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


Gloire_bb

Junior Member
Registered Member
I presented some numbers on how L band would not really helped when dealing with VLO.
Fast googled first supportive picture*
Now read the bloody article where it came from.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Btw, Fyi, ausaairpower isn't exactly the most respected source(it has well known bias and interest behind it), but tearing pictures from there w/o context is a next level.
For example, when we were discussing about EW capabilities concerning the F-35, you replied with off tangent pictures of Gripen E.
Screenshot_2019-02-20-12-47-02-031.jpeg
+boeing sheet above
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Long or short wavelengths all radar is shining a proverbial light in the dark and seeing what gets caught it.
Eventually though the light's effect dissipates.
LO paints it self black to try and sneak closer but not to close.
Fly a LO to close to the emitter no matter the band and it's clear as day. Point the belly at it and it's a big return.
Keep a safe distance and its a hole in the dark.

Even with L band, you will still clearly see a conventional fighter at a longer range than you will a VLO fighter.

But the nature of that radar works against you. First the radar has to have a large emitter array to match the long band with. Second the pulses and duration work against you. Even if you do "see" a target that target could be multiple objects lumped as one by the radar return.

F117 the first of the stealth lacked any confirmed EW capabilities. (There are some images that reported to be a EW system but they are controversial and would have increased the radar signature. ) this was a reason it needed support from EW assets to keep from driving over a mobile SAM site. Which it did in 1999. That single instant became the basis for every Antistealth argument post. Yet it was more a product of Physics, a very good Serbian commander and NATO planners who phoned it in, then any superior systems.

F35 and F22 have learned from F117. They have sensors and systems meant to detect incoming electromagnetic radiation classify it and use it to zero in on the source as well as gauge just if it is a threat.
Meaning it allows the pilot to circumnavigate the radar at ranges outside the full range of attack.
Which is what the fact sheet you posted is basically saying.

Because of physics stealth is not invisibility, because of Physics Antistealth doesn't instantly make all visible.
Adding jamming to the mix just makes it easier to hide the F35 from the radar, and there is still talk of adding a mission optional Jammer pod based of the NGJ to Marine F35B.
The already on board F35 EW system is a very good mid-high range Jammer. The idea though being the "Wild weasel" mission and support of Non stealthy platforms like V22 And H1.
Adding the pods wouldn't need changes like the Super Hornet did to become Growlers. Nor the Growlers need for three types of pods NGJ High band, NGJ Mid band and NGJ Low band.
F35 covers the breadth of those save for Low band.
 
Last edited:

Brumby

Major
Fast googled first supportive picture*
Now read the bloody article where it came from.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Btw, Fyi, ausaairpower isn't exactly the most respected source(it has well known bias and interest behind it), but tearing pictures from there w/o context is a next level.

View attachment 51136
+boeing sheet above

How about if I suggest you read "War and Peace" because my rebuttal is in there? I am not debating a website or a marketing brochure. I am debating you. You put your case forward to explain your position. You certainly can provide additional support in terms of links and materials to underscore your case. It is not for me to read the Boeing brochure to try to figure out what contents in there are meant to support your case.
 
Bro, what is the thingy you have with Red Flag?

...
I want to have fun by looking at what 'kill ratios' they made up,

after 'kill ratios' they made up in the beginning of 2017 (LOL to amuse Trump?),

and they deny me this fun

Dec 23, 2016
I'm picking this quote: "Lockheed had no comment."
Turning Up Heat on F-35, Trump Hints at F/A-18E/F Buy
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
v
v
v
Red Flag 17-1
v
v
v

Mar 23, 2017
wow John A. Tirpak 3/24/2017
How Trump Was Sold on the F-35
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Dec 4, 2018
Thursday at 7:16 PM
while now
No ‘devastating impact’ to F-35 industrial base if Turkey removed from program, says US Air Force official
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for now:

(noticed through
Trump signs bill blocking transfer of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and that text is indeed inside
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

at p. 347 of 465 in PDF)
 

Gloire_bb

Junior Member
Registered Member
How about if I suggest you read "War and Peace" because my rebuttal is in there? I am not debating a website or a marketing brochure. I am debating you. You put your case forward to explain your position. You certainly can provide additional support in terms of links and materials to underscore your case. It is not for me to read the Boeing brochure to try to figure out what contents in there are meant to support your case.
Because debating with someone who only finds pictures is boring.
Especially when i have to provide links to your points, which you haven't even bothered to read before sending.

Again and the last time: graph is for L band radars, but measures against radar return, which make these signatures possible, don't apply to L band. So the way you're reading the graph is flawed from the beginning.
Either because geometry is too small, interfering with L band is too troublesome for a tactical jet, or because choice between different RAMs is always going to be made in favour of the main threat(around x band), not the L.
 

localizer

Colonel
Registered Member
Source: Israeli F-35 destroyed Chinese-made radar during airstrikes in Syria

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Last month, an Israeli satellite imagery analysis company ImageSat confirmed that Chinese-made JY-27 radar of the Syrian Air Defense at Damascus airport destroyed by Israeli airstrikes on January 20th.

No airstrike details were given and the quoted ImageSat did also not contain any further information but some source said that radar was destroyed by Israeli F-35i Adir fighter jets.
 

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Dec 4, 2018
for now:

(noticed through
Trump signs bill blocking transfer of F-35 fighter jets to Turkey
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and that text is indeed inside
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

at p. 347 of 465 in PDF)

Yep, I really hate to say I told you so, but I told you so,,,

Source: Israeli F-35 destroyed Chinese-made radar during airstrikes in Syria

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and here's how its going to work out in the real world, F-35s are going to taking out other folks AA at will, that's not hype, nor should it be a surprise, Green and Red Flags are proving the F-35, the F-35 community are learning how to fly and fight their birds ... there are at least two lessons here:

1. The F-35 is a "killer", you really don't want to "tangle with it", all the naysayers have already been given an education... but, they are really slow learners, so lets build a lesson plan!

2. The Israeli's are serious about defending their country, they've had lots of hateful folks test that resolve, they are ready put the F-35 to good use.
 

Brumby

Major
Because debating with someone who only finds pictures is boring.
I am not your entertainer. If you want something exciting go watch “Wandering Earth” or better still, visit the casino.

Especially when i have to provide links to your points, which you haven't even bothered to read before sending.
I had previously emphasized to you it is unprofessional to simply include a link as a rebuttal. If you have trouble with basic comprehension I am afraid you will have to seek professional help. I can’t help you further on this.

Again and the last time: graph is for L band radars, but measures against radar return, which make these signatures possible, don't apply to L band. So the way you're reading the graph is flawed from the beginning.
I just want to remind you (again) you were the want that brought up L band – not me. I am just being polite by addressing your claim. Below is your original post if memory is not one of your stronger attribute :

Evidence to what? What stealth fighters are just as visible in L-band, yet you denied your force needs to mess up their job?
You were insistent that L Band would offer better detection of stealthy fighters. I was demonstrating to you that with RCS at 0.001 to 0.0001, the detection range will still get below 50 kilometres. It is not your silver bullet solution
Either because geometry is too small, interfering with L band is too troublesome for a tactical jet, or because choice between different RAMs is always going to be made in favour of the main threat(around x band), not the L.

Below is another representation from an article of Aviation Week which shows range detection using X-band. The results are the same. For VLO planes like the F-35 or F-22, detection is below 50 kms. It should be noted that the Russians in their claim over the SU-35 radar uses a pd of 50 %. Using western standard of 80-90%, that range will be worst. A 50 % pd cannot establish a track but this point is not generally understood or intentionally ignored.

P.S. I had to delete previous message because I was getting a layered effect in the messages.
 

Top