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


There is a concern, there should always be one. But concerns don’t mean absolutes. S400 is an impressive system but has been hyped as doing everything from killing stealths to making julian fries.
The main worry is that because hypothetically Turkish F35 would be operating next to S400 and sharing data the S400 would be getting clean scans of F35 on a regular basis and would need data access to Data link and other signals to prevent Blue on Blue. All of which would weaken the ability of F35 to be used against S400 if needed.
It would give Russia access to signals and signature as they would be part of the S400 maintenance system.
funnily,
#594 Brumby, Yesterday at 9:45 PM
spun the other way (suggesting "the F-35 vacuum up every emission from" the S-400)

anyway, stealth-is-a-must-against-S-400 stealth-is-a-must-against-S-400 stealth-is-a-must-against-S-400 PR campaign has worked sort of too well
 

Brumby

Major
funnily,
#594 Brumby, Yesterday at 9:45 PM
spun the other way (suggesting "the F-35 vacuum up every emission from" the S-400)

anyway, stealth-is-a-must-against-S-400 stealth-is-a-must-against-S-400 stealth-is-a-must-against-S-400 PR campaign has worked sort of too well
We are now in the digital age where information is king. A S-400 vs F-35 is about sensor shooter equation and how that is brought into play in electronic warfare. An informed conversation requires at least a basic understanding of their respective underlying electronic capabilities or else it is simply misguided opinions.

As an example prior to the mid 90's, all RWR lack ranging capabilities and can only provide bearing of emission but the error rate was as much as 10 degrees. Today capable US digital RWR can provide ranging capabilities to within less than 1 % of range and bearing. The F-35 can geolocate an emission without requiring multi-ship triangulation. Anything that emits has a limited lifespan.
 
Apr 14, 2019
in Japan Thread

you claimed it was great to have so many industrial participants in the program Today at 7:16 AM
while this is a ridiculous idea according to me:
supply chain should be as SHORT as possible, not as LONG as possible
now
Turkey Formally Dropped From F-35 Program; DoD Estimates $500M to Retool Supply Chain
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Turkey is being excised from the F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter program, and the U.S. will pay an estimated $500 to 600 million to retool the program in the aftermath, the Defense Department’s acquisition chief told reporters on Wednesday.

Ellen Lord, undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, said Turkey’s acceptance of a Russian S-400 anti-air missile system last week put the F-35 program at risk, and international partners in the Lockheed Martin-built fighter program reached a consensus to remove Ankara from the program.

“I have clearly said Turkey cannot field a Russian intelligence-collection platform in proximity to where the F-35 program makes repairs and houses the F-35,” Lord said.
“Much of the F-35 strength lies in its stealth capabilities, so the ability to detect those capabilities would jeopardize the long-term security of the F-35 program. We seek only to protect the long-term security of the F-35 program.”

Turkey was set to not only buy 100 of the F-35A variants of the fighter but also was part of the larger international industrial base for the program.

“Turkey will certainly and regrettably lose jobs and future economic opportunities from this decision. It will no longer receive more than $9 billion in projected workshare related to the F-35 over the life of the program,” Lord said. “Turkey made more than 900 parts for the F-35 and had been assigned more than $1 billion in industrial participation across 10 Turkish suppliers.”

Lord said that the Defense Department had set aside $500 to 600 million in “non-reoccurring engineering” to retool the industrial base to make up for the loss of Turkish companies in the program. The industrial base would begin a “deliberate” process of removing Turkey for the supply chain by March. For the time being, the replacement suppliers will be American.

In a statement, jet builder Lockheed Martin said the company “has been partnering closely with the U.S. government and our supply chain to minimize impact to the F-35 program. Over the last several months, we’ve been working to establish alternative sources of supply in the United States to quickly accommodate Turkey’s current contributions to the program. These actions will limit any future production or sustainment impact, and we remain on track to meet our commitment of delivering 131 F-35s this year.”

Additionally, about 25 Turkish pilots and maintainers assigned to the program were informed on Wednesday they would no longer given access to the spaces at the F-35 Joint Program Office and were set to return to Turkey.

Lord and Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy David Trachtenberg reaffirmed Turkey’s key role in NATO, highlighted future exercises in which Turkey was a participant. They sought to narrow the disagreement to the F-35 and the S-400 system that didn’t spill over to the larger alliance.

The pair did not directly answer questions from reporters if the inclusion of the S-400 system in Turkey would preclude the country from joining in other aspects of NATO’s missions. Prior to Turkey’s purchase of the Russian system, Washington and Ankara were unsuccessful in sealing a foreign military sales deal for Turkey to buy the PAC-3 Patriot anti-air missile batteries.

Over the last several years, Russia has been working to perfect using different types of lower-frequency radars to provide targeting-quality tracks of stealthy aircraft – particularly the F-22 Raptor and the F-35. Pentagon reasoning, USNI News understands, was that it would be an unacceptable risk to allow a Russian radar to gather a treasure trove of signals intelligence data from the F-35s that Turkey would own and operate.
 
We are now in the digital age where information is king. A S-400 vs F-35 is about sensor shooter equation and how that is brought into play in electronic warfare. An informed conversation requires at least a basic understanding of their respective underlying electronic capabilities or else it is simply misguided opinions.

As an example prior to the mid 90's, all RWR lack ranging capabilities and can only provide bearing of emission but the error rate was as much as 10 degrees. Today capable US digital RWR can provide ranging capabilities to within less than 1 % of range and bearing. The F-35 can geolocate an emission without requiring multi-ship triangulation. Anything that emits has a limited lifespan.
LOL what's needed is a pass of the Growler to just jam an S-400 installation (if not destroyed by cruise missiles yet), not 300 or so billion dollars for so called stealthy F-35
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
LOL what's needed is a pass of the Growler to just jam an S-400 installation (if not destroyed by cruise missiles yet), not 300 or so billion dollars for so called stealthy F-35
As an example prior to the mid 90's, all RWR lack ranging capabilities and can only provide bearing of emission but the error rate was as much as 10 degrees. Today capable US digital RWR can provide ranging capabilities to within less than 1 % of range and bearing. The F-35 can geolocate an emission without requiring multi-ship triangulation. Anything that emits has a limited lifespan.
I love so much the inconsistency of the logic :)


So, the small, light and cheap RWR on the F35 can generate weapon quality track from the emission of the S-300 (without specifying the radar in question , considering there is a lot of different radars in the battery on magnitude different frequency ) but the big , heavy and expensive (each flap lid cost as much as an F-35) s-300 radars can not make weapon quality track from the Growler emission.

And of course a Growler works like a magic wand, it has just dispense the fairy dust to make the S-400 installation incapable to do anything. : )

Poor Euclid ,so much work for nothing : )
Suggested reading:
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!


Just a hint:
- the radar/ RWR / jammer performance depending on the antenna size and geometry . Everything else just has small effect compared to the antenna size.
-The Growler can degrade of any radar in no bigger area than the high gain beam angle of the antenna.Means if there is more than one radar then to protect one bomber you need one Growler for each radar, if the position of the radars not known then you need infinite amount of Growlers.


Interesting, no one start to see a pattern in the design of s-300 to counter a Growler/stealth plane combination ?

And no one can see how useless is the Patriot ?
 

Brumby

Major
LOL what's needed is a pass of the Growler to just jam an S-400 installation (if not destroyed by cruise missiles yet), not 300 or so billion dollars for so called stealthy F-35
The reason S-400 is deadly is because they are highly mobile IADS. Reportedly, they can shoot and scoot within a 5 min window. Stand off range cruise missiles are useless against them because as highly mobile, they would be gone by the time the cruise missiles get to its intended targeted grid.

The Growler conversation is a lot more complex because there are numerous dynamic variables that determine its effectiveness against the S-400..Some variables are :
1)The Nebo-M is an AESA radar and is a lot more difficult to jam using deceptive jamming due to agility. It would probably require barrage jamming against the full 4 GHz X bandwidth and this means a lot of jamming power is needed
2)The Nebo-M being ground based would likely have both antenna and processing gain against the Growler's AN/ALQ-99E jammer. J/S burn through requires around 8 to 12 dB advantage. At what distance the Growler can maintain effectiveness jamming is unknown against the Nebo-M.
upload_2019-7-18_20-27-24.png

3)The AN/ALQ-99E is basically analog and old technology with field programmable components for easier update to the threat library. It is the reason why the US is developing the NGJ which is fully digital with GaN T/R to take on the proliferation of AESA acquisition radars. Increment 1 will only deliver 18-27 GHz bandwidth jamming by 2021. X band is between 8-12 GHz and that will be part of increment 2.
4)What is not commonly appreciated is the synergic relationship between jamming and RCS. The F-35 because of its RCS can deliver an immediate 30dB advantage against say either a F-18 or a F-16. In other words, a F-35 at say 50 km from target requires 16 times less jamming power to achieve the same jamming effectiveness for protection if all else remains equal.

It is an ongoing contest between jamming and sensor capabilities. Threats like the S-400 will continue to improve in capabilities and so are the ongoing EW capabilities to counter such present and future threats. There are significant EW developments expected in Block 4 including EA and cognitive EW.

upload_2019-7-18_20-54-30.png .
 

Brumby

Major
I love so much the inconsistency of the logic :)


So, the small, light and cheap RWR on the F35 can generate weapon quality track from the emission of the S-300 (without specifying the radar in question , considering there is a lot of different radars in the battery on magnitude different frequency ) but the big , heavy and expensive (each flap lid cost as much as an F-35) s-300 radars can not make weapon quality track from the Growler emission.

And of course a Growler works like a magic wand, it has just dispense the fairy dust to make the S-400 installation incapable to do anything. : )

Poor Euclid ,so much work for nothing : )
Suggested reading:
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!


Just a hint:
- the radar/ RWR / jammer performance depending on the antenna size and geometry . Everything else just has small effect compared to the antenna size.
-The Growler can degrade of any radar in no bigger area than the high gain beam angle of the antenna.Means if there is more than one radar then to protect one bomber you need one Growler for each radar, if the position of the radars not known then you need infinite amount of Growlers.


Interesting, no one start to see a pattern in the design of s-300 to counter a Growler/stealth plane combination ?

And no one can see how useless is the Patriot ?
Mate,

Don't direct it to me. Jura is the one advocating jamming.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
I love so much the inconsistency of the logic :)


So, the small, light and cheap RWR on the F35 can generate weapon quality track...

Just a hint:
- the radar/ RWR / jammer performance depending on the antenna size and geometry . Everything else just has small effect compared to the antenna size
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.
 

Top