalion with a bunch of trucks, it will not know which truck has the radar.

Between these 2 kinds of terminal phase guidance I think overall radar guidance is more reliable since it is immune from weather or atmospheric factors.

IR is immune to weather, radar can and most likely will be jammed.

And BTW, what happened to Germany's IR sensored ARM?

The same thing that happened to all of Europe's ARM programmes. They were cancelled because they were deemed obsolete. You can't pin-point an AESA radar so there is no point for ARM in that, when they turn the radar off there is no point in ARM for that. When you are in a jamming environment there is no point in ARM for that.

The old ARMs were quite simple, it picks up the emitting radar and rode the beam to the target. Now they have INS/GPS, terminal seekers that makes them just like any other strike weapon. With the complexity of LPI AESA radars, anti-radiation detection is an obsolete technology and the implementation of other redundancies just emphasizes that fact.

 

[Armand2REP]

That is utter nonsense, JASSM use IIR seeker because first and foremost, it is a stealth missile, and using a radar will alert enemy of its direction.
The Longbow radar on AH-64 is also MMW radar and it can discriminate target just fine
There is literally nothing stop MMW radar from seeing its target in the form of image thanks to its extremely narrow beam width

JASSM uses an IR seeker for the same reason AASM and Scalp use it. It is the only way to get a target recognition before impact.

You can't compare the multi-million MMW mast of an Apache Longbow to a thousand dollar disposable seeker the size of your fist. Not that the Apache can tell you what target it is looking at which is why they always have to visually confirm the target before they fire to avoid frat.

 

[StealthFlanker]

JASSM uses an IR seeker for the same reason AASM and Scalp use it. It is the only way to get a target recognition before impact

Except that it isn't
Brimstone, JAGM, AARGM, SPEAR, Hellfire, SDB II all use MMW seeker and they can discriminate target just fine.
Harpoon, Moskit, Brahmos, RBS-15..etc all use radar sensor, yet they can all recognize target
So no, IR seeker is not the only way to discriminate target

You can't compare the multi-million MMW mast of an Apache Longbow to a thousand dollar disposable seeker the size of your fist. Not that the Apache can tell you what target it is looking at which is why they always have to visually confirm the target before they fire to avoid frat.

Except that i can, while Longbow certainly more powerful, they both share the same trail of MMW which is very narrow beamwidth
You said MMW can't discriminate targets in clutter, i shown that to be clearly nonsense since literally, the Long bow radar is MMW
and Longbow can discriminate target, both moving and stationary.

This is baseline AH-64D Apache weapon system, common to all aircraft and the configuration for 3/4 of US Army deliveries, and all Netherlands deliveries.

An optional fit to this baseline configuration is the Longbow weapon system, comprising the Northrop-Grumman (previously Westinghouse) AN/APG-78 Longbow mast mounted Fire Control Radar (FCR), and a Lockheed-Martin AN/APR-48 Radar Frequency Interferometer (RFI) package, both designed for all weather operation through precipitation and battlefield obscurants. The Longbow weapon system supports the AGM-114L active radar guided missile, operating in the same millimetric band as the radar.

The Longbow radar is a very low peak power, millimetric band system, with extremely low sidelobes by virtue of a very large relative antenna size. The low emitted power, extremely narrow pencil beam mainlobe, and undisclosed LPI modulation features provide a system with a range of the order of 10 km in clear conditions, which is near to undetectable by established RWR technology. Only a highly sensitive channelised ESM receiver with a high gain antenna and low noise receivers can reliably detect such a signal, under optimal antenna pointing conditions. The choice of millimetric band means that atmospheric water vapour and oxygen resonance losses rapidly soak up the signal, which is also out of the frequency band coverage of most RWRs. The radar will track up to 128 targets and prioritise the top 16.

The radar employs both real beam mapping and Moving Target Indicator (MTI) techniques, to provide the automatic detection, tracking and non-cooperative identification of surface targets, with a secondary capability against low flying aircraft. Target identification algorithms in the radar's software look at the shape of possible targets, and their Doppler signatures, to identify aircraft, helicopters, SPAAGs, SAM systems, tanks, AFVs, trucks and other wheeled vehicles. The capability exists to identify stationary targets through radar transparent camouflage netting and foliage. Real beam video and synthetic imagery can be displayed.

https://www.ausairpower.net/longbow-aa.html

P/s Brimstone is not really that small and neither is AARGM

 

[asianobserve]

It is the same principle, but not the same result in a cluttered environment. Taking an IR image brings far more resolution for software recognition to analyse than a few lines of varying radar lengths.



It has mid-course guidance before it gets there just like all of the other stand-off missiles.



The MMW has nothing to do with mid-course guidance, it is terminal guidance. The iNS/GPS provide the mid-course updates. The MMW has a limited threat library that can tell a truck from a tank, but not if that truck has a radar mounted to it If it is approaching a SAM battalion with a bunch of trucks, it will not know which truck has the radar.

Midcourse targetting is done via data link. Both IR and MMW radar seekers are only for terminal phase targeting.

IR is immune to weather, radar can and most likely will be jammed.

DIRCMs are very effective against IR based seekers.

The same thing that happened to all of Europe's ARM programmes. They were cancelled because they were deemed obsolete. You can't pin-point an AESA radar so there is no point for ARM in that, when they turn the radar off there is no point in ARM for that. When you are in a jamming environment there is no point in ARM for that.

The old ARMs were quite simple, it picks up the emitting radar and rode the beam to the target. Now they have INS/GPS, terminal seekers that makes them just like any other strike weapon. With the complexity of LPI AESA radars, anti-radiation detection is an obsolete technology and the implementation of other redundancies just emphasizes that fact.

Tell that to the Marines. The capabilities offered by ARM in SEAD is unmatched. It's speed alone is a tremendous asset.

That's why Germany is now ordering AARGM after it cancelled its own ARM project. Italy on the other hand is an AARGM partner. Next AARGM operator in EU will be Poland.

 

[Armand2REP]

Except that it isn't
Brimstone, JAGM, AARGM, SPEAR, Hellfire, SDB II all use MMW seeker and they can discriminate target just fine.
Harpoon, Moskit, Brahmos, RBS-15..etc all use radar sensor, yet they can all recognize target
So no, IR seeker is not the only way to discriminate target

When you are targeting in an Apache, you have a radar scope that has dots on it, you look at what target you want to select and press it. You don't know what that target is by looking at the return of the MMW radar. You get visual confirmation of what it is by either your own camera, or a scout heli.

When an anti-shipping missile is searching for targets, it doesn't discriminate between the type of target. It goes for the largest return it sees and goes after it which is why towed decoys are so effective. Radar guided missiles are not discriminating weapons.

Except that i can, while Longbow certainly more powerful, they both share the same trail of MMW which is very narrow beamwidth
You said MMW can't discriminate targets in clutter, i shown that to be clearly nonsense since literally, the Long bow radar is MMW
and Longbow can discriminate target, both moving and stationary.

The advantage of MMW radar is the ability to pick out metal targets from anything else on the ground. It is a compact version of SAR ground mapping radars used by fighter aircraft that allows them to identify vehicles from the ground. It isn't telling them what kind of vehicle it is until they can get a picture of it.

 

[Armand2REP]

Midcourse targetting is done via data link. Both IR and MMW radar seekers are only for terminal phase targeting.

Most stand-off strike weapons don't have data links. LACMs travel too far to keep one.

DIRCMs are very effective against IR based seekers.

Used by NATO aircraft, I don't think a Russian made SAM battalion is going to have them.

Tell that to the Marines. The capabilities offered by ARM in SEAD is unmatched. It's speed alone is a tremendous asset.

They said it was shit over Serbia, they could never find the SAMs because they were smart enough to turn them off. The first stealth fighter was shot down too. So much for several American theories.

That's why Germany is now ordering AARGM after it cancelled its own ARM project.

Plans have changed for Germany. The cost of operating the Tornado has exploded so they will be retiring them by the time AARGM would be available.

 

[StealthFlanker]

When you are targeting in an Apache, you have a radar scope that has dots on it, you look at what target you want to select and press it. You don't know what that target is by looking at the return of the MMW radar. You get visual confirmation of what it is by either your own camera, or a scout heli.

Nope, there is something called NCTR, the radar can base on unique characteristic of target to classify
and discriminate them

When an anti-shipping missile is searching for targets, it doesn't discriminate between the type of target. It goes for the largest return it sees and goes after it which is why towed decoys are so effective. Radar guided missiles are not discriminating weapons.

Totally wrong, radar guided missile can discriminate between the type of target
For example:

The advantage of MMW radar is the ability to pick out metal targets from anything else on the ground. It is a compact version of SAR ground mapping radars used by fighter aircraft that allows them to identify vehicles from the ground. It isn't telling them what kind of vehicle it is until they can get a picture of it.

Nope, MMW seeker is not a compacted version of SAR, they work based on completely different principles

Also, you really underestimate the capability of SAR

 

[Armand2REP]

Nope, there is something called NCTR, the radar can base on unique characteristic of target to classify
and discriminate them


Totally wrong, radar guided missile can discriminate between the type of target
For example:



Nope, MMW seeker is not a compacted version of SAR, they work based on completely different principles

Also, you really underestimate the capability of SAR

You are showing images of a $70 million ground mapping satellite and talking about techniques used by AEGIS AN/SPY radars. How do you compare what those can do to a disposable seeker that costs less than Mayawati's garlands?

 

[Immanuel]

A base in the pacific or Alaska is of a poor use in the Middle East.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-military-personnel-deployments-country/

https://www.americansecurityproject...Military-Bases-and-Facilities-Middle-East.pdf

The US has over 200K troops in 177 countries, including several thousands in the middle east, Incirlik has little or no impact on their ability to deploy anywhere they please.

Incirlik has 2500 troops with primarily 50 B-61 Nukes, these can be moved out to another place. With Belgium, UK, NL, Germany also holding US nukes, NATO is well covered as far a nuke deployment is concerned.

Turkey will slowly be relegated to NATO garbage pile since they too don't pay their fair share of 2%.

 

[StealthFlanker]

You are showing images of a $70 million ground mapping satellite and talking about techniques used by AEGIS AN/SPY radars. How do you compare what those can do to a disposable seeker that costs less than Mayawati's garlands?

No, iam showed you the working principles of SAR, any SAR, not just the one in satellite
Regardless of their cost, the basic principles doesn't change, cost do not make your equipment run with magic, if you think only 70 millions USD satellite can achieve these level of resolution then frankly you know nothing about SAR

Secondly, SPY-1 radar has no use for SAR and NCTR is not something only AEGIS capable of using, it actually dated far far far back, before AEGIS even come to existence
For example: for airborne target