TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
In the X band. And what is it controlling? Why targeted attack of a gun system.
And the same for the RAN
EMPAR is a search radar not a Attack Radar.
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
And the same for the RAN
EMPAR is a search radar not a Attack Radar.
Jura The idiot
General
LOL I go to bed now, and you may read the last sentence of
Jura The idiot
General
small money, but interesting:
"Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded a $34,670,000 undefinitized cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to develop and deliver an engineering change proposal to enable the production cut-in of the Fuselage Station 425 Bulkhead structural modification required for F-35A and F-35C to allow full-envelope internal carriage of aft heavy weaponry. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas, and is expected to be completed in July 2022. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation (Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps); and non-U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) participant funds in the amount of $9,953,400 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to U.S. Code 2304(c)(1). This undefinitized contract combines purchases for the Air Force ($13,787,219; 39.77%); Navy ($6,893,610; 19.88%); Marine Corps ($6,893,609; 19.88%); and non-U.S. DoD participants ($7,095,562; 20.46%). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-19-C-0010)."
inside
Contracts for July 18, 2019
"Lockheed Martin Corp., Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Fort Worth, Texas, is awarded a $34,670,000 undefinitized cost-plus-incentive-fee contract to develop and deliver an engineering change proposal to enable the production cut-in of the Fuselage Station 425 Bulkhead structural modification required for F-35A and F-35C to allow full-envelope internal carriage of aft heavy weaponry. Work will be performed in Fort Worth, Texas, and is expected to be completed in July 2022. Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation (Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps); and non-U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) participant funds in the amount of $9,953,400 will be obligated at time of award, none of which will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was not competitively procured pursuant to U.S. Code 2304(c)(1). This undefinitized contract combines purchases for the Air Force ($13,787,219; 39.77%); Navy ($6,893,610; 19.88%); Marine Corps ($6,893,609; 19.88%); and non-U.S. DoD participants ($7,095,562; 20.46%). The Naval Air Systems Command, Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity (N00019-19-C-0010)."
inside
Contracts for July 18, 2019
Brumby
Major
@Jura For a C or S band radar to be of any utility, you will need massive antenna such as the type typically mounted on ships. Even on ships you will find some form of complimentary illuminator or X band radar acting as fire control. For our purpose, the issue of whether C band can act as an acquisition radar is rather irrelevant because the C band radar you are referring to are ship based and not on a 8X8 truck as with the S-400. In other words, it is an apples vs oranges discussion.
In the context of the S-400 discussions viz a viz the F-35, we need to cycle back to the underlying sensor net of the S-400. The selling point of the S-400 is that its sensor net is a network of 3 frequency band radars viz, VHF, L, and C/X. Conceptually each band radar acts as mutually supporting sensor in the network by feeding cueing data when appropriate to the next band radar. Nevertheless such an arrangement does not detract from my initial point in that it is sensor centric and accordingly a weakness in its kill chain. Its C/X band radar would be a priority target in any SEAD/DEAD tasking package.
That said, I would now want to focus specifically on the issue of threat emission detection and geolocation and why the F-35 is such a threat to the S-400. Based on some of the issues raised, I think there is a general lack of understanding of what transpires in EW and SEAD between a 4th gen platform and a 5th like the F-35/F-22.
For sake of simplicity, an EW suite in any modern airborne fighter comprises of three components, i.e.
(1)Passive sensor - RWR for RF threat detection;
(2)ESM - classification and prioritization of RF threats based on waveform; and
(3)Jammer - defensive response to RF threats either automatically, semi automatically or manually .
For example, the EW suite of the F-18E is made up of :
(a)ALR-67(V) 3 - RWR.
(b)ASQ-218 - ESM.
(c)ALQ-214 (V) 5 - Jammer
(d)APG-79 which is the radar but can also at as a jammer; and
(e)ALE-55 - Fibre Optic Towed Decoy (FOTD)
Here is the thing. If you want to take out a sensor (emitter) you must be able to locate it with sufficient targeting accuracy and that is not a simple thing. As I said previously, earlier RWRs could not even provide range and bearing accuracy was within 10 degrees. ALR-67(V) 3 was a major improvement that provided range information and bearing accuracy to within 1 degree. However that is still insufficient and for purposes like SEAD, triangulation data (geolocation) is needed and that means a three ship formation is required to fuse those data.
For example taking the Growler situation :
I am using the Growler example because the F-18 in its present Block II configuration cannot fuse information to the level of fidelity and accuracy until Block III when it is upgraded with DTP-N and TTNT (as in the Growler). DTP-N provides processing power for the logarithm based calculations and TTNT is to provide the bandwidth throughput needed to ensure nil latency in fusing the data. Such capabilities come with risk using 4th gen platforms. In a dense environment, communications can be disrupted or degraded and the quality of the fused data compromised. A three ship formation to conduct triangulation put more assets at risk. In contrast, a single F-35 or F-22 can deliver the same results of geolocating a threat.
If it is not obvious, the F-16CJs are specialised SEAD aircrafts.
Top end capabilities do not come cheap.
In the context of the S-400 discussions viz a viz the F-35, we need to cycle back to the underlying sensor net of the S-400. The selling point of the S-400 is that its sensor net is a network of 3 frequency band radars viz, VHF, L, and C/X. Conceptually each band radar acts as mutually supporting sensor in the network by feeding cueing data when appropriate to the next band radar. Nevertheless such an arrangement does not detract from my initial point in that it is sensor centric and accordingly a weakness in its kill chain. Its C/X band radar would be a priority target in any SEAD/DEAD tasking package.
That said, I would now want to focus specifically on the issue of threat emission detection and geolocation and why the F-35 is such a threat to the S-400. Based on some of the issues raised, I think there is a general lack of understanding of what transpires in EW and SEAD between a 4th gen platform and a 5th like the F-35/F-22.
For sake of simplicity, an EW suite in any modern airborne fighter comprises of three components, i.e.
(1)Passive sensor - RWR for RF threat detection;
(2)ESM - classification and prioritization of RF threats based on waveform; and
(3)Jammer - defensive response to RF threats either automatically, semi automatically or manually .
For example, the EW suite of the F-18E is made up of :
(a)ALR-67(V) 3 - RWR.
(b)ASQ-218 - ESM.
(c)ALQ-214 (V) 5 - Jammer
(d)APG-79 which is the radar but can also at as a jammer; and
(e)ALE-55 - Fibre Optic Towed Decoy (FOTD)
Here is the thing. If you want to take out a sensor (emitter) you must be able to locate it with sufficient targeting accuracy and that is not a simple thing. As I said previously, earlier RWRs could not even provide range and bearing accuracy was within 10 degrees. ALR-67(V) 3 was a major improvement that provided range information and bearing accuracy to within 1 degree. However that is still insufficient and for purposes like SEAD, triangulation data (geolocation) is needed and that means a three ship formation is required to fuse those data.
For example taking the Growler situation :
I am using the Growler example because the F-18 in its present Block II configuration cannot fuse information to the level of fidelity and accuracy until Block III when it is upgraded with DTP-N and TTNT (as in the Growler). DTP-N provides processing power for the logarithm based calculations and TTNT is to provide the bandwidth throughput needed to ensure nil latency in fusing the data. Such capabilities come with risk using 4th gen platforms. In a dense environment, communications can be disrupted or degraded and the quality of the fused data compromised. A three ship formation to conduct triangulation put more assets at risk. In contrast, a single F-35 or F-22 can deliver the same results of geolocating a threat.
If it is not obvious, the F-16CJs are specialised SEAD aircrafts.
Top end capabilities do not come cheap.
Jura The idiot
General
does your wall of text say the F-35 is a game-changer LOL providing tremendous value for money?
now even
"The biggest acquisition disaster Opens a New Window. in the Pentagon’s Opens a New Window. history shows no sign of abating.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), the poster child for ineptitude and inefficiency in defense procurement, ..." and so on:
Need for new F-15s reflects F-35 catastrophe
This is not how the S-300 works.
The best way to describe the way of operation is by the Burke Spy-1 and AN/SPG-62 fire control radars.
The search and tracking done by the SPY - 1, operating in S band. (decimetre (10cm) wavelength )
The targeting is done by the AN/SPG-62 radars ( X band , cm wavelength )
Now the SPY-1 search for targets, and if the decision to engage made then it will track the target.
The X band AN/SPG-62 will illuminate the targets, again, it doesn't collect any data, it just gives a beam of coded X band beam, to illuminate the target for the missile.
It is not possible to jam the AN/SPG-62, for the same reason it is not possible to jam a flashlight - it doesn't receive information from the target. If the target try to confuse the X band radar by emitting white noise then it makes themselves an easier target.
Problem with the AN/SPG-62 it is mechanically steered and due to this it can not give guidance for the missiles. So the Burke can target only three incoming threat at the same time.
Now , the S-300 working with a more advanced radar system compared to the Burke class.
It can use the next radars for search AND targeting purposes ( like the SPY-1 on the burke)
And it use the next radar for illumination / missile command :
So, it is NOT possible to jam in the X band, the system use use the S/VHF band for target tracking ,like the AEGIS on the Burke (apart from that the Burke can use only S band ).
But the S-300 use phased array for illumination, so it has narrower beam, can illuminate lot of targets at the same time, and can give two way communication channel to the missiles.
So, again, to jam (example) the Iranian S-300 units the USA has to fill with white noise the frequencies between 3cm-1meter.
And by the above it is quite oblivious ( I think) the S-300 (original, 80s witness ) is more advanced than the Patriot or the Aegis on Burke destroyers .
It can use the next radars for search AND targeting purposes ( like the SPY-1 on the burke)
And it use the next radar for illumination / missile command :
So, it is NOT possible to jam in the X band, the system use use the S/VHF band for target tracking ,like the AEGIS on the Burke (apart from that the Burke can use only S band ).
But the S-300 use phased array for illumination, so it has narrower beam, can illuminate lot of targets at the same time, and can give two way communication channel to the missiles.
So, again, to jam (example) the Iranian S-300 units the USA has to fill with white noise the frequencies between 3cm-1meter.
And by the above it is quite oblivious ( I think) the S-300 (original, 80s witness ) is more advanced than the Patriot or the Aegis on Burke destroyers .
If the antenna is everywhere, and if the antenna is that big.
It is easily doable on the Su-35, but the F-35 a stealth plane, and each antenna behave like a resonator.
So, if they use big, wide frequency width antennas that can detect any radiation source with high precision then the antenna will give away the position of the aircraft, and makes the whole stealth concept dead in water.
So, they can use very small sized , limited capability antennas.
more about it :
The whole military is about probabilities.
Saying luck / probability is about the lack of understanding how the weapon systems works.
And the commander that you talk about has Hungarian ethnic : )
Anyway, again, the whole Serb air defence had poor training and severely outdated equipment. Do you think it differently ? Please explain.
The USA had to use close to 40% of missions for SEAD even against a very inferior and incapable enemy . Think differently ? Please explain.
See the above comparison between Burke vs S-300.
Just a remark : the AEGIS was designed against low observable , sea skimming missiles with similar RCS like an F-35 .
Now, again, the S-300 more capable than the AEGIS.
And Iran has the latest S-300, and NEBO VHF radars.
BUK can attack any altitude , the export version restricted only low / medium altitude . (see the downing of Malaysian plane by a BUK in high altitude )
And they don't needed even to attack the target, it is more than enough to give tracking for a long range battery .
The destroyed pansirs had they operators on toilet break , and each of them was the sole protection of a site.
Considering that the cost driver of them is the radar system, by decrease the price of them with GaN the Syrians will be able to afford more, and makes it impossible to found a lonely Pantsir anywhere.
Brumby
Major
This is not how the S-300 works.
The best way to describe the way of operation is by the Burke Spy-1 and AN/SPG-62 fire control radars.
The search and tracking done by the SPY - 1, operating in S band. (decimetre (10cm) wavelength )
The targeting is done by the AN/SPG-62 radars ( X band , cm wavelength )
Now the SPY-1 search for targets, and if the decision to engage made then it will track the target.
The X band AN/SPG-62 will illuminate the targets, again, it doesn't collect any data, it just gives a beam of coded X band beam, to illuminate the target for the missile.
It is not possible to jam the AN/SPG-62, for the same reason it is not possible to jam a flashlight - it doesn't receive information from the target. If the target try to confuse the X band radar by emitting white noise then it makes themselves an easier target.
Problem with the AN/SPG-62 it is mechanically steered and due to this it can not give guidance for the missiles. So the Burke can target only three incoming threat at the same time.
Are we discussing S-300, S-400 or SPY-1? You need to make up your mind.
Invoking SPY-1 as a surrogate to make an argument for S-300 is not acceptable. You need to lift your game if you wish to be taken seriously.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
@Jura we have gone over the need for F15EX.
Fox is posting and opted and one written by a political groups the Author of the piece is “Tom Schatz is the President of Citizens Against Government Waste” it even says so at the bottom of the article where I copy pasted that from.
It’s not the failings of the F35 that demand it. But those of F15 A,B,C,D. The Echo chamber of F35 critics of course are everywhere love to latch on to such for confirmation bias. But F35 wasn’t supposed to be where it is today it was rushed ahead when F22 was killed. And that was supposed to replace F15 A-D despite what people like Schwartz says.
F15 early models were built to a set service life. They were not supposed to be in operation for a half century. They were intended to be “Not a pound for Air to ground” and as such some structural members were reduced in weight and strength based on only needing to take G loads for Air to air combat loads. As such Longeron’s Wings and some other structural parts were made lighter. Welcome to the Age of Multirole.
These wouldn’t have been as large a issue had F22 gone into full replacement of F15 but that bridge is burned.
The push for F15EX is because before this decade Is out F15 models will be reaching a end of practical operational life. Where in the risk of structural failure will be to high to maintain operations. In Other words, The Wings will fall off the cockpit will separate and the old birds will fall from the sky in bits and pieces. This already happed on two cases.
F15EX is meant to head this off and buy time for the next gen fighter program to get it’s act together. Because the Strike eagle series has maintained production into the current Advanced Eagle series the powers that be deemed that it was simpler to buy new fighters from the current line than try to reopen F22 or try and push F35 into the mission.
Fox is posting and opted and one written by a political groups the Author of the piece is “Tom Schatz is the President of Citizens Against Government Waste” it even says so at the bottom of the article where I copy pasted that from.
It’s not the failings of the F35 that demand it. But those of F15 A,B,C,D. The Echo chamber of F35 critics of course are everywhere love to latch on to such for confirmation bias. But F35 wasn’t supposed to be where it is today it was rushed ahead when F22 was killed. And that was supposed to replace F15 A-D despite what people like Schwartz says.
F15 early models were built to a set service life. They were not supposed to be in operation for a half century. They were intended to be “Not a pound for Air to ground” and as such some structural members were reduced in weight and strength based on only needing to take G loads for Air to air combat loads. As such Longeron’s Wings and some other structural parts were made lighter. Welcome to the Age of Multirole.
These wouldn’t have been as large a issue had F22 gone into full replacement of F15 but that bridge is burned.
The push for F15EX is because before this decade Is out F15 models will be reaching a end of practical operational life. Where in the risk of structural failure will be to high to maintain operations. In Other words, The Wings will fall off the cockpit will separate and the old birds will fall from the sky in bits and pieces. This already happed on two cases.
F15EX is meant to head this off and buy time for the next gen fighter program to get it’s act together. Because the Strike eagle series has maintained production into the current Advanced Eagle series the powers that be deemed that it was simpler to buy new fighters from the current line than try to reopen F22 or try and push F35 into the mission.