F-35 can be played down even without the A-4.
F-16 was the F-16D version with heavy loads. Nothing like a Rafale or Sukhoi. As I said the representative threats are already developing to a point where they bring loaded supercruise to their attack plan.
F-15E was IIRC not the WVR combat but some interdiction mission. And the F-15E did not come in with AWACS as they are usually expected and designed to operate and don’t have IRSTs. F-15 is a reasonable plane which could possibly have stood-in for Su-30s and PAKFAs. So the X-band radar failed to detect. Big deal! Is that the one you are talking about?
Also I don’t understand how that education about G load and TWR is relevant. I mentioned the structural limits for Rafale (11g) only to show that Rafale has the bigger wing, better TWR as well as the structural margin of safety to do whatever it wishes to. Unlike the F-35 which must bring down the aggressor from its full operating capabilities. Su-35 type planes are doing even better in this regard.
I actually don’t mind it because I have come to accept that F-35 is a Strike fighter masquerading as an air superiority platform and the fanboys imagining air dominance capabilities.
Also you tend to give a lot of gratuitous theoretical education. Thanks for that effort but I am quoting facts. Mostly admitted facts. And I know which side to err on when faced with a choice between theory and facts.
For Example what do you want to say with the above? That if the F-35 faces off with say an F-16D in real world then the F-16D must first come with disabilities that will change its combat characterstics to a level that F-35 can manage?
F-35 could have chosen to go with lesser fuel to the tests, if it needed better TWR instead of asking the F-16D to load up with extra load that the F-16D did not need at all for the WVR combat.
Or is it that the F-35 would not have fared any better despite dropping fuel load for a WVR test and the only option left was to load up the F-16D. Is it that the F-35 must load up on fuel because after all that is what it is made for – heavy internal carriage which make it stubbier and unsuitable for WVR combat.
And why must the F-35 load up so much fuel – because it is a known and admitted fact (before some house committee) that F-35 fuel burn is nearly 60% higher than that of F-16C. End result of trying too much.
So how do you fix the tests:
Step-1 - don’t bring in the F-16C which is actually much better representative of Rafale. Bring in the fatter F-16D.
Step-2 – force the F-16D further to carry extra load to make its wing loading match that of F-35.
They dropped 2 tons of weight and added probably 10% extra thrust.
You do the same to Rafale it will work nearabout. Do that to F-22 and it will most likely exceed all of them.
But F-35 even with similar changes will not. F-35 is a fat flying pig.
Would not the F-35 be a real super-cruiser already if it could reach 1.2 mach on dry thrust alone?
Why would then the Lockheed official talk about 150nm supercruise limit? Why not just say that the full range in super-cruise is X km?
I had warned you not to concentrated too much on the strobe which is meant for display purpose only. Still you are stuck with a display functionality.
Ok bhailog you decide.
Given that the Northrop claim is that the strobe is accurate to at least the Subsector level location of a Jammer, so the only thing missing would be the range. The subsectors within a Sector search were allocated by the AWACS itself.
Further given that Northrop also claims that only the radar transmitter is shut down and only towards that particular sub-sector where a Pelena-1 equivalent may be (MALD-J is irrelevant).
Further given that all receivers work full time (no exemption even for the jammer subsector).
Now in order to get the range information would it be too difficult to:
1) have that sub-sector searched by an X-band radar on the escorting fighters (mind you all types of sensors already have their own boresight line of sight fully stabilized and quantified); or
2) to generate an artificial aperture by keeping track of that subsector over time (if there is no fighter escort available).
Keeping track of Jammer bearings is also mentioned with the Vostok-E (see image below, that you asked for). Does that also imply that the Vostok-E has also deteriorated into a Radar Warning receiver?
No master ji, you are mistaken. And this is old technology, may be 70s for USA and 80s for rest of the world.
How does it matter if the jammed AWACS is not able to range one solitary jammer or anything flying under the jammer’s cover when the current scenario is of:
1) abundance of sensors (IR/EO and Low Bands) and
2) every single fighter in a group with its GPS coordinates known and
3) each with its own boresight known and
4) an AWACS level processing power available at multiple points, in air or on ground.
You have to worry about the day when you don’t even need an AWACS to process the information and the same is readily done by every non-stealthy Su-30MKI or Rafale. Or the day when one or two small stealthy UAVs each with its own IR/EO sensor joins the fight.
Active cancellation and Spectra !
Master ji, in my several years of stay on this site I have never talked about Spectra and only hinted at Active cancellation once. Absolutely never were these even raised to you.
Look if you want me to admit you are smart then I will say it out loud for all people here:
HEY WORLD, PLEASE NOTE @ StealthFlanker IS SMART.
Duh man! Do you want to make my arguments for me? Will I allow that?
And no, it was only for Bi-static. I specifically mentioned that. Multistatic will be many many more times better ranged because the reception is not going to be equally bad in all directions.
But look closely ASO is monostatic but the with the same source and a bigger isolated receiver of TASO the picture change completely. ASO and ACTAS serve as the lower and upper bounds for what is possible with several different ingredients thrown in. But the Bistatic arrangement clearly shows that there is a component increase due to bistatic arrangement.
In the case of radars say Nebo VHF, only the transmitter needs to be safe and protected. The receiver could be right under or even behind the F-35. I would work in such a case just like the Barrier-E FSR, only working at much higher peak powers. Barrier-E was designed for detection Spans of about 25-30 km. You can guess what the Nebo-VHF is going to do.
Master ji, thank you for education but what do I do with this gratuitous education now.
“noise of the ship”! Aapko kanhi direction of motion dikh raha hai picture mein. Atlas Electronik people were careful enough to have metioned that the diagram is not not to scale but they forgot to mention whether the ship is producing noise or not?
It is obvious that when reasonable people make diagrams to show comparisons they do just that and go on and on about unrelated matters.
And in normal operating conditions is that difficult?
Nothing theoretically speaking, except may be a bunch of better armed, better informed, fighters like Sukhois and Rafales with much better fighting capabilities.
With an AWACS around you can simply forget that an F-35 would get to approach even 300 km towards the AWACS.
BTW is there an internally carried Anti-Radiation Missile also in the works for F-35?
This says a 30 degree broadside all right but not about +-30 for a total of 60 degrees or +-15 for a total of 30. IIRC the F-35 is LO in the frontal sector right upto +-70 degrees.
Anyhow this itself constitutes an interesting input. If the Typhoons did in fact for a multistatic arrangement with a singular AWACS, it implies that the Typhoons have the receivers for the S-Band transmitted energy. Which leaves us with the quaint question is the L-Band antenna on PAKFA an IFF really. There is a lot of Cows being denounced as Goats.
The X band transmission by Typhoons would be practically useless in most cases for a multistatic arrangement.
If however there are no S-Band receivers on Typhoons then how was the multistatic arrangement established. Is it a lie? Or someting different from what is understood. AWACS could easily have vectored the Typhoons all through without the multistatic being invoked at all. While the mention of 25 to 30 degree separation could be the minimum/maximum parameters for operational reasons (the study was an internal simulation study only and nowhere does it state that the simulation involved multistatic radar capabilities)
Or is it that a simultaneous claim of use of multistatic arrangement, AWACS and Tyhoons are suggestive of even IRST &/or S-Band mixed triangulation.
In any case this states that the 4 Typhoons were successful in intercepting 8 F-35 and that some sort of multistatic arrangement was actually used which basically supports the claims being made about the approach Russians have taken.
No, the Eurofighter official (Craig Penrice, a Typhoon pilot and marketing adviser) says and suggests nothing about the spike being at the 30 degree dogleg. ‘Can be defeated by’ cannot be read as that being the only approach, nor can it be read as being the most efficient approach. In fact clear contextualization using the words “F-35s most likely approach path” suggests that operational considerations dictated the decision to place the Typhoons at those angles.
What I am noticing is that you don’t actually read much of anything. You just skim through things without even focusing, looking out only for things that seemingly support your pre-conceived notions.
No, you are trivializing the whole concept.
People are trying to develop multistatic SAR, ISAR and range increases, netted radars, GPS radars and you are stuck with the 30 degree broadside argument that too without providing a real study. I have waited enough for your study. I doubt its very existence now. All you have given is a sparsely backed claim by a Eurofighter marketing official who does not even refer to a study about multistatics. In fact the only mention of study in the flightglobal report you provide is a modeling of the possible interceptions. Please either provide the study itself or accept that the information is not enough.
Ok seems like you have already made up your mind about this. But so have I.
So that leaves the other Bhailog out.
For those who are reading this is said in the context of my suggestion of L Band AWACS working with L-Band receiver equipped PAKFA taking advantage of, volume search vs. linear flight path, capabilities of AWACS vs F-35.
Bhailog now consider this, the range for a monostatic radar is a root 4 function. The range for a bi-static system (non-FSR) is a root 2 function. Obviously as the PAKFAs race towards the F-35 receiving the AWACS-radar-returns the reflect signal has to travel less and less. F-35 must now decide to either enter the merge with obvious disadvantages or to abort mission and return. At this time if the F-35 decides to return they will expose their 190 KN tail and that will be seen and triangulated on the IRST at more than 90 km, with the superior speed of PAKFA still on its tail.
Something like that is reportedly also attempted by the Typhoons with the help of AWACS, going by the link provided.
Stated to be something like this:
Su-30MKI can also do this except that the AWACS will have to work more because there are no L-Band receivers on Su-30MKI. But even Su-30MKI can use vectors from AWACS with the several available IRSTs and triangulate easily.
Now you guys decide the angular separation needed and range yielded.
Here are two a links for root 4 and root 2 calculations which will show how the radar range is affected due to this factor for any given radar equation:
http://www.squarerootcalculator.co/
http://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/algebra/fourthroots.php
Note :To calculate the radar range between monostatic and bistatic arrangement the number that is to be ultimately rooted off is the going to be the same, presuming all things being equal. Range difference can arise due to other factors too but the biggest factor is only this singular factor. And mind you the ranges they mention in the brochures normally is the monostatic range.
@StealthFlanker you are reading things in a very different manner from the way I am. I do not deny that angular separation is needed and helpful in some circumstances, but then you put both legs of the triangle at same distances. Angular separation can still be maintained should you need it, even if one side of the triangle is shorter (fighters) than the other (AWACS). And with AWACS or IRST, that is easy to achieve.
In fact even without the IRST there may be reason enough to suspect that merely the VHF+S-bands will be able to provide a good kill box. Here is what a professional Dr. Igor Sutyagin has said in a conference of professionals, published with no professional counters till date:
If the above is true then the F-35 could be in very real danger even for its primary and only role of Strike.
Unless the guidance is command guidance+INS. Off course the fighter should still know where to lob the semi active AAM but the CW mode can come up only at the last 9/10 pings probably last 4/5 km at 3+ mach. Or if the Active Seeker itself comes on at the very last moment only to acquire the target, travelling almost all the time as a simple command guided rocket.
So that will leave very little time to react. And similarly will be case with F-35 trying to avoid SAGG of S-400 by flying low where the EOTS capabilities themselves will have to be sacrificed by F-35. F-35 or MALD-J will have difficulty even jamming because nothing is being transmitted in the first place in X-Band or Ka-band. And during these final moments the X-Band radar of the S-400 battery, with much more power at its disposal, will also light up for the final kill. Each part of the system falling in line just when its needed.
Flying higher will bring the IRST of Sukhoi/Rafale into play given the big F-135 engines and clearer weather.
After reflection it will travel. In any case the track beam need not even figure in all this because there is no need to use TDOA for triangulation. Only angles are needed which for systems equipped with boresight and gimbaled LOS is known in advance.
TDOA was meant only for showing that sound waves in multistatic arrangements is working well in several types.
Yes and the receivers too can be a chain of several small Ka band antenna.
The TDOA and FDOA as you rightly pointed out would normally need same source (transmitted or reflected). With encoding of identification signals even a singular source would not be needed and all receivers would be receiving many different reflected waves from many different targets illuminated by many different transmitters and no transmitter truly jam-able, in the first instance even with barrage jamming. Jammers too have to sharpen their beam so they too suffer from the linear vs spherical disadvantages. These things have solid evolutionary history to build on and are further being refined for radars, at several places including Thales. So Rafale too will use it in time that is if they are not already using it (my info being late). Better to use this tech development path then to go all stealth.
If a receiver at all instances knows for every target the TDOA and FDOA and knows this from multiple different transmitters with accurate PNT information available easily, what stops the network from even imaging a target. Though targeting does not require imaging but what if they find applications for it in terms of say distinguishing highly complex decoys from real targets, what then? To distinguish normal decoys from targets you will not even require real imaging.
But why do you invoke TDOA at all for multistatic radar. I just mentioned TDOA in the context of Arty Sound Ranging and that part is done. Mere triangulation is enough for taking on F-35. Only range information is difficult to get and that too only in higher bands and that too only with the one-on-one merges. For the first detection you will require 2 platforms but for all (which could be hundreds) the later detections, you will get as many ranges from as many angles as there are platforms to calculate angles. The nature of the triangle itself dictates that. The Typhoons probably just did it going by your link, foiling 85% of the F-35 strike missions.
If the F-35 relies on its frontal LO advantage then it can be easily beaten by stationing IRSTs in Fence like manner (as in FSR). The F-35 may turn to engage any target and the other IRST will get a crisp picture of the tail pipe may be upto 100km (or even 150 km).
Master ji abhi to IRST apertures have not even started evolving. What will the F-35 or even F-22 do, once they do. And then what will happen when these big apertures also sport scanning capabilities.
There were both types available since long. US which is the biggest arms budget just used the kind they thought would be enough for their needs.
Besides you seem to be ok with omnidirectional datalinking being effective, so it should be very very effective in guiding AAMs too. Should it not?
I don’t care much for Spectra and MALD-J cannot jam AWACS.
Yes official from the manufacturer’s site.
Jane do that was an aside. People it was meant for must have understood.
MALD-J will off course work against Active seeker heads. That is its main use. It probably may also have X-band capabilities because the Americans are ahead of all in this kind of dual band arrays. So MALD-J may also work against FCR of fighters. But this will affect only those air forces who are relying still on improving their X-band FCR to be able to work against LO targets like the Swedes. For those relying on MIMO multiband radars and IRST this will have nearly no use.
The Americans are thinking is that they should spoil the end game for all SAMs/AAMs hence their focus on DIRCM and Standin jamming. Essentially they have already conceded that jamming at long distances is not useful or practicable. While SAMs and AAMs will evolve again to take this into account there may be entirely new technologies that will facilitate this evolution.
Master ji, NEBO aperture even if 3 times larger can be managed in much the same way as Vostok-E. Only bigger trucks will be required alongwith stated needs of the militaries.
But where is the need to move them as often?
Why not just put up even more fixed decoy antenna at suitable distances. What do these rods, pipes and whip/yagis antennas even cost. 90% of the antenna array is composed of empty spaces. These have been made for ages. And unless the Anti-radiation missile is able to distinguish the movable antenna from the decoys, the movement is not even needed.
Besides I have linked the Vostok-E image above in the process of folding up. To me it looks like even the 6 minute time can be beaten. The Nebo VHF currently is stated at 20 minutes and while it is certainly bigger than Vostok-E you always have the option of redesigning the stowage for faster folding.
The real radar is the computing vehicle with all the computers. That is the costly one and that one is silent, camouflaged and can further be protected by close in weapon systems.
See Vostok-E came in because you wanted a link. But why not. French VHF surveillance practice is nothing to scoff at. Only lesser budget and different needs stop them. Besides they seem to be happy with S-band radars for AD surveillance. Almost the same as us. Could be that with merely the S-band coverage they already have figured out how to make a robust OODA loop.
The difference FOPEN designers were making was about man made decoys (including chaff) and just leaves, trees, rain, hail and bad weather – while compared in the X band and UHF/VHF.
Why do you bring the chaff along in this argument. Though why not even that is man made, only its not going to be very persistent.
I personally don’t mind chaff for lower bands either. Actually I don’t mind any jamming at all, speaking from an defenders perspective. Jamming of any kind implies there is something interesting to be found.
In fact the difference is stark even if the systems are from the same countries. American have for long operated VHF long range sensors for space applications. There X band ICBM watcher however failed. Both being as of today.
Who is challenging you on your radar burn throughs?
Do I look like I care for that?
And besides it is you who is being unfair and doubting Sepctra even though it carries the same tech. (an old tech.) for radar waveform cancellations only at a lesser distance (which BTW also implies smaller formfactors for Spectra hardware).
Besides it is you who does not want to acknowledge that for bistatic arrangements the range increases merely because the waves don’t have to travel back as far and this return path distance could be closing in at Mach 2 or 3+. The exact same reason why Jammers are effective in the first place. And further that the range increases are way more than a mere doubling of ranges.
While for ‘Jamming vs. Jamming burn through’ it is a simpler issue because both transmissions are towards each other. Which is also why the French are claiming that they have spent close to 25% of Rafale development cost in making the Spectra which will analyses the radar from the first transmission itself and will have a big library of all waveforms that the F-35 cannot change easily. The jammer OTOH will not even know if it has been taken care of and will continue to announce its presence in all but range. You will basically be detected long long before you can even bring your MALD-J into consideration, which in any case cannot jam any sensors that are not already discounted.
You do get redundancy by MALD-J but what is the point if you can be seen all of EM spectrum except the X-band.
So you highness allows for the IFF to retain its importance without answering the main question as to why would the Russians need their interrogators to be this big when the whole world is doing it differently? Detection and targeting of a LO target is a challenge but how is interrogation a challenge?
And besides IFF involves some of the same waveform management techniques that for radars and jammers require and that leaves your objection regarding aperture size only. Which is suitably discussed elsewhere herein.
And even if these are just IFF for really long range interrogations then, how do you think it helps if the F-35 is showing up on the VHF and L-band but not on the X-band and is either not responding or improperly responding to such large range IFF challenges. How would you classify such an interrogation? At such long ranges if the F-35 is classified as a high probability adversary then does it not help the defender?
And I don’t understand your insistence that the L Band radar on PAKFA cannot be used for FCR. Well ok, a true fire control will be difficult but what about merely keeping the range information fed to the AAM. Why must it fail in that. A capability which is over and above the capability of that array, to act as a homing head for the whole aircrafts basis the radar emissions of the L Band AWACS.
Why the hell would Russians use this big IFF? Are they dumb.
Because it’s a habit by now. Most people buying F-35 today had a healthy lead in all the anti-VLO technologies. Today they allowed their own lead to peter away for F-35.
I don’t mind it.
Americans have always tried to put roadblocks in the path of others which is the only way they have grown ‘powerful’. They first developed the nuke then made lots and lots of them, then tried to keep everybody else out of it. Some succumbed to their tactics. Some did not. At least 3 billion people on the planet dd not give in. It is the same with every piece of technology.
1) Expendable, towed, integrated whatever. Hardly matters. There are more than enough ways to know range and send in the AAM. MALD-J will be effective in only the front sector and only against Active seeker heads. The semi actives and SAGG won’t even reveal themselves till the very last moment. The future will see even better warheads on these missiles.
2) Hardly matters, the Jammer can be put doing in its bearings and only the range needs to be worked at which can be done off board. There were times when the height component too had to be calculated separately and automation of this much technology is not difficult.
3) I don’t deny that F-35 too can share information which is how it is ultimately going to be. As I said PAKFA or Su-30MKI or Rafale need not be silent at all. The silence is merely because the X band radar is not as useful and not because Stealth is a method of fighting with these aircrafts. All aspect stealth is American contribution to the world. The world never believed in it and that is why the world has take only the relevant portion of shaping and RAMs for a limited frontal stealth which will be used only in the attack modes, not in hunter modes.
Don’t look like big kill boxes if you go by, what the professionals are discussing among themselves (refer Dr. Igor Sutyagin in RUSI conference, linked above)
Which is backed by extant technology. Nobody begrudges S-200 or Dvinas or even early generation Patriots.
)
( Not hater), I suggest we Indians drop the Rafale as a choice for MMRCA as it has already generated a lot of heated debate and friction between a lot of members here. I do not want to heat it any more, so lets drop it we can save some trauma for the DFI readers who are just waiting for this deal to be scrapped.
But surely you will be the cry baby in sometime
and as a customer, we Indians will have the last laugh:hippo:
You think the test with F-16D was to see who win ? , no my dear , it was a flight control at high AoA test , the F-16 was used as a reference point for F-35 to maneuver again 
