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

[Brumby]

OK then what the US Military needed would be a big attrition reserve, and commanders with "guts" to send a second squadron to the fray right after a first was splashed

sounds creepy even in my chair

I guess you have never heard of the following quote by General Patton, "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."

Stand off jamming and stealth is not a simple binary consideration. The current preferred tactical doctrine for day 1 is that the F-22/F-35's are the instrument of choice (aside from stand off weapons) to break down the door and to hold the door open. That was demonstrated and reported in the recent Red Flag exercise.

During the Iraqi campaign, the use of standoff jamming in support of the F-117 evolved because of its unintended effect as the presence of standoff jamming actualy acted as an alert mechanism rather than as an assist.
.


That said, the Growler's AN/ALQ-99E is still a very capable jammer even though it is starting to get dated. There are too many unknowns to simply categorically declare that stand off jamming is the solution because I have not seen any studies on how that would actually work out against an advance IADS system like the S-400.

The primary weakness with the S-400 is that it is a sensor centric system of systems. If you take out its X band acquisition radar the rest of the systems are effectively made impotent. In order for it to be effective, its radar need to emit to acquire potential targets. As TE said, the F-35 has 10 apertures. The F-22's ALR-94 has 30 apertures and reportedly can detect emission from a distance in excess of 400 kms. There are reasons why the F-35 and F-22 are so expensive because they offer capabilities that are just not organic to existing 4th gen platforms.

On day 1, the S-400 has a choice. If it emits, it is a dead duck. If it doesn't emit, those facilities that it is protecting are dead ducks. That is the definition of a SEAD mission. In the most recent SEAD operations that the US had conducted, the tactical approach was to synchronise timing between the Strike and SEAD packages. The SEAD aircrafts would go in first just before the strike package and launching their AGM-88 at preestablished electronic order of battle (EOB) strike coordinates. Those IADS has a choice of either to light up or stay silent. If it lights up, the AGM-88 during its delivery will then retarget based on those new emissions. If IADS don't light up, those AGM-88 would achieve its primary objective of suppression.

I would presume in a future contested environment, MALD Jammer (A/B/C's) will lead the way to flush out false emitters.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

The primary weakness with the S-400 is that it is a sensor centric system of systems. If you take out its X band acquisition radar the rest of the systems are effectively made impotent.

You mix it up with the Patriot.

The S-300/400 battery using S band for early warning , C(L) band for target acquisition and X band for engagement / missile guidance / target illumination.

So, to make impossible for an s-400 unit to guide missiles onto the target it the 2-11 GHz part of the spectrum has to be filled up with white noise, considering that all radar can change frequency from pulse to pulse.

In order for it to be effective, its radar need to emit to acquire potential targets. As TE said, the F-35 has 10 apertures. The F-22's ALR-94 has 30 apertures and reportedly can detect emission from a distance in excess of 400 kms. There are reasons why the F-35 and F-22 are so expensive because they offer capabilities that are just not organic to existing 4th gen platforms.

I can detect emission with a £5 RTL dongle from hundreds of kms. So what ?
Detect direction require directional gain, that require size. The F-35/22 quite small ,and the available area for receivers even smaller.

On day 1, the S-400 has a choice. If it emits, it is a dead duck. If it doesn't emit, those facilities that it is protecting are dead ducks. That is the definition of a SEAD mission. In the most recent SEAD operations that the US had conducted, the tactical approach was to synchronise timing between the Strike and SEAD packages. The SEAD aircrafts would go in first just before the strike package and launching their AGM-88 at preestablished electronic order of battle (EOB) strike coordinates. Those IADS has a choice of either to light up or stay silent. If it lights up, the AGM-88 during its delivery will then retarget based on those new emissions. If IADS don't light up, those AGM-88 would achieve its primary objective of suppression.

I would presume in a future contested environment, MALD Jammer (A/B/C's) will lead the way to flush out false emitters.

The most advanced IADS that the USA tried to take over was the Serbian one, with factory 60s vintage s-125 units.

They had poor training - the only unit that had acceptable level of training shoot down a stealth and a non stealth fighter , the equipment was seriously outdated, but the whole NATO air force had to use 40% of sorties to suppress the air defence .

In the case of Iran with F-35 it would be something like 80-90% of SEAD, with close to / over 5% loss rate for each sortie.

 

[Anlsvrthng]

There is one additional problem that the F-35 has to face, and that is the proliferation of cheap GaN emitters.

That decrease the cost of land based, small TELARs, , and each of them can deny 40-80km diameter area for F-35/22.

See Pantsirr, BUK, TOR and so on.

These days even the MBTs receive small AESA arrays, it means in the future a tank battalion can give guidance for missiles as a stealth jet flying in they close proximity.

 

[Air Force Brat]

Not “The” as in one. F35 has 10 built across the Aircraft. I know but the dish sizes... except if you cluster a number of smaller dishes together you get the same effect a larger dish.
This is commonly used in ground based radio telescopes.

I love your logic that just because it costs more and is heavier means it is more effective.... yeah.... most of the weight of older systems was the processor technology. Yet modern computers are just as powerful yet far smaller and lighter. A modern smartphone has more computer processing than the entirety of NASA and the Soviet Space program in the Apollo era.

S300 that you mentioned is a family of Systems.
Some versions are very modern some date back to the late 1970s.
Same holds true for S400 a family of systems and this is one thing a lot of people skip over. Because some elements are a potential threat some are totally useless against a fifth gen. Some parts of S400 date back to the 1990s some are brand new.

At the heart of this debate is electronic warfare. Well the problem for some people is that EW has improved as Electronics have improved and today we are doing things with electronics that we’re unimaginable back int the 1980s.
@Jura hyped the EA18 growler yet it’s jamming pod it an improved model of a Jamming pod that dates back to the late 1970s. Those Jamming pods flew on EF111 and EA6 in the first Gulf war!

They are still flying as in the period between the US really didn’t make a huge investment in new pods because in the intervening period we were still mostly dealing with third world Soviet leftovers and have Stealth tech.

EF18G was developed because the Navy couldn’t maintain EA6 anymore. They transferred the pods over but realized it was way beyond time to start a replacement.

However Fifth generation fighter take a different approach to dealing with IAD.
The F117 needed an assist from a external RWR on a EA6. The one successful shoot down of F117happened on the day when the supporting Jammer that could tell the Nighthawk to stand off from a missile site was rained in.
Since 1999 Fighters across the world have gained their own add on RWR and threat detection systems. EW equipment has shrunk so that some 4.5 gen fighter like the grippen have a fully organic EW capability. F22 and F35 take this track but farther augment it by being VLO. It’s not Stealth plan and growler in combination it’s Growler as Stealth plane in one. Using a number of smaller receivers and emitters spread across the airframe to in essence act as larger dishes. Using the VLO Radar return to pass when able and Jamming ability to attack when needed. Because of the smaller return the coverage doesn’t need to be as large. It’s more surgical than the Growlers broad sword approach.

Very nice summary Terran, to be honest VLO aircraft have a tremendous advantage in "ingressing" the target from a vector deemed to be "low threat", and "egressing" along a different, equally low threat vector... if they choose not to engage based on the threat, no one will ever know they were even there, as they are "passive", and those F-35's will indeed be soaking up data...

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

You mix it up with the Patriot.

The S-300/400 battery using S band for early warning , C(L) band for target acquisition and X band for engagement / missile guidance / target illumination.

So, to make impossible for an s-400 unit to guide missiles onto the target it the 2-11 GHz part of the spectrum has to be filled up with white noise, considering that all radar can change frequency from pulse to pulse.

except as you just pointed out the X band is critical. As it is the Missile guidance Radar. If that Radar is dead then the kill mechanism is gone. That’s the only part that really matters. C and L band can’t target nor can S band.

I can detect emission with a £5 RTL dongle from hundreds of kms. So what ?
Detect direction require directional gain, that require size. The F-35/22 quite small ,and the available area for receivers even smaller.

again not one 10. Those are mounted along the wing span that effectively means that the F35 has a Receiver array as wide as the Jet is. Even if it’s directed at the side of F35 it’s still got enough receivers that it would be an array half the wingspan wide.

The most advanced IADS that the USA tried to take over was the Serbian one, with factory 60s vintage s-125 units.

They had poor training - the only unit that had acceptable level of training shoot down a stealth and a non stealth fighter , the equipment was seriously outdated, but the whole NATO air force had to use 40% of sorties to suppress the air defence .

And NATO planners place limits on the missions that painted their operations into a corner as well. So you had a decent Commander with modified equipment and troops he trained himself going against a system and pilot that was being used in a manor it shouldn’t have, this was as much a American failure as a Serb success.

In the case of Iran with F-35 it would be something like 80-90% of SEAD, with close to / over 5% loss rate for each sortie.

totally and completely unqualified sir.

There is one additional problem that the F-35 has to face, and that is the proliferation of cheap GaN emitters.

That decrease the cost of land based, small TELARs, , and each of them can deny 40-80km diameter area for F-35/22.

See Pantsirr, BUK, TOR and so on.

You mean the air Defence systems that we’re destroyed in Syria. That we even saw from the missile eye view as the system was just sitting there? They also depend on set bands and frequencies. And even if upgraded to GaN it’s a big if on how effective they would be.

These days even the MBTs receive small AESA arrays, it means in the future a tank battalion can give guidance for missiles as a stealth jet flying in they close proximity.

pointed in the wrong directions. The Radar and systems used on MBT and other armored vehicles are not intended for air defenses they are intended for anti missile and as part of the targeting system and as such are far closer range. Basically the VLO fighter would have to be terrain mapping and buzz the tank Maverick style.
The Objective of stealth technology was to allow operations back at higher altitudes
The systems you pointed to Buk, Tor and Pantsirr are intended for low altitude Defence. Fifth generation fighter were designed to regain high altitude. Where fourth gen fighters had to go low to the deck for terrain masking to stay out of IAD.

 

[Jura The idiot]

... C ... band can’t target ...

ever heard of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

?

or you perhaps talked specifically about some S-400 feature?? (LOL how would you know that)

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

ever heard of

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

?

or you perhaps talked specifically about some S-400 feature?? (LOL how would you know that)

Yes it tracks but not targets. Every ship that packs EMPAR has a separate X Band Attack Radar.

 

[Jura The idiot]

... Every ship that packs EMPAR has a separate X Band Attack Radar.

oh really? show to me where it is (or, should you claim the graphics was wrong, describe where it "in fact" is):

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

NA25X Fire control Radar,
RAN30X are both X band attack radars.

 

[Jura The idiot]

NA25X Fire control Radar,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

NA-25X is a Fire Control System (FCS) to control medium calibre guns used for anti-air and anti-surface warfare, as well as small calibre guns in the close-in weapon system role, where up to three guns of different calibres can be controlled.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

RAN30X are both X band attack radars.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The RAN-30X surveillance radar represents the state-of-the-art of 2D X-Band surveillance radars. It can operate as a primary sensor for combined surface and air surveillance on board patrol vessels or as a specialized anti-seaskimmer sensor on board major Surface Combatant Vessels.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I now let the World decide if the context of
Today at 8:14 PM
+
Today at 8:46 PM
+
37 minutes ago
+
13 minutes ago
has been Aster30 missiles-related radar(s)