F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

[StealthFlanker]

I am not for or against on your opinions of radars being unable to work in those conditions because I am no subject matter expert in the field of photonics. Its just a hunch on why is the U.S. military asking for a F-16 replacement along with producing F-15s again. This is just sort of a I let you know that they have different companies like VEGA, RTI, KRET and even the general designer of the EWR stating such frequency ranges. I mean its very odd that no country before has bothered or made radars for military use with 100ghz or above but of course there is an emergence of news sources left and right that they will be used for military purposes. I will get back to you on this subject again once they give performance specs on the Yakhroma radar's range performance using 30-300ghz waves since its construction is to start somewhere this year.

Закроет два моря и весь юг Европы: В Крыму появится уникальная РЛС «Яхрома» » Актуальные новости (actualnews.org)

"Thanks to such technical features, Shoigu noted, the Russian military on the peninsula will be able to track the presence and movement of all targets that are several thousand kilometers away, including stealth aircraft, UAVs, ballistic and cruise missiles. newest radar, the construction of which was announced within the framework of the annual board of the Ministry of Defense, the head of the Ministry of Defense Sergei Shoigu, will be deployed in Crimea and will start working in four wave ranges at once," TASS reports, citing its own sources in the domestic defense industry."

Not enough info of characteristics performance, but this came out of Shoigus mouth.

F-15EX is used mainly because USAF want something big enough to carry ARRW apart from the bomber like B-52 or B-1B. Also because F-15 is very big, it also have rather good combat radius
A F-16 replacement was merely think about because they considered that F-35 still too expensive and they want something even cheaper. But that plan is unlikely to ever go through
Military rarely use frequency 100 Ghz or above because like I said, the atmospheric attenuation is too high.

 

[omaebakabaka]

F-15EX is used mainly because USAF want something big enough to carry ARRW apart from the bomber like B-52 or B-1B. Also because F-15 is very big, it also have rather good combat radius
A F-16 replacement was merely think about because they considered that F-35 still too expensive and they want something even cheaper. But that plan is unlikely to ever go through
Military rarely use frequency 100 Ghz or above because like I said, the atmospheric attenuation is too high.

That is the result of piss poor management guys with no background or experience in relevant fields and corruption managing highly technical projects. This things has fundamentally effected US airforce in more than one ways

 

[StealthFlanker]

as sensitive and precise the rwr gets the stealth gets compromised

No it won't. RWR by itself can't measure range and velocity as quickly and as accurately as a radar
there are several way for RWR and ELINT system to measure range to target:
1- Time different of arrival:
You have several receiver located far from each others but linked to a central station, if they all receive a pulse transmitted from the target, you can draw several hyperbolic from these receiver and the target will be at the intersection. This is very accurate and quick, but all of your receiver need to receive the same pulse, and that very hard if the target use a high gain radar with low side lobes level. Fighter radars have very high gain and AESA in general have very low side lobe due to 40D Taylor weighting

2- Kinematic ranging:
This is similar to how submarine measure range and velocity of their target by the passive sonar. You make several left and right maneuver and record the rate of change of target when you make the maneuver. Then distance to target and their velocity can be estimated. This is highly inaccurate, especially at long range, and it only work if target move at constant speed and fixed direction

3- single ship triangulation
Sensor platform is moving parallel to the signal of interest.Everytime platform moving a certain distance, information about bearing relative to target are stored in computer memory. When the number of required line of bearing is reached, distance to target is measured using trigonometry function. This is also time consuming and only work if target doesn't move

4- Three ship triangulation:
Basically, you have three aircraft sharing information,when all three detect a threat at a certain bearing, then a triangle can be draw to measure distance to target.



But overall, all of these methods have the same weakness. A RWR can't detect what doesn't transmit. So if we have a group of 10 stealth aircraft , 9 of them flying passively, only 1 go active with its radar and share information to the rest through the use of directional datalink such as MADL, then even with the best RWR in the world. You only detect 1 out of 10 airplane

View attachment 86087

You can use low frequencies, as long as the active homing radar on the missile has a radar beam that is wide enough to cover the azimuth and elevation. Using these frequencies you cant tell if there is one big target or if there are two depending how close they fly together.

You wouldn't want a radar with a wide radar beam, especially on a missile seeker with limited transmitting power.
The wider the beamwidth, the less concentrated the energy will be. Just think of how a laser beam can shine much further than a bulb of the same size.

 

[panzerfeist1]

You wouldn't want a radar with a wide radar beam, especially on a missile seeker with limited transmitting power.
The wider the beamwidth, the less concentrated the energy will be. Just think of how a laser beam can shine much further than a bulb of the same size.

Ironically this is just me copy and pasting this from my deleted account from F-16.net and I am laughing that Hocum's account got deleted(who wasnt expecting that), though I am still a little sad the admin did not give me a little chance to go post 20 posts for my posting privilege's without admin approval. Probably due to the fact that if I dropped all those photonic radar sources from different Russian companies among other shit over there alot of users would go more ballistic than hocum being there I highly doubt you saw this there because admin approval can take a few days until your own post is buried pages back before getting approved so here is what I am trying to say.

At 100 nautical miles if using a low frequency aerial target it will be seen as a 5.5km tall, 1.6km wide and 200 meter depth target. F-35 is claimed as 1200mph max speed, it covers 20 kms per minute, And since the Nebo-M is considered a circular scan that gives target updates every 5-10 seconds if its travelling at a speed of 1200 mph pulling a hard left or right 1.66 to 3.33kms. So we can add 3.33km for height and width of the box to 8.83kms by 4.93kms.

https://en.topwar.ru/168498-sistemy-pvo ... k-buk.html "The characteristics of the ARGSN used on the 9M317MA rocket make it possible to capture a target with an EPR of 0,3 m² at a distance of up to 35 km."

35(.0001 ÷ 0.3) ^.25 at a 4.73km distance a .0001m2 target can be tracked with a buk-M3’s missile autonomously by the missile itself. http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm if we assume that the radar beam angle 120 degrees with a 4.73km distance the size of the entire radar beam horizontal angle would be 16.73kms with 8.83kms covered and if the Elevation angle is the same or smaller the 4.93km height can be covered. However the only thing I did not take into account is

1. 9M96MD and 40N6 are not only new missiles with active homing capabilities like the Buk-M3 missile but bigger in size which I assume they will see something smaller and farther than 0.3m2 passed 35kms.

2. Considering the flight ceilings of the 9m96MD and 40N6 it seems that more than half their flights they will be able to fly above the max flight ceilings current aircrafts are capable of. Meaning these host radars will be pointing their radar beams on top of highly reflective topside surface of aircrafts which could be considerable in RCS size compared to pointing a radar beam at the front of an aircraft.

Personally let me know when the admin their leaves and another admin takes over that does not have a stick up his ass to make that place look less like an echo chamber. Awaiting admin approval at defensetalk since there is already a SAM vs aircraft thread that I like if you happen to have an account over there?

 

[SARTHAK]

No it won't. RWR by itself can't measure range and velocity as quickly and as accurately as a radar
there are several way for RWR and ELINT system to measure range to target:
1- Time different of arrival:
You have several receiver located far from each others but linked to a central station, if they all receive a pulse transmitted from the target, you can draw several hyperbolic from these receiver and the target will be at the intersection. This is very accurate and quick, but all of your receiver need to receive the same pulse, and that very hard if the target use a high gain radar with low side lobes level. Fighter radars have very high gain and AESA in general have very low side lobe due to 40D Taylor weighting

2- Kinematic ranging:
This is similar to how submarine measure range and velocity of their target by the passive sonar. You make several left and right maneuver and record the rate of change of target when you make the maneuver. Then distance to target and their velocity can be estimated. This is highly inaccurate, especially at long range, and it only work if target move at constant speed and fixed direction

3- single ship triangulation
Sensor platform is moving parallel to the signal of interest.Everytime platform moving a certain distance, information about bearing relative to target are stored in computer memory. When the number of required line of bearing is reached, distance to target is measured using trigonometry function. This is also time consuming and only work if target doesn't move

4- Three ship triangulation:
Basically, you have three aircraft sharing information,when all three detect a threat at a certain bearing, then a triangle can be draw to measure distance to target.



But overall, all of these methods have the same weakness. A RWR can't detect what doesn't transmit. So if we have a group of 10 stealth aircraft , 9 of them flying passively, only 1 go active with its radar and share information to the rest through the use of directional datalink such as MADL, then even with the best RWR in the world. You only detect 1 out of 10 airplane
View attachment 86114



You wouldn't want a radar with a wide radar beam, especially on a missile seeker with limited transmitting power.
The wider the beamwidth, the less concentrated the energy will be. Just think of how a laser beam can shine much further than a bulb of the same size.

when did i say that using rwr will give plane weapon quality track? but crude direction is possible

 

[SARTHAK]

btw, this capability of gripen's aesa can help in missile launch i wonder why rafale radar isnt mounted on swash plate

 

[SARTHAK]

btw, this capability of gripen's aesa can help in missile launch i wonder why rafale radar isnt mounted on swash plate

Here is How Saab Gripen’s AESA Radar Sees the Unseen

One of the main reasons behind Saab Gripen's AESA radar fast 360 degree scanning capabilities is its repositioner or the swashplate.

www.saab.com

.

 

[SARTHAK]

something on radar and irst data fusion https://www.researchgate.net/public...nergy_of_Radar_and_IRST_InfraRed_Search_Track

 

[BON PLAN]

But it doesn’t a good resolution of the target to direct fire, that is why it can’t be used as a fire control radar only good for detection. Has its own advantages as enhanced situational awareness, but fact will remain that due to low RCS it will be difficult for X-band fire control radars to direct fire at the tango unless it gets too close and by then the tango would break you apart.

You are right. But the resolution is enough to help a fighter or a SAM to get closer so as its internal radar or seeker can catch the stealth foe. Specially if the seeker is an IR one.

 

[BON PLAN]

btw, this capability of gripen's aesa can help in missile launch i wonder why rafale radar isnt mounted on swash plate

Rafale will have two side radar away so as to have a full time >270° coverage, with F4 standard.

 

[Lonewolf]

Rafale will have two side radar away so as to have a full time >270° coverage, with F4 standard.

Cheek radar , really ??? Where did you get that

 

[BON PLAN]

Cheek radar , really ??? Where did you get that

It is well known. Conformal AESA antennas. But I don't know if the first release will be with GaN T/R modules or not. Only a question of price for the moment.

 

[Lonewolf]

It is well known. Conformal AESA antennas. But I don't know if the first release will be with GaN T/R modules or not. Only a question of price for the moment.

Number of trm module in it

 

[SARTHAK]

Cheek radar , really ??? Where did you get that

no cheek ,conformal antenne are planned for f4.2 (source rafale fox magazine)

 

[Flying Dagger]

No special news about it in the french media. generally speaking, the french media are mainly from left side... This is the kind of news they don't like to spread.
5 deads? French ones?

Not a single dead French but can't confirm bcz you never know what happened but there houses have been attacked.

Around 200 is the casuality in Pakistan may be more now. Many army and police personnels have resigned in favor of protesters against France. Your embassy will be shut down completely there.

 

[StealthFlanker]

Ironically this is just me copy and pasting this from my deleted account from F-16.net and I am laughing that Hocum's account got deleted(who wasnt expecting that), though I am still a little sad the admin did not give me a little chance to go post 20 posts for my posting privilege's without admin approval. Probably due to the fact that if I dropped all those photonic radar sources from different Russian companies among other shit over there alot of users would go more ballistic than hocum being there I highly doubt you saw this there because admin approval can take a few days until your own post is buried pages back before getting approved so here is what I am trying to say.

It is not that I didn't see the post about Photonic radar, it is just that I don't have enough patient to discuss it. Most journalist don't understand it well enough to write proper article on it, so most articles are kind of trash. And even the general principles is still ways too complex for most layman so very time consuming to explain.

At 100 nautical miles if using a low frequency aerial target it will be seen as a 5.5km tall, 1.6km wide and 200 meter depth target. F-35 is claimed as 1200mph max speed, it covers 20 kms per minute, And since the Nebo-M is considered a circular scan that gives target updates every 5-10 seconds if its travelling at a speed of 1200 mph pulling a hard left or right 1.66 to 3.33kms. So we can add 3.33km for height and width of the box to 8.83kms by 4.93kms.

https://en.topwar.ru/168498-sistemy-pvo ... k-buk.html "The characteristics of the ARGSN used on the 9M317MA rocket make it possible to capture a target with an EPR of 0,3 m² at a distance of up to 35 km."

35(.0001 ÷ 0.3) ^.25 at a 4.73km distance a .0001m2 target can be tracked with a buk-M3’s missile autonomously by the missile itself. http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm if we assume that the radar beam angle 120 degrees with a 4.73km distance the size of the entire radar beam horizontal angle would be 16.73kms with 8.83kms covered and if the Elevation angle is the same or smaller the 4.93km height can be covered. However the only thing I did not take into account is

1. 9M96MD and 40N6 are not only new missiles with active homing capabilities like the Buk-M3 missile but bigger in size which I assume they will see something smaller and farther than 0.3m2 passed 35kms.

2. Considering the flight ceilings of the 9m96MD and 40N6 it seems that more than half their flights they will be able to fly above the max flight ceilings current aircrafts are capable of. Meaning these host radars will be pointing their radar beams on top of highly reflective topside surface of aircrafts which could be considerable in RCS size compared to pointing a radar beam at the front of an aircraft.

View attachment 86120

View attachment 86119

Personally let me know when the admin their leaves and another admin takes over that does not have a stick up his ass to make that place look less like an echo chamber. Awaiting admin approval at defensetalk since there is already a SAM vs aircraft thread that I like if you happen to have an account over there?

Firstly, this isn't very important but 1200 mph is 1932 km/h or about 32 km/minutes. So technically you add something like 2.6-5.5 km.
Secondly, you confused between the seeker field of regard and the seeker field of view. They are not the same thing. The field of regard is the total degree in vertical and horizontal that the seeker will cover when it complete a full scan. The field of view is the beamwidth,which is the instantaneous volume that the seeker will see when it transmit each pulse

For a missile seeker, you want the field of view(radar beam width) as small as possible, because that mean the radar energy can be more concentrated and the missile can actually hit its target accurately. But you want the field of regards as wide as possible so that it can perform high of boresight shot. So normally, the field of view of the seeker is around 0.5-1 degree whereas the field of regard is often 60*60 or a full half sphere coverage.
When target is within the detection range of seeker, there is two situation happens.
a- target is within the seeker field of the seeker => it will be detected immediately
b- target is within the seeker field of regard => it will be detected once the seeker can scan to the target direction
This is why high frequency radar are very valuable in fire control, because they are so extremely accurate that you can guide the missile so that target is located within the seeker field of view. By contrast, the low frequency radar at best only put the target inside the seeker field of regard.
Back to your example: the missile seeker can detect the VLO aircraft from 4.73 km, so with a beamwidth of 1 degrees, the seeker beam coverage at 4.73 km will be a circle with area of 0.0053 km2. Based on Nebo horizontal and vertical beam width, at distance of 100nm, the height and width of the resolution cell are 5.5 km and 1.6 km respectively, so the total area is 8.8 km2. That mean there are 8.8/0.0053 = 1660 beam position that the seeker must scan to find target. But a seeker on a missile and a radar on an aircraft or ground station are not the same, because an aircraft or ground station can have all the time in the world to scan for target. While at Mach 4-5 closing speed, the seeker only have several second before the missile and the aircraft passed by each other, it must detect target early enough so that not only they don't fly by each other, but also in order that the missile can perform a maneuver. This is an issue because to detect target from long range or to detect very low RCS target, you need to put a lot of energy down range, that is achieved either by sending very high quantity pulse in each beam position or send very long pulse width in each beam position. Both choice increase the scan time. The advertised detection range of seeker and radar is always when they operate in highest PRF and longest pulse width.

Thirdly, the detection range you were given is also in perfect situation, but in reality, these stealth aircraft will have jamming asset protecting them, either in the form of fiber optic towed decoy such as ALE-70 or in the form of self propelled decoy like MALD-N, SPEAR-EW or in the form of long range standoff jamming like EA-18G...etc. In any case, the true detection range of missile seeker against stealth aircraft will be much smaller than the stated value, especially consider that stealth and jammer are synergy

 

[StealthFlanker]

when did i say that using rwr will give plane weapon quality track? but crude direction is possible

If your enemy have good quality weapon track in fraction of a second while you need much longer time to get a crude direction, while also unaware of their stealth wing man flying silently. Then you are at a great disadvantage

 

[SARTHAK]

If your enemy have good quality weapon track in fraction of a second while you need much longer time to get a crude direction, while also unaware of their stealth wing man flying silently. Then you are at a great disadvantage

a 4.5 jen jet like kfx with semi recessed bays(assuming equal lvl of avionics and ew) flying with stealthy wingman can defeat stealth

 

[StealthFlanker]

a 4.5 jen jet like kfx with semi recessed bays(assuming equal lvl of avionics and ew) flying with stealthy wingman can defeat stealth

KFX is still much closer to a full stealth than a 4.5 gen
But what make you think normal stealth aircraft can't fly with stealth wingman too?
stealth + very stealth > semi stealth + very stealth

 

[omaebakabaka]

It is well known. Conformal AESA antennas. But I don't know if the first release will be with GaN T/R modules or not. Only a question of price for the moment.

Hey Bon, how much of componentry is French in French planes like Rafale? Is it 100% french in all critical components?