F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

panzerfeist1

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2020
Messages
256
Likes
360
Country flag
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.
so the pilot can still get communication of where and when to attack?

F-22 radar had been upgraded before from APG-77 to APG-77v1
There is also another recent sensor upgrade program for F-22
Oh I know it had the upgrade dont forget to include the year 2007. Are there new t/r modules on EW system other than the EA-18?

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.
doesnt sound like you clicked on both links if you said you clicked on a link because one of them will tell you the same value. I am not talking about the 9B-1103M radar but the 9M317MA radar(big difference with letters) ""Slatec" active radar head of homing (ARGSN) developed by Moscow Research Institute Agat. Detection and capture of air targets is made by a slit antenna grille with a monopulse radiopelentator. ARGSN "Slate" can receive targeting from almost any external sources (DRLOIU aircraft, BRLK multirole interceptor fighters, ground and ship radars with appropriate information exchange equipment). ARGSN's energy potential "Slate" allows to capture the target with EPR 0.3m2 up to 35 km."

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.
Yeah but the direction an incoming air to air missile when approaching targets dont do nose dives when engaging aircrafts. radar on a missile does not necessarily have to face down but at an angle. it didn't stop an S-200 from hitting this aircraft WATCH: Israeli F-16 fighter jet crashes after shot down by Syrian missiles - YouTube

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.
Yeah but I got the attitudes and trajectories of those specific SAMs same thing as I already got info before from two companies from Russia and India where they kept the same dimensions with increased range and speeds. So I am going with data that is already presented by the missile companies which you probably already know by now, thanks.

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
any sources for the ASQ-239 getting new modules or is that a software program update? 6th gen options are not decided yet some are either going with variable cycle or going with near at hypersonic speeds and if its a hypersonic option that aerodynamic layout will be suited more for spead than stealth like we wont say a F-35 pull mach 5 with current features.

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.
Well yeah Israel did not deny that F-16Is were near and the only reason S-300s were deployed later was claimed to have friend or foe identification which the S-200 lacked and than they slaved the rest of the air defense network with those S-300s with an agreement to Israel saying were not targeting your aircrafts. So for your 3rd reason you dont believe KRET when that was from their own company website?

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
VERA included the B-2 radar and I am sure you already got the news about Germany's claim with the F-35?

There are "anti jam" radar already, we called that function on radar side lobe blanker and side lobe canceller
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.
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
ahh what? my only concern is that the photonic radar had a higher threshold for decibel sensitibity than the suppression capabilities of conventional radars. photonic communications will have higher EW suppression resistance as well than conventional communications. I am just stating what EW terms were you referring to radar that can be used on GPS, which did not necessarily answer what anti-jamming capabilities we are talking about?

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.
This is the equivalent of a gay person saying im not gay he is the one that is gay for sucking my dick. Its like that one time on secretprojects where you state how the speeds of the missile that is to simulate PRSM or agm-183 has slower speeds than AGM-183, when I just found out you were in another thread where you were stating how speeds of HGVs get slower in descent where am like is the agm-183 an HGV? why didnt he tell me it will be slower than mach 10 like the simulated missile will be slower than mach 6+? Same as why didn't you tell me that GPS only has to worry about sidelobe?

.

To the jamming techniques you complained about the photonic radar might face than having a higher sensitivity threshold. Which of these apply to radars and which apply to antennas using GPS signals?

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".
OK remember you heard those words from their CEOs and some higher ups that managed their ABM shield. Just like the advancement of nuclear propulsion the beauty will unfold later. I am curious did you say earlier that aircrafts can deal with higher frequencies than current firecontrol frequencies? While I believe a changing battlefield and you dont, can I have some information on the frequencies absorption range for stealth aircraft if you have any?
 

StealthFlanker

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
765
Likes
564
Country flag
so the pilot can still get communication of where and when to attack?
Not really, as I told you, the UHF radio antenna are flushed into the airframe inflight. So F-117 mostly rely on mission planning. It doesn't have the sort of directional datalink such as those available on later stealth aircraft. There was some effort in 2002 to integrate real time communication into the aircraft though, but that is after the war

Oh I know it had the upgrade dont forget to include the year 2007. Are there new t/r modules on EW system other than the EA-18?
F-22 use its radar to send jamming signal, so technically speaking, when you changed the T/R modules of radar, you also change the T/R modules of EW system.

doesnt sound like you clicked on both links if you said you clicked on a link because one of them will tell you the same value. I am not talking about the 9B-1103M radar but the 9M317MA radar(big difference with letters) ""Slatec" active radar head of homing (ARGSN) developed by Moscow Research Institute Agat. Detection and capture of air targets is made by a slit antenna grille with a monopulse radiopelentator. ARGSN "Slate" can receive targeting from almost any external sources (DRLOIU aircraft, BRLK multirole interceptor fighters, ground and ship radars with appropriate information exchange equipment). ARGSN's energy potential "Slate" allows to capture the target with EPR 0.3m2 up to 35 km."

You are confusing between the name of the missile and the name of the radar seeker used on it.
Big difference.
9M317 is the original missile with 9E420 semi active radar seeker
9M317M is the improved version with 9E432 semi active radar seeker (also known as Buk-M3 )
9M317MA is the modified version of 9M317M missile but with ARGSN 9B-1103M active radar seeker


Yeah but the direction an incoming air to air missile when approaching targets dont do nose dives when engaging aircrafts. radar on a missile does not necessarily have to face down but at an angle. it didn't stop an S-200 from hitting this aircraft WATCH: Israeli F-16 fighter jet crashes after shot down by Syrian missiles - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wbl-i3HIcM
If your missile coming from higher altitude then target, then it must do a nose dive, how else does it reach target?.
Secondly, I don't see the relevant between your suggestion of missile with active seeker tracking aircraft and F-16 shootdown by S-200. F-16 isn't a stealth aircraft, especially when it carry several bombs and fuel tank. Furthermore, your video only show a burning F-16 crashing to the ground (unless you think a SAM is that slow when they dive), so it really doesn't show anything regarding how hard it is to lock on a target in high clutter.


Yeah but I got the attitudes and trajectories of those specific SAMs same thing as I already got info before from two companies from Russia and India where they kept the same dimensions with increased range and speeds. So I am going with data that is already presented by the missile companies which you probably already know by now, thanks.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wbl-i3HIcM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wbl-i3HIcM
What do you mean? do you mean that the maximum service ceiling is the same even though range and speed increased?
That should be obvious because the maximum ceiling of missile is not just how high you can launch it upward, but also how high its control fins can remain effective. The higher the missile go, the thinner air will be. And aerodynamic force is dictated by air density, so even if you put the biggest rocket motor on your missile, if it lack the alternative mean to steer direction at high altitude, then its ceiling will be limited still.
Trajectories will always change with range



any sources for the ASQ-239 getting new modules or is that a software program update? 6th gen options are not decided yet some are either going with variable cycle or going with near at hypersonic speeds and if its a hypersonic option that aerodynamic layout will be suited more for spead than stealth like we wont say a F-35 pull mach 5 with current features..https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wbl-i3HIcM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wbl-i3HIcM
Yes, ASQ-239 does get new processor and antennas
Capture.PNG


Adaptive cycle engine isn't something only 6 generation aircraft have either.
adaptive.PNG



Well yeah Israel did not deny that F-16Is were near and the only reason S-300s were deployed later was claimed to have friend or foe identification which the S-200 lacked and than they slaved the rest of the air defense network with those S-300s with an agreement to Israel saying were not targeting your aircrafts.
Even assuming Syrian didn't integrate their own IFF system on the S-200, wouldn't it make more sense for them to attack all F-16 instead of only the IL-20 there? , S-200 launcher have several missiles per battery.


So for your 3rd reason you dont believe KRET when that was from their own company website?
When I don't believe something, it is because it make no sense, a marketing piece on a company website sometimes fall in to that categories. Because more often than not, it is written by the marketing department and not the engineer who involved.



VERA included the B-2 radar and I am sure you already got the news about Germany's claim with the F-35?
Yes, I know VERA include B-2 as the threat that they can detect. That how they advertise system like VERA, and in theory, when B-2 use its link 16 omi directional datalink, it can be detected. What they wouldn't tell you, is that in combat, stealth aircraft won't use omi directional datalink. They will have their own directional stealth datalink such as MADL or IFDL
About the case where the German radar detect the F-35 the working principles of the system is a little bit different from VERA
For VERA, you rely on having several VERA station located some distance from each others and all receive the same pulse transmitted by the same aircraft. By calculate the time difference of arrival, you can locate target. That why a high gain directional radar and datalink are good counter against this sort of system, because it ensure only 1 station or 2 stations receive the pulse at a time
For the German Twlnvis, it isn't truly a passive radar, it is more like a bi static radar (meaning the transmitter and the receiver aren't at the same location). This system rely on having the transmitter being the national TV or radio station which are at VHF frequency and the receiver itself is silent. In peace time, this work alright, in war time, these station will be one of the first to get hit by missiles, and the biggest issue is that they can't move. No fixed transmitter, no bi static radars.
Secondly, the F-35 was flying in peace time, so it must have its transponder on, which make target identification and IFF much easier.

german.PNG





ahh what? my only concern is that the photonic radar had a higher threshold for decibel sensitibity than the suppression capabilities of conventional radars. photonic communications will have higher EW suppression resistance as well than conventional communications. I am just stating what EW terms were you referring to radar that can be used on GPS, which did not necessarily answer what anti-jamming capabilities we are talking about?
I don't understand what you want to ask me ?



This is the equivalent of a gay person saying im not gay he is the one that is gay for sucking my dick. Its like that one time on secretprojects where you state how the speeds of the missile that is to simulate PRSM or agm-183 has slower speeds than AGM-183, when I just found out you were in another thread where you were stating how speeds of HGVs get slower in descent where am like is the agm-183 an HGV? why didnt he tell me it will be slower than mach 10 like the simulated missile will be slower than mach 6+? Same as why didn't you tell me that GPS only has to worry about sidelobe?

.
To the jamming techniques you complained about the photonic radar might face than having a higher sensitivity threshold. Which of these apply to radars and which apply to antennas using GPS signals?
Firstly, I already explained to you the speed of boost glider several times before. When we talked about Avangard I already told you that a boost glider is slower than a ballistic missile because its is slow down gradually by the atmosphere. I also showed you the velocity charts for boost glider system several times when you asked me why there are so many number for AGM-183 speed. Think of boost glider weapon like a gliding bullet or an sabot round, the closer the target, the faster it is at impact. Of course boost glider decelerate much slower than bullet because they gliding at much higher altitude. But basic principles are the same
Secondly, GPS only have to worry about sidelobes because of where the satellite located versus where the jammer located. For a GPS system, the source of signal aka the satellite are up in the sky, whereas the jammer are on the ground. So the direction of the main lobe of a GPS antenna is not the same as the jammer
For a radar, it is opposite. Because the source of signal are at target direction (since you shine them with radar beam and listen to reflection). But the target can carry a jammer to protect themselves. So the main lobe of radar will be at the same direction as the jammer.
So the way for a GPS system to "anti Jam" is practically just not receive the signal from jammer direction. A radar don't have that option when jammer is on target. Does that make sense now?.
For your link, like I said earlier: a radar with very wide dynamic range can help negate noise jamming, but no impact on repeater techniques. But these repeater techniques still doesn't work on GPS with anti jam, because as I said earlier, in principles the solution of anti jam GPS is literally not listening to signal not coming from their main lobe.





OK remember you heard those words from their CEOs and some higher ups that managed their ABM shield. Just like the advancement of nuclear propulsion the beauty will unfold later. I am curious did you say earlier that aircrafts can deal with higher frequencies than current firecontrol frequencies? While I believe a changing battlefield and you dont, can I have some information on the frequencies absorption range for stealth aircraft if you have any?
I do believe in a changing battlefield, just not in the way you are thinking.
Physics CAN'T change.
I think you should read the book I mentioned earlier then you can understand why high frequency aren't good against stealth aircraft.
 

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
5,463
Likes
4,371
Country flag
Take a break from the constant depressing Covid news with F-35 porn.:truestory:

nothing impressive.
Falling like a leaf, even if mastered, only shows there are effective FBW, but not that the frame is agile and well powered.
In the F35 case the main role of FBW is not agility, it's for the frame safety.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
11,025
Likes
6,025
Country flag
nothing impressive.
Falling like a leaf, even if mastered, only shows there are effective FBW, but not that the frame is agile and well powered.
In the F35 case the main role of FBW is not agility, it's for the frame safety.
C'mon Frenchie. You've gotta admit it's impressive especially for a non-TVC plane. Rafale does not come close in high AOA and slow speed maneuverability.
 

BON PLAN

-*-
Contributor
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
5,463
Likes
4,371
Country flag
C'mon Frenchie. You've gotta admit it's impressive especially for a non-TVC plane. Rafale does not come close in high AOA and slow speed maneuverability.
LOL.

F35 is so far from that....
No need to go high in Ao... F35 is literally stalling.
 

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
11,025
Likes
6,025
Country flag
Interesting.
So sad they need a U2 to communicate.

This comm system is LOS. So they need a 3rd party platform perched at higher altitude to datalink F-35 and F-22 and/or ground units.

But in actual practice it will not be U2 who will act as datalink relay, most likely it will be RQ-180 or similar high altitude stealthy UAVs.

In order to have secure comms, F-22s and F-35s have to trade common and interoperable datalink. But with this new architecture, they can now datalink with each other without sacrificing their stealth.
 
Last edited:

Fonck83

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2020
Messages
46
Likes
124
Country flag
F-22 out of futute USAF fleet, of which the F-35 will be the cornerstone.

ANF THE F-15ex and the a-10 and the f-16. This last two should have been replaced by the f-35 but ....
“Now we have a cost overrun and we've got some schedule slips on TR3,” Fick said. “As a result of the cost overrun driven by TR3, we've had to slow development and, in some cases, stopped development on some of those Block 4 capabilities.”

Fick did not provide a dollar figure for the cost overruns, which he said are related to the integrated core processor. He noted that the Joint Program Office is working with F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin and subcontractor L3Harris to address the issues and try to keep the initiative on track.

The new hardware was slated to be added during Lot 15 production beginning in 2023. The Pentagon and Lockheed are currently in negotiations for Lots 15, 16 and 17, Fick said.
 

Okabe Rintarou

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
762
Likes
2,998
Country flag

asianobserve

Senior Member
Joined
May 5, 2011
Messages
11,025
Likes
6,025
Country flag
ANF THE F-15ex and the a-10 and the f-16. This last two should have been replaced by the f-35 but ....
“Now we have a cost overrun and we've got some schedule slips on TR3,” Fick said. “As a result of the cost overrun driven by TR3, we've had to slow development and, in some cases, stopped development on some of those Block 4 capabilities.”

Fick did not provide a dollar figure for the cost overruns, which he said are related to the integrated core processor. He noted that the Joint Program Office is working with F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin and subcontractor L3Harris to address the issues and try to keep the initiative on track.

The new hardware was slated to be added during Lot 15 production beginning in 2023. The Pentagon and Lockheed are currently in negotiations for Lots 15, 16 and 17, Fick said.
Operational cost is F-35's biggest problem right now.
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top