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

[Gloire_bb]

You are asserting that the F-35 design is build around WVR and not BVR but have not provided any substantiation. You will need to offer substance and not just an opinion.

Design focuses of BVR fighter are:
-positioning(supercruise range&speed, endurance, freedom of maneuver while engaged)
-all-aspect stealth
-hard specs of radar suit(the more range and power at widest possible angles, the better presicion - the merrier. Basically, the larger your array, the better)
-launch energy specs(cruising/dash speeds and altitudes)
-armament capacity and specifications
-supersonic agility and acceleration

Now place different 5th gen fighters here and see the result.

While Boeing in attempting to market its Growler has said that the F-35 is not all band capable and that it cannot provide EW support in egress, LM has remained silent. The AN/ASQ 239 is multi spectral all aspect protection. It is built from the ALR-94 that performed so well with the F-22, a capability that speaks for itself.. The F-35 community has said they don't want and don't need the Growler as its EW capability is sufficient to do the job.

Errr, where to start.
-While Boeing is marketing Growler, the US navy continues to buy them.
-What AN/ASQ-239 does is a very neat topic, because " multi-spectral all-aspect" literally can mean anything(including flares). System itself is incredibly small, compared not only with the new flock of EW-focused 4.5 gens, but even with standart fighter jets.
-ALR-94 is an "excellent" reference, since it is non-emitting.
It's intended usage is to maximise advantages of stealth(which is reasonable) by detecting, locating, classifying all threats and notifying the pilot. And honestly, i really suspect 239 to be more or less the same.

It is probably the only one that can execute suppression without support.

Oh, till the very first long low-band qued threat.
Leaving communications, datalinks and so on untouched is a novelty, too.

 

[Jura The idiot]

...

Red Flag changes up the mix an mission sometimes its low threat but lots of ground targets sometimes lots of air to air. That particular one where they released the kill ratio was 17-3 The third of the year. ...

what was that kill ratio please?

can't see it in the press release
F-35A, F-35B integrate at Red Flag

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Published July 27, 2017

or elsewhere quickly

 

[Brumby]

Design focuses of BVR fighter are:
-positioning(supercruise range&speed, endurance, freedom of maneuver while engaged)
-all-aspect stealth
-hard specs of radar suit(the more range and power at widest possible angles, the better presicion - the merrier. Basically, the larger your array, the better)
-launch energy specs(cruising/dash speeds and altitudes)
-armament capacity and specifications
-supersonic agility and acceleration

Now place different 5th gen fighters here and see the result.

I initially thought I should respond point by point but I will take the easy way. You should be the one doing the heavy lifting since you are advocating a position. I should not be responding to a list based on your opinion. You need to go beyond merely giving an opinion to argue your case. Your position is that the F-35 is not designed as a BVR fighter rather it is WVR. You therefore need to take every item in your list and explain which capability the F-35 has that is WVR optimised rather than in BVR. For example, how do you arrive at an opinion that the APG-81 is designed for WVR and not BVR? What does having more power and range mean in your context? Are you suggesting that the APG-81 has only got a good enough range for WVR?

Errr, where to start.
-While Boeing is marketing Growler, the US navy continues to buy them.

There are other reasons such as politics. The USN was never a keen supporter of the F-35C. They always wanted a F/A XX in their books. The USAF has the F-22.

-What AN/ASQ-239 does is a very neat topic, because " multi-spectral all-aspect" literally can mean anything(including flares). System itself is incredibly small, compared not only with the new flock of EW-focused 4.5 gens, but even with standart fighter jets.

-ALR-94 is an "excellent" reference, since it is non-emitting.
It's intended usage is to maximise advantages of stealth(which is reasonable) by detecting, locating, classifying all threats and notifying the pilot. And honestly, i really suspect 239 to be more or less the same.

You are talking in riddles. You need to make your point because I don't understand what or where you are going with it.

​

Oh, till the very first long low-band qued threat.
Leaving communications, datalinks and so on untouched is a novelty, too.

Are you talking about the VHF/UHF threat that somehow can detect VLO and therefore a cued track will naturally follow? Given what we know a cued track on a F-35 cannot be established until within 30 to 50 km and that is provided the F-35 doesn't utilise ECM.

 

[Brumby]

Well, the Su-57 uses fiber optics to transfer data. You can purchase fiber optics 10G Ethernet, or faster, in the wide open consumer market.
So I would say the databus is not a main concern. I sincerely would not be surprised if the J-20 had a fiber optics architecture.

Just because there are COTS doesn't mean it can just be ported over to military application. A data bus is based around an architecture that has to be both reliable and robust. I don't know enough about avionics as to why China has not made sufficient progress and generally is still using ARNC 429 in most of its planes. You guys are the China expert and should have a better handle. I am just stating the facts as is. I don't know the why.

Also a lot of the technology used in the F-35's EOTS is very similar to autonomous car technology. For example multiple cameras, sensor fusion, and target detection and recognition. So quite a lot of this technology can be leveraged from the consumer electronics side of things. Even things like VR helmets.
It was really leading edge when it came. Now it is less so.

Commercial and military demands are very different and there is always a lag because military avionics need hardening and the need to handle a lot of stress unlike commercial.

Also just adding more data to the feed to process does not necessarily lead to improved combat performance.

The idea behind sensor fusion is data feed, signal processing and algorithm directed fusion. The whole design is build around integration unlike plug and play ECM pods. We are talking capability to deal with latency, enhancing fidelity, not only threat detection but auto directed sensor application based on need and auto directed ECM based on threat nature. In other words developing a God's eye view. It requires a data bus capable enough and the appropriate transfer rate to handle the data.

We have had magnifying optics on rifles for decades already. Yet you still see rifles come out in the market with iron sights. Why? Because sometimes making things more complex does not improve effectiveness in most scenarios. Also people who use VR helmets typically have serious motion sickness issues. It remains to be seen how that will be an issue with the F-35.

Sorry. Straw man

On something like the J-10 or F-16 what it means is the data processing must take place in the modules themselves. Yes this means there is less chance to cross-reference sensor information. But it does not necessarily mean you will have that much more degraded combat performance.

Rafael also has sensor fusion but it is using a fusion process to generate correlation tracking. This is basically generation one. The weakness with generation one is that the approach requires decluttering and so data insufficient to establish a track is dropped and the composite track is build based only on established sensor tracks. F-35 builds the track based entirely on raw data from every sensor. Nothing is dropped. Generation one manually task appropriate sensor search when data is lacking from another sensor. In F-35 it does it automatically like a self sustaining system of systems. That is the reason for the millions of line of codes. The sensor track build by an individual F-35 which is a tier one track is then shared across the sensor formation where the respective individual F-35 tracks are then fused into a tier 3 track which bringing enhanced fidelity with a picture across a bigger battle space using their MADL link (which is LPI and LPD).

Also, not all the USAF is made up of F-35s.

Yes but the F-35 can then share the tier 3 battle space picture with other 4th gen fighters using Link 16. A single F-35 can significantly improve the effectiveness of the entire 4th gen force that is flying with a F-35.

 

[Gloire_bb]

I initially thought I should respond point by point but I will take the easy way. You should be the one doing the heavy lifting since you are advocating a position. I should not be responding to a list based on your opinion. You need to go beyond merely giving an opinion to argue your case. Your position is that the F-35 is not designed as a BVR fighter rather it is WVR. You therefore need to take every item in your list and explain which capability the F-35 has that is WVR optimised rather than in BVR. For example, how do you arrive at an opinion that the APG-81 is designed for WVR and not BVR? What does having more power and range mean in your context? Are you suggesting that the APG-81 has only got a good enough range for WVR?

Compare different 5th gen fighters and see the result.
I haven't said what it isn't designed to perform BVR. i've said what long range combat-related qualities suffered the most during the transfer from ATF to the JSF, through:
-"fuller" forms(to carry larger, more volumous munitions in smaller plane)
-engine choice(much higher bypass ratio and so on)
-smaller, fixed radar array(unavoidable due to smaller size and downward visibility requirement, but still a factor).
-compromised all-aspect multispectral stealth(f-35b sends cheers)
-lower missile capacity(size again)

There are other reasons such as politics. The USN was never a keen supporter of the F-35C. They always wanted a F/A XX in their books. The USAF has the F-22.

It's true.
But still, USN maintains and even expands strong electronic attack force. I believe it goes beyond mere "nih-syndrome".

You are talking in riddles. You need to make your point because I don't understand what or where you are going with it.

Unlike the b-2, american stealth fighter's onboard EW equipment doesn't include jamming component. So in the context of our conversation, it shall be seen as complementary part, not mutually-exclusive.
Strike package can take some load from support, but by no means it replaces it.

Are you talking about the VHF/UHF threat that somehow can detect VLO and therefore a cued track will naturally follow? Given what we know a cued track on a F-35 cannot be established until within 30 to 50 km and that is provided the F-35 doesn't utilise ECM

From what i have heard, low-band radars with modern data analyzis algorythms give engagement quality data on their own.
It means what:
-missiles with onboard active seekers can be guided accurately enough(cube with dimensions up to several hundred meters) at all conseivable ranges.
-engagement radars can search in high-power, narrow beam modes, "breaking through" stealth just by applying more power, and we're again talking about hundreds of kilometers.
-F-35 has no active electronic countermeasures other than radar atm. They are going to appear later, in form of next generation jammer, but it's an external installation for escort jamming mission.

Conclusion: F-35 centered force requires full-scale jamming support as well. Difference between it and 4th gens isn't in being a self-sufficient package, but rather in ability to actually go in without prohibitive risks.

 

[Jura The idiot]

@Jura
...

here's the simulation

(just

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

with attrition coefficients based on
STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS OF US FIGHTER FORCE REDUCTIONS:
AIR-TO-AIR COMBAT MODELING USING LANCHESTER EQUATIONS

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

from 2011, now:
3.3 for "F-35" (as was for the Raptor against the Flanker in there, Table 4)
and 0.7 for "4 Gen" (was 0.8 for the Flanker against the Raptor in there, Table 4);
there's like background in the thread which is gone
Mathematical model of air-to-air combat and loses https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/mathematical-model-of-air-to-air-combat-and-loses.t6641/
):

in the final time-point the solver says
4.6847 "F-35s" which means four remaining out of the initial 12,
and 0.7774 "4 Gen" which means none remaining out of the initial 24

so? so some other model (or "model") was in play at Red Flag 17-1, I guess

 

[Brumby]

here's the simulation

(just

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

with attrition coefficients based on
STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS OF US FIGHTER FORCE REDUCTIONS:
AIR-TO-AIR COMBAT MODELING USING LANCHESTER EQUATIONS

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

from 2011, now:
3.3 for "F-35" (as was for the Raptor against the Flanker in there, Table 4)
and 0.7 for "4 Gen" (was 0.8 for the Flanker against the Raptor in there, Table 4);
there's like background in the thread which is gone
Mathematical model of air-to-air combat and loses https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/mathematical-model-of-air-to-air-combat-and-loses.t6641/
):

in the final time-point the solver says
4.6847 "F-35s" which means four remaining out of the initial 12,
and 0.7774 "4 Gen" which means none remaining out of the initial 24

so? so some other model (or "model") was in play at Red Flag 17-1, I guess

IIRC, you posted this Lancester model years ago but I can't remember what came out of it if at all.

As I said in the previous post, you are free to criticize the conditions in which the Red Flag exercises are conducted because it is garbage in garbage out. Any results are dependent on the conditions. In my opinion this is the only way to have some form of objective conversion about Red Flag. Putting up another model to criticise Red Flag is a fallacious straw man exercise.

 

[Brumby]

Compare different 5th gen fighters and see the result.
I haven't said what it isn't designed to perform BVR. i've said what long range combat-related qualities suffered the most during the transfer from ATF to the JSF, through:
-"fuller" forms(to carry larger, more volumous munitions in smaller plane)
-engine choice(much higher bypass ratio and so on)
-smaller, fixed radar array(unavoidable due to smaller size and downward visibility requirement, but still a factor).
-compromised all-aspect multispectral stealth(f-35b sends cheers)
-lower missile capacity(size again)

The JSF program had a number of design trade offs and even more so than other programs because it involved cross services. You seem to be fixated on design decisions taken 20 years ago. I have no interest in revisiting them because the F-35 is what it is today. I am happy to haver a conversion about its present capabilities but not against some nebulous benchmark.

It's true.
But still, USN maintains and even expands strong electronic attack force. I believe it goes beyond mere "nih-syndrome".

The USN projection into the 2040's is still looking at carrier airwing composition of a composite of F/A-18s and F-35s. As such, the F/A-18s are still in need of EW support in a high end threat environment. While the F-35C can conduct stand-in and stand-off jamming, it is not designed to provide wholesale EW support unlike a dedicated EW platform.

american stealth fighter's onboard EW equipment doesn't include jamming component.

Your statement is clearly incompatible with public literature. Do you have evidence to support your claim?

So in the context of our conversation, it shall be seen as complementary part, not mutually-exclusive.

No. The conversation was always about whether dedicated EW support was needed for the F-35. You are attempting a reframe.

Strike package can take some load from support, but by no means it replaces it.

The meaning of support means it is a service where one can opt-in or opt-out. Even in an opt-out situation, it doesn't mean the service is necessarily replaced. It just means that the service is not needed.

From what i have heard, low-band radars with modern data analyzis algorythms give engagement quality data on their own.
It means what:
-missiles with onboard active seekers can be guided accurately enough(cube with dimensions up to several hundred meters) at all conseivable ranges.

Engagement means tracking data and that would include range and range rate. Making claims is easy. Show me the evidence.

-engagement radars can search in high-power, narrow beam modes, "breaking through" stealth just by applying more power, and we're again talking about hundreds of kilometers.

First you have to find the plane and you are talking about hundreds o0f kilometers. You don’t have a hope until you get less than 50 kilometers. You then talked about a directed high-power beam mode. An F-35 tasked with suppression is looking for exactly that. The AN/ASQ 239 has geolocation capability. Traditional suppression requires at least a 3 plane formation to triangulate an emission, The problem with triangulation is that it depends on a robust network operating with nil or minimal latency. The S-300 and S-400 is dangerous because their radar is highly mobile. The F-35 geolocation capability means whenever that radar is turned on (even intermittently and briefly) it is toast.

-F-35 has no active electronic countermeasures other than radar atm. They are going to appear later, in form of next generation jammer, but it's an external installation for escort jamming mission.

The AN/ASQ 239 has multi spectral, RF and IR countermeasures. It is in their marketing literature. What is your source to back up your claim? First define what does active ECM means in your vocabulary.

Conclusion: F-35 centered force requires full-scale jamming support as well. Difference between it and 4th gens isn't in being a self-sufficient package, but rather in ability to actually go in without prohibitive risks.

Not so fast. You have not provided any evidence besides making claims.

 

[Gloire_bb]

I am happy to haver a conversion about its present capabilities but not against some nebulous benchmark.

There is very little nebulous in f-22, j-20 or su-57.

Your statement is clearly incompatible with public literature. Do you have evidence to support your claim?

Read the very descriptions of the systems from their producer's website (BAE). They are all slippery in their language, but they don't mention things they don't do.

No. The conversation was always about whether dedicated EW support was needed for the F-35. You are attempting a reframe.

Sure. If by this point you don't see why it is needed, you just aren't reading.

Engagement means tracking data and that would include range and range rate. Making claims is easy. Show me the evidence.

Simplest evidence is, ad contra, a notable lack of effort to field something truly new on ground by adversaries. We have new active seeker-homed missiles, new integrated AEW&C aircraft, new fighters. But HQ-9, s-400 and s-300v series sit just fine.

First you have to find the plane and you are talking about hundreds o0f kilometers. You don’t have a hope until you get less than 50 kilometers. You then talked about a directed high-power beam mode. An F-35 tasked with suppression is looking for exactly that. The AN/ASQ 239 has geolocation capability. Traditional suppression requires at least a 3 plane formation to triangulate an emission, The problem with triangulation is that it depends on a robust network operating with nil or minimal latency. The S-300 and S-400 is dangerous because their radar is highly mobile. The F-35 geolocation capability means whenever that radar is turned on (even intermittently and briefly) it is toast.

Just fmy, where 50 kms number comes from?
This talk is getting strange - no wavelengths, no aspects, just 50km&you're a toast. Teology.

The AN/ASQ 239 has multi spectral, RF and IR countermeasures.

I know they have. Countermeasure dispenser is an integral part of the suite, as are tailor-developed new gen flares and chaff canisters.
Just check, say, Gripen E suite. And count things it includes, which an/asq-239 does not.(which has exactly one integral RF countermeasure unit)

Or find photos of later prototypes of the su-57, for they actually have DIRCM systems you wish to find on the f-35.

(101-KS-O turrets)

Not so fast. You have not provided any evidence besides making claims.

Evidence to what? What stealth fighters are just as visible in L-band, yet you denied your force needs to mess up their job?
Or what firing units of HQ-9, s-400 and s-300v4(main long range adversary systems) include low-band station? Or what going high against undisrupted c&c and kill chain is a well proven way to kill yourself since, well, ww2?

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

There is very little nebulous in f-22, j-20 or su-57.

Oh yes there is. F22 is a solid. But both SU57 And J20 are emerging systems given to vast changes.

know they have. Countermeasure dispenser is an integral part of the suite, as are tailor-developed new gen flares and chaff canisters.
Just check, say, Gripen E suite. And count things it includes, which an/asq-239 does not.(which has exactly one integral RF countermeasure unit)

Or find photos of later prototypes of the su-57, for they actually have DIRCM systems you wish to find on the f-35.

(101-KS-O turrets)

The DIRCM added to SU57 is extensive true but like much of the SU57 seems "Bolt On". This has to do with the state of SU57 with only a little over a Dozen units and no sign of wide spread production.
JAS39 by contrast has the system as a late generation fourth gen meant to try and keep up with the fifth gens but not have a fifth gen successor.
A DIRCM A system capability is projected as part of the Block 5 (basically full rate production) upgrades to F35 some time around FY23 24. Northrop Grumman designed the Threat Nullification Defensive Resource specifically for the F35 and potentially F22 down the line.
The biggest issue with such is unlike a fourth gen any such system has to fit in the mold lines of the LO shaping. You can't bolt on a system like a pod it has to be integrated into the hull.

L band, HF, VHF and UHF system do have the ability to sense LO fighters because of the narrow profile of features like tails and wings but.
They don't provide enough of a track to target and leave much to be desired in directing of interceptors.
As such they are a warning radar. And a troubled one the modifications needed have a habit of turning clouds into Bogies.
At best what you get is it says the target is over there... somewhere.
in essence brings the problem down to 50km. 31 miles at which point to make the kill, You have to be in. Because at that range the fire control radar or an IR missile is going to be able to track the target. Yet at 31 miles you are in the range of the EODAS system and radar range of the F35 even if you are flying a LO yourself. Suddenly that WVR comes back.
L band radars can only try to pass the track to a missile system like S400 but the missile needs to use a X band, S band or Ku band to target. And LO are optimized against that. It basically turns back into the F117 shoot down where in the F117 had to be on top of the missile launcher to get killed.
This is why SU57 Which is meant to try and kill F22 & F35 had an L band to basically play the Hot and cold game until it's close enough to get into 31 miles.