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

[Gloire_bb]

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

Here they're given only as examples of, well, aircraft more tuned out to perform BVR engagements.
What su-57 isn't even an operational aircraft, and what j-20 is still in its infancy is undeniable.

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.

It's actually what makes them so interesting: on one hand, eurocanards are denied the advantages of true stealth.
On the other hand, they have(or untill recently had not) no internal competition from yonger siblings either, so budgets and talents are "theirs". So is access to the "first world technology pool".
So how they are overcoming survivability problem to remain viable is very curious to watch.

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.

Thanks.
I am waiting to see it implemented.
Su-57 indeed uses "deal with it" approach to key optical systems, stealth is clearly sacrificed to keep maximum functionality, coverage and optical performance. Lockheed/Northrop can't follow this route.

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.

Missiles with active seekers solve this problem on their own, you just have to aim them accurately enough, which is doable(i was told about cube with dimensions in first hundreds of meters for modern L-band radars), even if difficult.
This is why new 9m96 and 40n6 missiles are seen as crucial in Russia, and, on for the other party, this is why wideband jamming support is just as necessary as before(probably even more, since it now allows to achieve even more: stealth and ew have synergy).

 

[Jura The idiot]

...
A DIRCM A ...

using google found, in some 27 Apr 2009 forum-post, this (the NG link doesn't work for me, the other do):

"Directional Infrared Counter Measures (DIRCM) is a turreted system that fires a low-powered laser (non burning) into the seeker-head of an incoming IR missile in order to blind it (think jamming for IR).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

From the Missile's point of view

From a side view

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"

 

[Jura The idiot]

this thread got quite entertaining, just my question from Sunday at 9:33 PM

how did F-35s fare in the subsequent Red Flag exercises I mean in 2018?

is still open,

as I said later about the kill ratio,

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

thank you

 

[Brumby]

this thread got quite entertaining, just my question from Sunday at 9:33 PM

how did F-35s fare in the subsequent Red Flag exercises I mean in 2018?

is still open,

Bro, what is the thingy you have with Red Flag?

Maybe the following link might help to wet your appetite regarding participating units.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Brumby]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Personal experience of a F-35A pilot in recent Red Flag and how it has changed with the F-35.

What combat training looks like has changed dramatically over the years, Morris said.

“When I was a young pilot in the F-16, I had a couple of responsibilities in the cockpit. One, don’t lose sight of my flight lead. Two, keep track of a bunch of green blips on a small screen in front of me, and correlate the blips to what someone is telling me on the radio,” Morris said. “Now, we’re flying miles apart and interpreting and sharing information the jets gather, building a threat and target picture. We’re asking way more of young wingmen, but we’re able to do that because of their training and the capabilities of the jet.”

 

[Brumby]

Missiles with active seekers solve this problem on their own, you just have to aim them accurately enough, which is doable(i was told about cube with dimensions in first hundreds of meters for modern L-band radars), even if difficult.
This is why new 9m96 and 40n6 missiles are seen as crucial in Russia, and, on for the other party, this is why wideband jamming support is just as necessary as before(probably even more, since it now allows to achieve even more: stealth and ew have synergy).

TE has done an excellent job in addressing many of your comments and I will not labor further on it.

I just want to point out your rather fanciful idea that based on a detection with terrible resolution somewhere out in the sky and without height information you actually expect to direct a missile close enough to be effective. We are talking a height from any where between a few thousand to tens of thousand of feet. Your view is married on hope rather than any sense of reality.

As to your question why the 50 kilometre threshold. The answer is very simple. One can establish from radar equation and a bunch of assumed variables like RCS, radar properties et al detection ranges can be reasonably approximated. There are obviously other variables which are publicly unknown e.g. RAM properties and will naturally affect the end results but for ball park purposes the detection ranges are generally not disputed. In other words, detecting a F-35 based with its VLO characteristics outside of the 50 kilometers is unlikely.

 

[Gloire_bb]

If you're linking a picture from Kopp's website(because everyone loves ausaairpower) - please actually read the article, not just take pictures from there...

Looking at 0.01-0.01m lines for L-band radar for tactical fighters is foolish. If you won't apply x-band stealth features there they do not brlong(just too small to work, it is no b-2), you will suddenly find numbers close to those listed for this type of targets by their respective producers, i.e. hundreds of miles.
To put it bluntly, 50 km is well below of what even smallish fighter-sized x-band radar can achieve. Not even heavy duty truck-sized and powered air defence radar.

"my" idea of guiding the missile is even mentioned in the very same article, as are digital methods of processing the data, without numbers, though. And yours, on the other hand, gives numbers from british ww2 early warning sets, or non-upgraded(!) semi-mobile soviet sets from 50s and 60s.
Like those used for stealth detection by Syrians.

 

[TerraN_EmpirE]

Missiles with active seekers solve this problem on their own, you just have to aim them accurately enough, which is doable(i was told about cube with dimensions in first hundreds of meters for modern L-band radars), even if difficult.
This is why new 9m96 and 40n6 missiles are seen as crucial in Russia, and, on for the other party, this is why wideband jamming support is just as necessary as before(probably even more, since it now allows to achieve even more: stealth and ew have synergy).

Ever heard the Song 99 Red balloons? Or it's Original German 99 Luftballons?

Some people question BVR engagement because in the last few American conflicts where in Air to Air Engagements occurred they were WVR.
There was a logical reason though for that. The U.S. was operating in a coalition of nations and not everyone might have had the same communications ability. As such if a track appeared it might have been a bandit or it might have been a friendly. You don't shoot a Bogie until you know for sure.
When you don't know for sure is when you have KLA007, or the recent Syrian shoot down of a Russian bird.
Now I am not going to make claims about the Malaysian airliner over Ukraine all we know is a Buk did it but who's will be debated for decades. Not the Iranian air liner by the USN that shouldn't have happened.
However I do want to make a point.

The actively guided missile seaker you are talking about removes the ability of the pilot to make a identification of the target.
In order to "sense" a LO target the long wavelength radar band has to basically take off filters. This is because the radar return on a LO is microscopic compared to even a modernised fighter with some RCS reduction. The targets of a stealth is often compared to a insect or marble. Objects like clouds, birds and the like generate returns of the same size.
Hence my reference to 99 Red Balloons. Which starts out with the singer releasing 99 helium balloons with a friend these are hit not as a track by a Early warning system as Bogies.
Which is what the L band Radar would see. A possible track. Now without confirming that it's a bandit the Pilot or ground station would fire a missile to intercept.
What happens if the missile target is a cloud or a red balloon? That missile at best is wasted. But as you point out it has a active seeker it's looking for a target.
That's a weapon addressed "to whom it may concern."
Now most cases empty space the missile will self destruct. But if there is a friendly in the air space that's a big risk.
This is why we come back to 50Km.
Now yes a LO might be tracked from farther but killed requires a solid track. In the F117 shoot down by the Serbs they were tracking it at around 30Km but couldn't target until 14km.

 

[Gloire_bb]

The actively guided missile seaker you are talking about removes the ability of the pilot to make a identification of the target.

It depends.
I already mentioned euroducks above, here they come again.
Gripen and Eurofighter/meteor combinations have full bandwith two-way datalinks.
But i agree with you on the reasons as whole. This is why the USAF actually wants to remain within reasonable distances from targets, and never really "bought" the idea of ultra-ranged a2a missiles.

In order to "sense" a LO target the long wavelength radar band has to basically take off filters.

Short, not long! And filter them out, yes.
Long wavelength radar isn't affected that much by tactical stealth to begin with, its stealth features are just too small. We aren't talking about refliction by leading edges or engine blades anymore, we are talking about plane-sized reflection.
This is why b-2a(and b-21) are special, and common approaches don't work with them.

 

[Brumby]

If you're linking a picture from Kopp's website(because everyone loves ausaairpower) - please actually read the article, not just take pictures from there...

Looking at 0.01-0.01m lines for L-band radar for tactical fighters is foolish. If you won't apply x-band stealth features there they do not brlong(just too small to work, it is no b-2), you will suddenly find numbers close to those listed for this type of targets by their respective producers, i.e. hundreds of miles.
To put it bluntly, 50 km is well below of what even smallish fighter-sized x-band radar can achieve. Not even heavy duty truck-sized and powered air defence radar.

"my" idea of guiding the missile is even mentioned in the very same article, as are digital methods of processing the data, without numbers, though. And yours, on the other hand, gives numbers from british ww2 early warning sets, or non-upgraded(!) semi-mobile soviet sets from 50s and 60s.
Like those used for stealth detection by Syrians.

So far you have not provided any evidence of substance whenever asked but go off tangent that suits your argument that exist only in your universe.

For example, when we were discussing about EW capabilities concerning the F-35, you replied with off tangent pictures of Gripen E. How that is connected only exist in your mind. You then went on about the efficacy of L band radars and how it would close the gap in detection. I presented some numbers on how L band would not really helped when dealing with VLO. You now then shift back to X band. Your tactic is simply to constantly move the goal post. Are you just trolling because your replies are generally incoherent and off topic?