F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
750
Likes
532
Country flag
i considered stealth also undetectable till i knew about digital rwr, actually when f22 was developed analogue rwr didnt had these capabilities,so it was considered invincible
Firstly, you don't need a digital RWR to cue others sensor. Analog RWR can also give you the direction of emitter and it can be used to direct radar. Cueing jammer is actually quite simple because jammer doesn't have very wide beamwidth
Secondly, digital receiver isn't some new invention that only appear recently, ASQ-213 R7 pod on F-16 inlet station is a digital receiver with ability to geolocate emitter location. R7 version was integrated into the fleet just 1 year after F-22 was introduced, and very frequently used in red flag exercise. Yet it doesn't turn the tide into the F-16 and F-15 favor when they go against F-22 or F-35. Because even a digital RWR still have the same weakness of any normal RWR as I mentioned earlier. They can't measure range and velocity of target almost instantaneously like a radar. The way RWR measure range to a target is either very inaccurate and time consuming or doesn't work against air target or require cooperate of several platform at the sametime.
HTS 2.jpg
Capture.PNG

2.PNG



so rwr + irst = crude direction ,then radar used in lower fov (focused beam) to develop weapon track
The beam width of radar is limited by the aperture area so you can't actually make your radar beam narrower than that, it already at minimum beam width in most case.
But cueing can help reduce scan time therefore you use longer dwell time at any particular beam position
That doesn't mean the tiny fighter radar gonna be particularly useful at tracking stealth aircraft though


https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8c9c3d5072cc946cff228bac72eb6562 can anyone guide me what is "passive model of aesa radar and aesa jammer under digital rwr heading
In principle, AESA is an array of transmit and receiving antennas working together. They can transmit anything including jamming waveform as long as the frequency is within the band width limit of the radar.
The group of antennas can also listen to signal , because the aperture area of fighter radar is bigger than the aperture of their RWR antenna, that mean the AESA radar can be used as a narrow band but high gain RWR . That the passive mode
 

Lonewolf

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
2,150
Likes
5,923
Country flag
May I suggest to Macron to definitively close the Pak embassy ? It is useless. Better improving our links with Israel and India. They are interesting peoples, not these speaking monkeys.
No need , how will you enjoy their idotic acts if you close down embassy , cure jihadi in your home and hold a national mom-head cartoon competition in france . Who needs nukes when moss- lame can be cured with a cartoon .
 

Fonck83

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
35
Likes
96
Country flag
“The Air Force needs to reduce estimated costs per tail per year by $3.7 million (or 47 percent) by 2036 or it will incur $4.4 billion in costs beyond what it currently projects it could afford in that year alone. Cost reductions become increasingly difficult as the program grows and matures. However, GAO found there is no agreed upon approach to achieve the constraints. Without an assessment of cost-reduction efforts and program requirements (such as number of planned aircraft), along with a plan, the Department of Defense (DOD) may continue to invest resources in a program it ultimately cannot afford. Congress requiring DOD to report on its progress in achieving affordability constraints and making F-35 procurements contingent on DOD’s demonstrated progress would enhance DOD’s accountability for taking the necessary and appropriate actions to afford sustaining the F-35 fleet.”
:


https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-505t


 

Fonck83

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
35
Likes
96
Country flag
I know the truth is hard to hear but this is it F-35 have eaten its white bread.
I have submitted a link above on the GAO report about the accountable aspect of the f-35.
Here’s one about the political aspect :
https://www.stripes.com/news/us/law...t-overruns-low-mission-capable-rates-1.670830
“We hear rave reviews of the F-35, when it is flying,” said the GAO’s Diana Maurer, who testified Thursday about her findings detailed in the report. “The bottom line here is that services have a plane that they cannot afford to fly the way they want to fly, at least in the long term.”
Norcross joined Garamendi in vowing only to include F-35s requested by the Pentagon in the next budget.
“I want to buy a shiny new one. I love them coming off the line … but the cost is that we can’t get those parts, so you have that shiny new one while the [older] ones are just sitting there” unable to fly, he said. “That’s the trade-off, and … it just seems we can do it better than that.”
 

Fonck83

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
35
Likes
96
Country flag
The f-35 has eaten its white bread : It has became today to be a political threat. Here are some links to show how the media are :

https://www.airforcemag.com/hasc-leaders-will-block-extra-f-35s-from-fiscal-2022-budget/
HASC Won’t Plus Up F-35 Request in Fiscal 2022 Budget
April 22, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/04/hasc-dems-put-dod-on-notice-no-free-pass-for-f-35/
HASC Dems Put DoD On Notice: No Free Pass For F-35
“If this program continues to fail ... we may need to invest in other more affordable programs, and backfill an operational shortfall of potentially over 800 tactical fighters,” said Rep. Donald Norcross, chair of the HASC tactical air and land forces subcommittee.
By THERESA HITCHENS on April 22, 2021

https://www.defensenews.com/air/202...in-fy22-lawmakers-tell-an-embattled-lockheed/
‘Don’t expect more money’ for additional F-35s in FY22, lawmakers tell an embattled Lockheed
By: Valerie Insinna

https://news.usni.org/2021/04/22/ha...ghters-but-not-enough-f-35-spares-sustainment
HASC: Congress Let DoD Buy Too Many F-35 Fighters But Not Enough F-35 Spares, Sustainment
By: Megan Eckstein April 22, 2021

https://www.stripes.com/news/us/law...t-overruns-low-mission-capable-rates-1.670830
Lawmakers vow to slow F-35 production amid mounting cost overruns, low mission-capable rates
By COREY DICKSTEIN | STARS AND STRIPES Published: April 22, 2021


There are so many articles with the same content!
 

panzerfeist1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
203
Likes
271
Country flag
The only problem I have is if the aircraft is worth the investment all the way to 2070?

In the Kosovo war aircrafts had anti-radiation missiles that were like 5 times the range of the interceptor missiles used by S-75s and S-125s but yet aircrafts were still shot down and even a stealth one. On paper, based on air to ground weapon ranges there should have been no casualties, but there were. Those interceptor missiles did not even have the range capabilities of the S-200 and only relied on command guidance instead of semi-active homing capabilities done by the S-200 for better accuracy towards aerial targets. Not saying that they should have gotten S-300s from Russia but S-200s could have gave a better assessment with a very good likelihood on raising casualties or receiving more pilots to be POWs.

  1. Having active radar homing capabilities for interceptor missiles. The ARGSN used on the 9M317MA missile by Buk-M3 can autonomously track a 0.3m2 target from 35 kilometers away. 9M96MD and 40N6 are not only new missiles with active homing capabilities like the Buk-M3 missile but bigger in size hence even more powerful tracking capabilities than Buk-M3 missiles. Missiles will be either pointing on the bottom side of aircrafts when rising or pointing down on the topside of aircrafts and those always have the highest RCS reflections because of surface area. Air defenses before used either command guidance or semi-active homing.
  2. Modernization upgrades. Problem with aircrafts is when they get new avionics or still have block upgrades to finish it takes a long time to upgrade. Also using the F-22 or F-35 as an example, current designs will more than likely always stay the same like we cant expect an F-35 to get smaller, maybe new RAM applications to aircrafts, etc. S-400 went from 2007 radars to 2015 Nebo-M radars and is already going to get a new radar system that will exceed the performance of the Nebo-M called Nioby. F-35s will stay more likely the same until 2070 while the airforce will be focusing on aircraft development and production for NGADs. Newer long range ground to air missiles as well.
  3. Electronic Warfare Systems. Despite having longer range weapons and knowing where the location of the SAMs were a lot of air to ground missiles were fired and most missed or took awhile to take out Serbian SAMs. Murmansk-BN was reported to jam a enemy radio station from 7,000kms away which means radio HF frequencies can be jammed on aircrafts, Krasukhas can jam LEO satellites and aircraft radars with a newer EW system to replace it sooner. Tirada-2 jams satellites 300mhz to 3ghz, Tirada-2S jams satellites at 3–30ghz, Bylina-MM jams satellites at 30–300ghz. Borisoglebsk-2 jams datalink communications from aircrafts to their weapons.
  4. Newer short range air defenses. New Pantsir systems are being quadpacked giving it 48 to 96 missiles to intercept drones and PGMs. Also missiles have twice the range, radar twice the range, more precise warheads for smaller targets, and missiles have like twice the speeds that put it at 2km/s. Tor systems are getting new small cheaper than drone missiles. Short range air defenses are also being designed to deal with hypersonic weapons.
  5. photonic radars. Russian companies KRET, RTI, VEGA and the general designer of Russia's RWR gave ranges of 100ghz to terahertz ranges for the use of photonic radars. Yakhroma radar works in 4 bands including the 30–300ghz range meant to be autonomous with no human interaction. Stealth aircrafts are more than likely not prepared to deal with such frequencies in which the emergence of this technology might mean they have solved the atmosphere attenuation problem. There is also EW immunity because of the broad dynamic range of the radar
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
750
Likes
532
Country flag
The only problem I have is if the aircraft is worth the investment all the way to 2070?

In the Kosovo war aircrafts had anti-radiation missiles that were like 5 times the range of the interceptor missiles used by S-75s and S-125s but yet aircrafts were still shot down and even a stealth one. On paper, based on air to ground weapon ranges there should have been no casualties, but there were. Those interceptor missiles did not even have the range capabilities of the S-200 and only relied on command guidance instead of semi-active homing capabilities done by the S-200 for better accuracy towards aerial targets. Not saying that they should have gotten S-300s from Russia but S-200s could have gave a better assessment with a very good likelihood on raising casualties or receiving more pilots to be POWs.
Firstly, the F-117 which was used in Kosovo war didn't have a RWR, it didn't have a missile warning receiver or a radar either. It also couldn't carry anti radar missile. So there is no way for it to either detect enemy radar, or alert pilot of a missile launch.
Secondly, F-35 will not remain at exact current condition until 2070, just like you think Su-57 will have a lot of upgrade, what make you think an F-35 at 2021 and 2070 are the same?

Having active radar homing capabilities for interceptor missiles. The ARGSN used on the 9M317MA missile by Buk-M3 can autonomously track a 0.3m2 target from 35 kilometers away. 9M96MD and 40N6 are not only new missiles with active homing capabilities like the Buk-M3 missile but bigger in size hence even more powerful tracking capabilities than Buk-M3 missiles. Missiles will be either pointing on the bottom side of aircrafts when rising or pointing down on the topside of aircrafts and those always have the highest RCS reflections because of surface area. Air defenses before used either command guidance or semi-active homing.
Firstly, I think you should take that number with a grain of salt , I didn't look at it very carefully earlier but now that I decided to google search it, apparently that detection range value isn't mentioned anywhere except: topwar.ru site and some forum where you reposted it. Even on the brochure from manufacturer that value isn't mentioned, so it actually a big red flag regarding where topwar.ru took their number from?. Did they simply made that up?
Secondly, the advertised detection range of seeker is always much longer than actual detection range due to the fact that on the battlefield, these aircraft will have support jamming, and a long missile seeker range will actually benefit a stealth aircraft much more than it can benefit conventional fighter. Think about it, both side launch missile, the missile from stealth aircraft can lock on the conventional fighter from 35 km, whereas the same missile only lock on the stealth aircraft from 4.7 km. So who will have more time to perform evade maneuver?
Thirdly, in theory when your missile look at target from higher altitude, you can see the higher reflection due to greater surface area. However, pointing at the aircraft from the top also mean your seeker will be affected by ground clutter, which mean it is much harder to track the target. Missile only point at the bottom of aircraft when the range is very short, because low altitude air is thicker and cause more drag, so BVR missile shoot tend to follow a ballistic arc
BTW, there are several air defenser which use active radar seeker before Buk-M3 such as SL-AMRAAM, SPYDER, STUNNER, PAC-3



Modernization upgrades. Problem with aircrafts is when they get new avionics or still have block upgrades to finish it takes a long time to upgrade. Also using the F-22 or F-35 as an example, current designs will more than likely always stay the same like we cant expect an F-35 to get smaller, maybe new RAM applications to aircrafts, etc. S-400 went from 2007 radars to 2015 Nebo-M radars and is already going to get a new radar system that will exceed the performance of the Nebo-M called Nioby. F-35s will stay more likely the same until 2070 while the airforce will be focusing on aircraft development and production for NGADs. Newer long range ground to air missiles as well.
Firstly, F-35 will not keep the same avionic between now and 2070, it also get constantly upgraded
It will get improved sensor like advanced EOTS, advanced DAS as well as new weapons like Siaw, Lrew, Hawc, thor-er, Hyfly2 as time go by. There is even structure modification as the weapon bay modification for heavy aft weapon
F66783E8-0EAF-4F10-8E81-74244FE56D0D.jpeg

Lockheed-picks-Raytheon-for-F-35-NextGen-DAS.jpg

Lockheed_Martin_Continues_Advanced_EOTS_Development.jpg

F35-TH18-Block4.png


Secondly, the purpose of stealth is not to be completely invisible. The purpose of stealth is to reduce enemy detection range to the point that you can detect and attack them, before they can detect and attack you. For example: let say with the current RCS then detection range of enemy against F-35 is 50 km, while the detection and engagement range of F-35 against enemy is 100 km. But 5 years later, the enemy made a new radar which can detect F-35 from 120 km. Does that mean stealth lose all the value at that point? No, as long as the sensor and weapons for F-35 also improve, maybe enemy with improved radar can detect F-35 from 120 km, but if F-35 with its own improved sensor can detect and attack that enemy from 250 km then it still have the advantage. And as I emphasized many times, stealth synergy very well with jamming



Electronic Warfare Systems. Despite having longer range weapons and knowing where the location of the SAMs were a lot of air to ground missiles were fired and most missed or took awhile to take out Serbian SAMs. Murmansk-BN was reported to jam a enemy radio station from 7,000kms away which means radio HF frequencies can be jammed on aircrafts, Krasukhas can jam LEO satellites and aircraft radars with a newer EW system to replace it sooner. Tirada-2 jams satellites 300mhz to 3ghz, Tirada-2S jams satellites at 3–30ghz, Bylina-MM jams satellites at 30–300ghz. Borisoglebsk-2 jams datalink communications from aircrafts to their weapons.
Firstly, the biggest issue in Serbia war was that they didn't know where these SAM are, because these SAM didn't emit or try to protect the country infrastructure and the SAR technique of that time wasn;t advanced enough to give adequate resolution
Secondly, regarding these jamming system:
Murmansk-BN can jam radio system from 7000 km ( outside the radio horizon limit) that mean it must used the ionosphere and jam the HF frequency. But F-35 don't even have HF communication antenna
Krasukhas can jam aircraft radar, however, to jam a radar, it must emit. The problem is that a ground emitter can be geolocated much quicker and much more accurate than an airborne emitter since they either doesn't move or move very slowly which mean geolocation technique like kinematic ranging and single ship geolocation work very well against ground emitter. Unlike airborne emitter, they can't move away quickly to avoid retaliation strike after they are located.
passive-ranging12121.png

single-ship-triangulation.png


For the rest like Tirada-2, Tirada-2S, Bylina-MM, Borisoglebsk-2 aka GPS , satellite communication jammer. The solution would be using anti jam GPS with a Multiple Element Canceller or Controlled Radiation Pattern Antennas
1.PNG

2.PNG


3.PNG


photonic radars. Russian companies KRET, RTI, VEGA and the general designer of Russia's RWR gave ranges of 100ghz to terahertz ranges for the use of photonic radars. Yakhroma radar works in 4 bands including the 30–300ghz range meant to be autonomous with no human interaction. Stealth aircrafts are more than likely not prepared to deal with such frequencies in which the emergence of this technology might mean they have solved the atmosphere attenuation problem.
atmospheric attenuation of radio wave is a physical phenomenon, you can't "solve" it just like how you can't "solve" the speed of light limit.
Stealth aircraft will deal very well with high frequency, especially the 100-300 GHz range, since all the reflection will be specular reflection, which is exactly what stealth shaped are designed to deflect. There will be very little if any surface wave return which is much harder to attenuate and deflect.


There is also EW immunity because of the broad dynamic range of the radar
As I mentioned earlier, a wide dynamic range doesn't make you immune to EW, it only make you immune to the method which use noise to drown your receivers also known as noise jamming. But there are many others form of jamming like RGPO, RGPI, VGPO, VGPI, Cross eye, Cross polarization ..etc
 

panzerfeist1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
203
Likes
271
Country flag
Firstly, the F-117 which was used in Kosovo war didn't have a RWR, it didn't have a missile warning receiver or a radar either. It also couldn't carry anti radar missile. So there is no way for it to either detect enemy radar, or alert pilot of a missile launch.
Serbs didnt have passive radars AFAIK like the Kolchuga. Can the F-16s relay datalink information to F-117 pilots, or were they devoid of using any comms at all? Can F-117s use information from satellites when locating SAMs?

Secondly, F-35 will not remain at exact current condition until 2070, just like you think Su-57 will have a lot of upgrade, what make you think an F-35 at 2021 and 2070 are the same?
To answer your question with a question, how is the F-22? The aircraft had 3rd gen radars in 2005 and got a 4th gen replacement which has taken two years. Does it have a 5th gen radar upgrade? I dont see a block upgrade regarding new radars for F-35s, do you? I am even questioning its relevance now from Brown's early statements and the production of F-15s again along with proposing other new hypersonic weapons to non-5th gen aircrafts.

Firstly, I think you should take that number with a grain of salt , I didn't look at it very carefully earlier but now that I decided to google search it, apparently that detection range value isn't mentioned anywhere except: topwar.ru site and some forum where you reposted it. Even on the brochure from manufacturer that value isn't mentioned, so it actually a big red flag regarding where topwar.ru took their number from?. Did they simply made that up?
step 1: Put words into google translate to translate to Russian, step 2: copy and paste it on yandex, step 3 have results translated from russian to english thus you get better results on russian related. I could find a source like this not referencing topwar. https://missilery.info/missile/bukm3 and sources like this that give every little detail of every radar on buk-m3 missiles like this https://vpk.name/library/f/9m317.html.

Secondly, the advertised detection range of seeker is always much longer than actual detection range due to the fact that on the battlefield, these aircraft will have support jamming, and a long missile seeker range will actually benefit a stealth aircraft much more than it can benefit conventional fighter. Think about it, both side launch missile, the missile from stealth aircraft can lock on the conventional fighter from 35 km, whereas the same missile only lock on the stealth aircraft from 4.7 km. So who will have more time to perform evade maneuver?
I don't get it, the tracking performance of the buk-m3 missile exceeds an air to air missile tracking performance due to size and with the same wide radar beam that even yourself has demonstrated? you can even look up the a GaN AESA homing head on a AAM-4B missile where they state its tracking performance has 40 % autonomous lock on than the R-77, nowhere near the farther range value and smaller tracking than something like the Buk and that is not regarding the bigger SAMs like the S-400. Regarding their flight trajectory I dont think an F-35 would reflect .0001m2 from the topside which is probably bigger than the ventral RCS of a stealth aircraft. The speed of the missile or when the aircraft is to take notice it is being engaged is also another issue. I don't even think the current newer air to air missiles have a better autonomous tracking range than the older buk missiles with active radar homing.

Thirdly, in theory when your missile look at target from higher altitude, you can see the higher reflection due to greater surface area. However, pointing at the aircraft from the top also mean your seeker will be affected by ground clutter, which mean it is much harder to track the target. Missile only point at the bottom of aircraft when the range is very short, because low altitude air is thicker and cause more drag, so BVR missile shoot tend to follow a ballistic arc
BTW, there are several air defenser which use active radar seeker before Buk-M3 such as SL-AMRAAM, SPYDER, STUNNER, PAC-3
Obviously the missile wont be doing a nose dive for it to receive ground clutter from above. That's like saying an aircraft at 18 kilometers altitude has to worry about an aircraft at 15kms because of ground clutter? Does that mean he who is lower wins? Nice to know there are other missiles that use active radar before buk-m3, do you have their radar tracking performance? I know I did list a source that even gave charts of previous buk-m3 active missiles.

Firstly, F-35 will not keep the same avionic between now and 2070, it also get constantly upgraded
It will get improved sensor like advanced EOTS, advanced DAS as well as new weapons like Siaw, Lrew, Hawc, thor-er, Hyfly2 as time go by. There is even structure modification as the weapon bay modification for heavy aft weapon
The only avionics upgrade is getting DAS while I mean just the radar. Like are we expecting the modules of the radar to be replaced with PICs? or go from AESA to Darpas funded FMCA(photonics related arrays)? After all the block upgrades, NGAD will be the main focus and we can see the same shit of news reports coming from Europe's own intended 6th gen programs.

Secondly, the purpose of stealth is not to be completely invisible. The purpose of stealth is to reduce enemy detection range to the point that you can detect and attack them, before they can detect and attack you. For example: let say with the current RCS then detection range of enemy against F-35 is 50 km, while the detection and engagement range of F-35 against enemy is 100 km. But 5 years later, the enemy made a new radar which can detect F-35 from 120 km. Does that mean stealth lose all the value at that point? No, as long as the sensor and weapons for F-35 also improve, maybe enemy with improved radar can detect F-35 from 120 km, but if F-35 with its own improved sensor can detect and attack that enemy from 250 km then it still have the advantage. And as I emphasized many times, stealth synergy very well with jamming
I think the F-16Is are EW capable and still they get shot down by a Syrian S-200 which dont even have EW resistance and a pack of those F-16Is were being targetted until a IL-76 was used for cover which Russians used a S-400 radar capture meaning they did not deny the incident that they were conducting missions but accused the IL-76 getting in the way, etc, etc politcs. Which is one of the reasons why I would have loved to know how the Kosovo war would have turned out if they had a decent amount of those systems. I like your numerical estimates but what do you think of this from KRET's old website? “for example, take ground-based radar. Today, this radar is the size of a multi-story home, but using microwave photonics, the station can be installed on a standard KAMAZ truck. The effectiveness and range of the radar would be exactly the same, namely thousands of kilometers. Several of these mobile and small radar systems can be networked, which will only increase their characteristics.” I don't think I have to tell you the range performance of ground radars if mobile radars have their performance. Knowing you, you will undoubtfully deny this as journo BS, but that wont change my mind or others that it came from the company itself.

Firstly, the biggest issue in Serbia war was that they didn't know where these SAM are, because these SAM didn't emit or try to protect the country infrastructure and the SAR technique of that time wasn;t advanced enough to give adequate resolution
What are Satellites?

Secondly, regarding these jamming system:
Murmansk-BN can jam radio system from 7000 km ( outside the radio horizon limit) that mean it must used the ionosphere and jam the HF frequency. But F-35 don't even have HF communication antenna
Krasukhas can jam aircraft radar, however, to jam a radar, it must emit. The problem is that a ground emitter can be geolocated much quicker and much more accurate than an airborne emitter since they either doesn't move or move very slowly which mean geolocation technique like kinematic ranging and single ship geolocation work very well against ground emitter. Unlike airborne emitter, they can't move away quickly to avoid retaliation strike after they are located.
Why the image of aircrafts? Does kolchuga or moskva-1 fly in the air physically? Since i cant find any similiar passive ground sensors on Russia's systems I will just use the VERA from czech rep. https://www.era.aero/en/military-security/vera-ng https://www.czdjournal.com/defence/czech-army-to-purchase-verang-passive-radars-72.html has a 50-300 meter location accuracy for aerial targets. So yeah, I think these systems are pretty good if the U.S. has considered purchasing them. Fuck it sounds like this tracking method is far better than low frequency radars to give interceptor missiles a nice idea.

For the rest like Tirada-2, Tirada-2S, Bylina-MM, Borisoglebsk-2 aka GPS , satellite communication jammer. The solution would be using anti jam GPS with a Multiple Element Canceller or Controlled Radiation Pattern Antennas
Oh yeah my solution is anti-jam radars and comms for ground radars. I guess if my ship has EMP resistance I wont have to worry about a nuke going off near it. Anti-GPS as in changing frequencies which a jammer can do as well, what anti-jamming capabilities are we talking here?

atmospheric attenuation of radio wave is a physical phenomenon, you can't "solve" it just like how you can't "solve" the speed of light limit.
Stealth aircraft will deal very well with high frequency, especially the 100-300 GHz range, since all the reflection will be specular reflection, which is exactly what stealth shaped are designed to deflect. There will be very little if any surface wave return which is much harder to attenuate and deflect.
I guess all those CEOs of said companies and even higher ups in their ABM are all just insane and that you are the only sane one of the bunch? Do you got sources that aircrafts can deal with those frequencies? The one with the F-117 example does not cut it.

As I mentioned earlier, a wide dynamic range doesn't make you immune to EW, it only make you immune to the method which use noise to drown your receivers also known as noise jamming. But there are many others form of jamming like RGPO, RGPI, VGPO, VGPI, Cross eye, Cross polarization ..etc
Are there are any systems capable with a jamming noise of 200 decibels? doesn't your suppose anti-jam GPS have to deal with the same problems you are stating about the radar, or its got it all covered :confused1:
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
750
Likes
532
Country flag
Serbs didnt have passive radars AFAIK like the Kolchuga. Can the F-16s relay datalink information to F-117 pilots, or were they devoid of using any comms at all? Can F-117s use information from satellites when locating SAMs?
F-117 doesn't have a datalink
It only have Tacan antenna for take off and landing and an UHF voice communication antenna but both of these 2 antenna are flushed inside the fuselage in flight.


To answer your question with a question, how is the F-22? The aircraft had 3rd gen radars in 2005 and got a 4th gen replacement which has taken two years. Does it have a 5th gen radar upgrade? I dont see a block upgrade regarding new radars for F-35s, do you? I am even questioning its relevance now from Brown's early statements and the production of F-15s again along with proposing other new hypersonic weapons to non-5th gen aircrafts.
F-22 radar had been upgraded before from APG-77 to APG-77v1
There is also another recent sensor upgrade program for F-22
F-22.jpg

f-222.jpg

Apart from the upgrade on DAS, EOTS and ASQ-239, F-35 also get upgrade on radar and most importantly the core processor which is 25 times faster computing power
Capture.PNG

fg18-15360_011-f35nextgenicp__main.jpg



step 1: Put words into google translate to translate to Russian, step 2: copy and paste it on yandex, step 3 have results translated from russian to english thus you get better results on russian related. I could find a source like this not referencing topwar. https://missilery.info/missile/bukm3 and sources like this that give every little detail of every radar on buk-m3 missiles like this https://vpk.name/library/f/9m317.html.
I don't get it, the tracking performance of the buk-m3 missile exceeds an air to air missile tracking performance due to size and with the same wide radar beam that even yourself has demonstrated? you can even look up the a GaN AESA homing head on a AAM-4B missile where they state its tracking performance has 40 % autonomous lock on than the R-77, nowhere near the farther range value and smaller tracking than something like the Buk and that is not regarding the bigger SAMs like the S-400. Regarding their flight trajectory I dont think an F-35 would reflect .0001m2 from the topside which is probably bigger than the ventral RCS of a stealth aircraft. The speed of the missile or when the aircraft is to take notice it is being engaged is also another issue. I don't even think the current newer air to air missiles have a better autonomous tracking range than the older buk missiles with active radar homing.
Firstly, I clicked on your link and this is the range the gave for ARGSN seeker: about 25 km against a target with RCS of 5 m2 and radio correction channel (datalink) range of 50 km. That quite a big different from the claimed 35 km detection range against target with RCS of 0.3 m2 as stated from these other source.
Bulk M3.PNG

Secondly, target detection is a matter of sorting out a target from background noise, RCS of aircraft is much greater from the top but the ground surface also generate order of magnitude greater clutter compared to a sky background. Think about it, a stealth destroyer still have RCS on order of 100-1000 m2, so why they are considered stealth despite the much greater RCS compared to even a normal aircraft?. Because the sea surface is a significant source of clutter.
Capture.PNG

Thirdly, missiles follow a ballistic arcs to engage target, but that arc have to balance between the energy conservation from drag reduction, energy lost from climb as well as the energy lost when the missile making the diving maneuver. The aerodynamic force required to make the turn is also very important. So the missile trajectory look similar to the image below, SAM doesn't make very sharp climb up to max celling then sharp diving down. In fact, missile won't climb much higher than their targets, so their seeker won't look at target straight from the top, but rather from direction 7-15 degrees higher than target in elevation. Unless you somehow use an ICBM to engage air targets.
s-300 trajetory.png



Obviously the missile wont be doing a nose dive for it to receive ground clutter from above. That's like saying an aircraft at 18 kilometers altitude has to worry about an aircraft at 15kms because of ground clutter? Does that mean he who is lower wins?
He who lower doesn't always win or lose, it depend on situation, but diving down toward the deck is a valid missile evasion method. Generally being lower also make beaming more effective



The only avionics upgrade is getting DAS while I mean just the radar. Like are we expecting the modules of the radar to be replaced with PICs? or go from AESA to Darpas funded FMCA(photonics related arrays)? After all the block upgrades, NGAD will be the main focus and we can see the same shit of news reports coming from Europe's own intended 6th gen programs.
No, apart from DAS the EOTS also get upgraded, and the EW antenna for ASQ-239 also get upgraded, along with the central processing core.
NGAD is not the main focus, it is just 1 of the program that will be developed, F-35 still produced at much greater quantity and used many countries so there will be many upgrade program for it.
European 6 gen is their first attempt at stealth fighters


I think the F-16Is are EW capable and still they get shot down by a Syrian S-200 which dont even have EW resistance and a pack of those F-16Is were being targetted until a IL-76 was used for cover which Russians used a S-400 radar capture meaning they did not deny the incident that they were conducting missions but accused the IL-76 getting in the way, etc, etc politcs. Which is one of the reasons why I would have loved to know how the Kosovo war would have turned out if they had a decent amount of those systems. I like your numerical estimates but what do you think of this from KRET's old website? “for example, take ground-based radar. Today, this radar is the size of a multi-story home, but using microwave photonics, the station can be installed on a standard KAMAZ truck. The effectiveness and range of the radar would be exactly the same, namely thousands of kilometers. Several of these mobile and small radar systems can be networked, which will only increase their characteristics.” I don't think I have to tell you the range performance of ground radars if mobile radars have their performance. Knowing you, you will undoubtfully deny this as journo BS, but that wont change my mind or others that it came from the company itself.
F-16I is a 4 gen aircraft, comparable to F-16C/D but less capable compared to F-16 E/F let alone F-22 or F-35
Also EW is not an invincible I win button (just like how stealth doesn't mean invisible) , there is still the burn through distance, and if you get close enough, the radar can still burn through your jamming.
Secondly, about the IL-76 and Israel F-16I incident, frankly, these jammer on F-16I was working well enough that the tracking gate of S-200 fail to capture the F-16I and lock on the IL-76 instead
Thirdly, I don't want to change your mind, I know for a fact that you will believe what you want to believe. I only explain the misconception so that others who interested in technical aspect can distinguish between fact and Journo BS and yes the piece you just referenced is either propaganda or journo BS or both.

What are Satellites?
If you read about Kosovo war, you will notice that during the period of the war, the weather is so terrible that aircraft have to fly below the cloud to find target with their Litening pod, so something like satellite won't be very useful. Secondly, satellite are not very useful against relocateable targets



Why the image of aircrafts? Does kolchuga or moskva-1 fly in the air physically? Since i cant find any similiar passive ground sensors on Russia's systems I will just use the VERA from czech rep. https://www.era.aero/en/military-security/vera-ng https://www.czdjournal.com/defence/czech-army-to-purchase-verang-passive-radars-72.html has a 50-300 meter location accuracy for aerial targets. So yeah, I think these systems are pretty good if the U.S. has considered purchasing them. Fuck it sounds like this tracking method is far better than low frequency radars to give interceptor missiles a nice idea.
The image is an illustration of how kinematic ranging work, Kolchuga and moskava doesn't fly but that literally just make it much easier for EW system to locate them.
VERA is a TDOA (time different of arrival) system, as I described in the previous page, to geolocate the target position, all 4 stations must receive the same pulse. That why high gain radar with narrow beamwidth and directional datalink is a very good counter against this sort of system.
cuirasse.jpg


Secondly, US does have the equivalent of VERA system, you can find it on the RC-135, F-16HTS, EA-18 ALR-218 and F-35 ASQ-239
heritage report.PNG


rc-135.PNG
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
750
Likes
532
Country flag
Oh yeah my solution is anti-jam radars and comms for ground radars. I guess if my ship has EMP resistance I wont have to worry about a nuke going off near it. Anti-GPS as in changing frequencies which a jammer can do as well, what anti-jamming capabilities are we talking here?
There are "anti jam" radar already, we called that function on radar side lobe blanker and side lobe canceller
side lobe canceller.PNG

sidelobe blanker.PNG

but the key different between a radar and a GPS system is that for a radar, the jammer is very often inside its main lobe. In other words, the jammer is either on the target itself or located in the same direction as the targets so the sidelobe blanker and canceller function doesn't help in that case, they only help when the target and jammer aren't both inside the radar beamwidth. This also is why a high gain radar is harder to jam. By contrast, for a GPS system, the jammer located on the ground and the emitter (the satellite) located in space, so the jammer is always inside the sidelobe of the GPS system.
Secondly, anti jam function of GPS system doesn't counter jamming by changing frequency, as I mentioned earlier, because the the GPS jamming signal always come from the sidelobes of the GPS antenna so the anti jam function must take advantage of that fact.
The most simple one are Fixed Radiation Pattern Antennas (FRPAs): they use antennas designed to have deep nulls in the horizons where the jamming signal come from. A null is the direction where the antenna doesn't transmit or listen to signal. Look at the illustrative image below, the biggest lump is the main lobe where the antenna concentrated most of its energy. The several smaller one are side lobes where a bit of energy leaked into, and the gap between them are the nulls.
Capture.PNG

But FRPAs is just the most simple anti jam method,
This evolved into Multiple Element Fixed Radiation Pattern Antennas (MEFRPAs): which divided into 2 methods:
Switched Multiple Element FRPAs: Still very simple, the system has multiple antenna with different radiation pattern, aimed at different parts of the sky and null the rest, it switched between them until it receive the most stable GPS signal.
Multiple Element Canceller : This technique use 2 antennas, the auxiliary one directed at the jammer and the primary one directed at the direction of true GPS signal. Normally that mean the primary one will located on top of the aircraft or missiles whereas the auxiliary one will located at the bottom. The primary one will receive a mix of both real GPS signal and Jamming signal whereas the auxiliary one will only receive jamming signal. Then the received signal are combined to eliminate the jamming signal
1.PNG

2.PNG


The more recent GPS anti jam technique use Controlled Radiation Pattern Antennas (CRPAs) . This is a group of several antennas with a beamforming system that combine signal received from each antennas, so it can create an adjustable radiation pattern. In shorts, it can steer the null toward the direction of the jammer.
3.PNG

tualcom_gnss_antijam_2-1170x658-1.jpg


Are there are any systems capable with a jamming noise of 200 decibels? doesn't your suppose anti-jam GPS have to deal with the same problems you are stating about the radar, or its got it all covered :confused1:.
Firstly, the method of radar jamming I mentioned earlier doesn't rely on overwhelmed the receiver with noise, so they don't have to covered the whole dynamic range of the receiver
Secondly, because GPS jammer are on the ground (there is no literally satellite ability to transmit jamming signal yet) , so anti jam function on GPS system is much easier than anti jam function on radar, because they only need to deal with sidelobe jammer.


I guess all those CEOs of said companies and even higher ups in their ABM are all just insane and that you are the only sane one of the bunch? .
These CEO are not insane, and the higher up are not insane either but nothing stopping them from creating some propaganda, just like what people used to say about the magical plasma stealth coat. And let be real, even if they truly try to explain how photonic radar operate, most people wouldn't understand or try to understand, so why bother ?
Furthermore, most journalist who write about photonic radar doesn't fully understand what is and how it supposed to work either, they just grasp the biggest most catchy words, what they think can make a sensational headline and that it. You think most readers will click on a link that talk about coherent radar and how oscillator function? . No, of course. But most reader would click on something that say: " trillion dollars stealth is confirmed death due to new photonic radar that will be installed next week".


Do you got sources that aircrafts can deal with those frequencies? The one with the F-117 example does not cut it.
You can check this book up
 
Last edited:

Lonewolf

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
2,150
Likes
5,923
Country flag
I don't know why even after copying all of f 22 and f 35 tech ,china didn't chose to put that f 35 baked in stealth surface , that f 35 one skin looks really treat for eyes
 

Lonewolf

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
2,150
Likes
5,923
Country flag
You need to stop posting this shit in every post....we get the stealth aspect already. Whats with all copy and paste of stuff?
Calm down mate ,he is discussing it with other members , this forum us for discussion , better delete your message
 

omaebakabaka

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2020
Messages
1,455
Likes
2,971
Calm down mate ,he is discussing it with other members , this forum us for discussion , better delete your message
Ok, if you say so. Its same rinse repeat with no new info. One can communicate at that level in fewer posts of same type. He can refer to old post links, he is not making new point everytime.
 

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
5,281
Likes
3,831
Country flag
HASC Dems Put DoD On Notice: No Free Pass For F-35

“If this program continues to fail ... we may need to invest in other more affordable programs, and backfill an operational shortfall of potentially over 800 tactical fighters,”

there is absolutely no way the Air Force, Navy and Marines can afford to fly the jets they intend to buy over the long term.


All seems said

 

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
5,281
Likes
3,831
Country flag

Did They Miss Yet Another F-35 Cost Overrun?

On Thursday, April 22, two subcommittees of the House Armed Services Committee held a joint hearing on the F-35. The hearing covered multiple F-35 cost issues, but strangely, no one discussed or asked about an apparent $63 billion cost overrun for the acquisition of the F-35. The data is in a Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) report (titled “Independent Cost Estimate” [ICE]) sent to the Committee last July and publically reported last September by Bloomberg News. The $63 billion acquisition overrun – derived by some simple arithmetic with two data points in the ICE – suggests that F-35 acquisition could possibly have tripped the preliminary 15% growth tripwire specified in the Nunn-McCurdy Act intended to alert Congress to such cost increases.
 

Global Defence

Articles

Top