F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

[A Bar Brother]

A war with whom? would you care to elaborate?

Japan with China. Singapore with Malaysia or Indonesia. While Japan and Singapore are firmly pro-US, the other three countries are not and are potential PAKFA/J-20 operators. All three already operate Flankers.

Israel with XYZ. Israel has issues unique to herself. If the Syrians or Iranians are sold the PAKFA/J-20, that is a situation the Israelis will not be able to match with just the F-35.

The rest of Europe has no problems. They have done well with the sea Harrier, F-16 and F/A-18 all these years, so the F-35 is a pretty decent upgrade.

 

[A Bar Brother]

You are right that jamming capability needs to cover a wide spectrum for maximum potential, but it is not correct to say that the system is operated continually as a draw on radar efficiency.

The entire point of the aircraft (F-35) is to run passive under EMCON in the given battle space. When detection of a radar threat occurs, a decision is made based on available assets in the aoe as to which will jam/prosecute the target. If it's a lone flight of 4 or 6 F-35's in the area, one will go active to jam while another engages. Back to passive search and track after the threat is eliminated.

This is the case for the Rafale too. However the jamming you are talking about is not the same as active cancellation. Active cancellation requires each jet to be able to perform the jamming by itself because the incident radar wave can behave differently for each aircraft. Meaning, a large AESA radar tracking multiple threats can use different frequencies for each track. If you try to fool the radar with just one jammer, then it is going to know the nature of the targets along with the source of the jammer instantaneously. The method of jamming you have described is obsolete. Modern jammers use only a few Watts of power to do what it took the Growler many KWs, and with far more efficiency.

As for modern tactics that are being used today, a formation of 4 aircraft are no longer closely packed like it was for 4th gen jets. The formations are more widespread in order to cover more airspace. Any radar can differentiate between the targets since the resolutions are small enough today. That's why you are going to need your aircraft to have individual capability in jamming threats.

That level of engagement and battle space penetration is just not possible with a 4th Gen aircraft.

Actually it is. You need the right avionics for it. And stealth isn't achieved only by shaping.

 

[antiterror13]

A Bar Brother ...... I am really really impressed with your deep knowledge of the stuffs .. thanks for educating me

 

[Brumby]

This is the case for the Rafale too. However the jamming you are talking about is not the same as active cancellation. Active cancellation requires each jet to be able to perform the jamming by itself because the incident radar wave can behave differently for each aircraft. Meaning, a large AESA radar tracking multiple threats can use different frequencies for each track. If you try to fool the radar with just one jammer, then it is going to know the nature of the targets along with the source of the jammer instantaneously.

As I understand the technology, active cancellation effectiveness requires generating an EM field which is dependent on among others; the measurement precision of the radar signal, the knowledge of its real-time characteristics, and the accuracy of the generated cancellation field. A great deal of processing and calculation power is needed to determine the radar cancellation wave, and it is difficult to achieve real-time calculations without pipeline delays plus compounded by the adaptive nature necessary when faced with a wide spectrum of radar waves in a conflict zone. Is there a working system out there or is it still science fiction? The aim of active cancellation is passive in nature as opposed to jammers which effectively broadcast your presence and is really two different approaches.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Interestingly it is not my comment. This comment was made by Gen Hostage. It be nice if you read what I post too, because I posted his comments in the same thread.

Just to make things easier, here it is again.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I will repeat it again. This is NOT my comment. I have not argued for or against it. Only Hostage can clarify what he meant by "irrelevant." Unless you believe Hostage is lying.

Of course its not your comment, but you have deliberately taken it out of context to bash the F-35, haven't you??

General Hostage was asked which programs he would fight for in the context of the US budget cuts due to sequestration? by the Air Force Magazine----- General Hostage replied, and I quote

"Absolutely, I am fighting to the end, I am going to fight to the death to protect the F-35, because I truly believe that is the only way we will make it through the next decade, is with a sufficient fleet of F-35s"

The statement that you have pulled completely out of context and skewed to your own agenda, was made to defend the costly upgrades to the F-22, and I quote.

"That is why the current upgrade programs to the F-22 I put easily as critical as my F-35 fleet. If I don't keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant."

These two statements were made back to back in the interview with the Air Force Magazine, in regards to the US high end threat management in light of the forced budget cuts of sequestration. General Hostage is forcefully arguing for the the Full Fleet of F-35s for the USAF of 1700+ aircraft, in the second question as to the F-22 upgrades he is defending those as critical to USAF strategy of the Hi/Lo variety, the Raptor has always been key to our meeting high end adversaries, as USAF strategy has been to employ the Raptor as our air dominance aircraft, in order to protect our other high end asset the F-35, and allow the F-35 to perform its mission which is still primarily as a strike aircraft.

 

[A Bar Brother]

A Bar Brother ...... I am really really impressed with your deep knowledge of the stuffs .. thanks for educating me

Anytime.

 

[A Bar Brother]

As I understand the technology, active cancellation effectiveness requires generating an EM field which is dependent on among others; the measurement precision of the radar signal, the knowledge of its real-time characteristics, and the accuracy of the generated cancellation field. A great deal of processing and calculation power is needed to determine the radar cancellation wave, and it is difficult to achieve real-time calculations without pipeline delays plus compounded by the adaptive nature necessary when faced with a wide spectrum of radar waves in a conflict zone. Is there a working system out there or is it still science fiction? The aim of active cancellation is passive in nature as opposed to jammers which effectively broadcast your presence and is really two different approaches.

We don't know. I doubt we will know that soon anyway.

Of course you can dismiss the entire thing, but active capability is better than passive capabilities in many respects. Active ECM is the future for stealth, and is completely in control of the aircraft and its pilot. Passive stealth is dependent on the enemy not being sophisticated enough to counter it.

The Spectra is as close as we can currently get to active stealth, from what's available in open source. It works exactly as the theory states. It re-transmits the same signal back to the source at one-half the wavelength. Now we can try and speculate on how quickly it can do that, and whether it happens in real time or close enough for the time lag to not matter.

As far as the AdlA is concerned, they were confident that they could negate the Bars radar on the MKI during Garuda exercises. That in itself is a big deal considering it could negate an ESA radar.

Of course its not your comment, but you have deliberately taken it out of context to bash the F-35, haven't you??

General Hostage was asked which programs he would fight for in the context of the US budget cuts due to sequestration? by the Air Force Magazine----- General Hostage replied, and I quote

"Absolutely, I am fighting to the end, I am going to fight to the death to protect the F-35, because I truly believe that is the only way we will make it through the next decade, is with a sufficient fleet of F-35s"

The statement that you have pulled completely out of context and skewed to your own agenda, was made to defend the costly upgrades to the F-22, and I quote.

"That is why the current upgrade programs to the F-22 I put easily as critical as my F-35 fleet. If I don't not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant."

These two statements were made back to back in the interview with the Air Force Magazine, in regards to the US high end threat management in light of the forced budget cuts of sequestration. General Hostage is forcefully arguing for the the Full Fleet of F-35s for the USAF of 1700+ aircraft, in the second question as to the F-22 upgrades he is defending those as critical to USAF strategy of the Hi/Lo variety, the Raptor has always been key to our meeting high end adversaries, as USAF strategy has been to employ the Raptor as our air dominance aircraft, in order to protect our other high end asset the F-35, and allow the F-35 to perform its mission which is still primarily as a strike aircraft.

Sorry, but you are looking at this in a way that is convenient to yourself. Hostage did not have any hidden meaning in what he said. His statement was clear as day. Without the F-22, the F-35 is irrelevant. That's why he wants the F-22 upgrades, and that's why he wants all the 1763 F-35s. The same reason as why he wants to scrap all the A-10s.

To me he makes a lot of sense.

We have a working Typhoon pilot saying the same things too.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

However, when time comes for air dominance, some other ingredients like thrust to weight ratio and wing loading tend to regulate the sky. And in that nothing comes close to a Typhoon, except an F-22 which has very similar values. The F-35 thrust to weight ratio is way lower and its energy-manoeuvrability diagrams match those of the F/A-18, which is an excellent result for a single engine aircraft loaded with several thousand pounds of fuel and significant armament.

But it also means that starting from medium altitude and above, there is no story with a similarly loaded Typhoon.

it is in the facts that while the Typhoon can do most of the F-35 air-to-ground mission, vice versa the F-35 remains way far from a true swing role capability, and not even talking of regulating the skies.

Even the recent article quoting the officer, that you yourself quoted too, saying that the F-22 is far too important. Check Post 2012.

Operational Air Force pilots with air superiority fighter experience were less than enthusiastic about the prospect of the F-35 replacing the Raptor or F-15. “I hope they get that we need to be well beyond the F-35 in the future and recycling a ramped up proposal isn't going to be good enough,” one senior officer said.

Another added that it was physically impossible for the F-35 to match, much less replace, the F-22. “F-35s will never be able to sit at the table with F-22s in the realm of air-to-air and SEAD/DEAD [suppression of enemy air defenses/destruction of enemy air defenses],” the senior Air Force pilot said. “Doesn't have the performance, doesn't have the payload, doesn't have the stealth.”

The F-35 is not even close to perform in air to air combat at the same level as the F-22. Hostage practically says the same, the two officers above state the same, the Typhoon pilot says the same, and even the tons of civilian analysts who criticized the F-35 say the same. Heck, even Kwaigonegin said the same in this thread. And I'm sure you would take the words of these gentlemen more seriously than mine.

The F-35 is a strike aircraft, a good one too. And as long as Pentagon and LM reiterate the "F-35 for air superiority" rhetoric again and again, the number of naysayers will only grow. And this is coming from a person who is actually supportive of the F-35, even though my recent posts don't look like it.

 

[Brumby]

We don't know. I doubt we will know that soon anyway.

Of course you can dismiss the entire thing, but active capability is better than passive capabilities in many respects. Active ECM is the future for stealth, and is completely in control of the aircraft and its pilot. Passive stealth is dependent on the enemy not being sophisticated enough to counter it.

The Spectra is as close as we can currently get to active stealth, from what's available in open source. It works exactly as the theory states. It re-transmits the same signal back to the source at one-half the wavelength. Now we can try and speculate on how quickly it can do that, and whether it happens in real time or close enough for the time lag to not matter.

Active cancellation when it works is no doubt useful and so is cloaking used by the Klingons. I think this is more of a 6th gen application than what can be achieved with existing technology.

I understand the feature offered by SPECTRA has a delayed effect but supposedly can allow reduction in RCS against simpler radars.

 

[Brumby]

Of course its not your comment, but you have deliberately taken it out of context to bash the F-35, haven't you??

General Hostage was asked which programs he would fight for in the context of the US budget cuts due to sequestration? by the Air Force Magazine----- General Hostage replied, and I quote

"Absolutely, I am fighting to the end, I am going to fight to the death to protect the F-35, because I truly believe that is the only way we will make it through the next decade, is with a sufficient fleet of F-35s"

The statement that you have pulled completely out of context and skewed to your own agenda, was made to defend the costly upgrades to the F-22, and I quote.

"That is why the current upgrade programs to the F-22 I put easily as critical as my F-35 fleet. If I don't not keep that F-22 fleet viable, the F-35 fleet frankly will be irrelevant."

These two statements were made back to back in the interview with the Air Force Magazine, in regards to the US high end threat management in light of the forced budget cuts of sequestration. General Hostage is forcefully arguing for the the Full Fleet of F-35s for the USAF of 1700+ aircraft, in the second question as to the F-22 upgrades he is defending those as critical to USAF strategy of the Hi/Lo variety, the Raptor has always been key to our meeting high end adversaries, as USAF strategy has been to employ the Raptor as our air dominance aircraft, in order to protect our other high end asset the F-35, and allow the F-35 to perform its mission which is still primarily as a strike aircraft.

I think the comments by Hostages is contextually to contrast the role of the F-22/F-35 force structure mix in Air Force doctrine and that is simply air superiority/strike role for the respective assets. Obviously without the F-22, that would create a capability gap in some situations. I think the 2 points made by A Bar is valid and i.e. (i) there are many countries without the F-22 (like Australia) and that is a problem which I talked about many posts ago; and (ii) the F-35 is not designed for air superiority role and may be problematic when faced against more capable fighters. Having said that any outcome is dependent on a range of factors and transient performance is only one of them. The F-35 does offer features like situational awareness and stealth which are also important characteristics in any dogfight besides training and tactics that goes into a complex equation.

 

[Scratch]

Hey Bar Brother, enjoying to read your stuff, really. Just one thing. And this is a really minor wording one I guess and I don't want to sound like a smartass or so, just for my understanding.

On active stealth:

It re-transmits the same signal back to the source at one-half the wavelength.

You mean at the same wavelength as the original signal, just 1/2 Lambda out of phase, right?