Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses  
User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 9001 times:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0Countering%20Stealth&channel=awst

Russian choices have been guided by a consistent Western tactical air defense plan that has been centered on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Delays in the JSF program have now given Russia more than 20 years to prepare for its initial operational capability date.

The asymmetric dimension to future Russian air warfare programs entails the development of counter very-low-observable (CVLO) radar technologies and long-range, high-speed surface-to-air missile (SAM) designs, complemented by a new generation of short-range point defense weapons intended to destroy incoming guided weapons, especially anti-radiation missiles, cruise missiles and guided bombs. All systems are built for high mobility, typically with 5-min. “shoot and scoot” times to permit “scooting” inside of the targeting and engagement cycles of most guided munitions.

The focus in Russian CVLO radar has been in the 1-meter VHF band. Stealth shaping in fighters is largely ineffective in VHF because components such as stabilizers and wingtips have dimensions close to the radar wavelength. Radar-absorbent treatments developed for S-band and above are ineffective in VHF due to both electrical behavior and thickness.

The flagship product is the NNIIRT/Almaz-Antey 55Zh6M Nebo M 3-D radar system, of which 100 were recently ordered to re-equip Russian air defense forces. The Nebo M is uniquely a “multi-band” design, comprising three radars and a central data fusion and command post module, all carried on separate high-mobility 8 x 8 24-ton vehicles.

The push into CVLO radar is paralleled by investment in highly mobile long-range SAM designs with high speed and short flight times. The intent is twofold—to deny airspace to standoff and penetrating intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and electronic attack platforms, while permitting SAMs to close with stealth targets before they can retreat from tracking range.


BTW, the speed of some new SAMS is around MACH 8.

How survivable is the F-35 when operated as planned by cruising in at 25,000ft over hostile territory and relying on it's VLO (Very Low Observable) capability to survive, carrying 4,000lbs (and C version) or 2,000lbs (B version) of bombs internally, along with 2 A2A missiles, given the Russian and Chinese defenses against it?

51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12160 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 8936 times:

It is very difficult to say what future defenses can track an F-35 (or F-22 or B-2). My guess is Russina and Chinese spys are trying to get as much engineering information on US stealth capabilities, and limitations as they can. A defense system that can successfully exceed the limitations of stealth would be very desireable to them, and very bad for the attacking stealth aircraft.

User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8882 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
and very bad for the attacking stealth aircraft.

So if they are bad for attacking stealth aircraft, what are they for non-stealthy non-5th gen, current operational fighter aircraft? Turkey shoot comes to mind.

[Edited 2012-03-25 09:56:15]

User currently offlinekalvado From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 491 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 8777 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 2):
So if they are bad for attacking stealth aircraft, what are they for non-stealthy non-5th gen, current operational fighter aircraft? Turkey shoot comes to mind.

Probably for those older machines, last generation missile would be too expensive to fire - missile would cost more than the aircraft.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8745 times:

Existing aircraft are already perfectly visible to radar. Developing radars systems that can also detect VOL or stealth aircraft does not increase the threat to existing planes.

The tactics for existing aircraft would remain the same, low and fast with as much radar suppression as possible. It is a proven technique - but one that will get harder. Perhaps the attacking force can use some decoys of it's own.

However, it is not known how high flying VOL and stealth aircraft can do against these newer SAMS. And I am sure it is something you will not read in any F-35 presentation. But this should be asked aggressively of Lockhees and the DoD.

Here's another conclusion by another souce:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-JSF-Analysis.html

The availability of Russian BVR missiles with very modern infrared seekers and heatseeking adaptations of area defence SAMs like the HQ-2 and SA-6B presents a situation where the JSF could be engaged at a respectable distance, despite its intended good X-band stealth capability. Sukhoi Su-27/30 fighters could be vectored into a firing position without having to light up their X-band radars, or SAM sites cued in a similar fashion.

The narrowband X-band jamming capability planned for the APG-81 will run into similar issues as expected with the X-band optimised stealth capability - most key regional threat systems may sit well outside the frequency band coverage of the antenna design. As a result any high power jamming capability the JSF will have will likely be unusable against the most likely threats.


http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2009-01.html

As with claims made for Joint Strike Fighter air combat capability, claims made for the Joint Strike Fighter concerning the penetration of IADS equipped with modern radars and SAMs are not analytically robust, and cannot be taken seriously.

Moreover, it is clear that future Joint Strike Fighter users will pay a significant price penalty for a stealth capability unable to deliver much, if any, return on such investment.

The inferior “single aspect stealth” capability of the Joint Strike Fighter denies it the option of penetrating a modern IADS SAM belt. The depth of the IADS simply makes it geometrically impossible to find a path between search radars where the combination of distance and relative aspect would allow it to penetrate unseen. This is exacerbated by the increasing availability of modern digital VHF, UHF and L-band search radars, especially radars with 3D capability and the accuracy to guide long range area defence SAMs.

The limited 40 NMI standoff range and time of flight of the GBU-39/B SDB glidebomb denies the Joint Strike Fighter the use of the lethal suppression strategy flown by the F-22A. Most missile batteries will have “scooted” away from the bombs’ aimpoints before they arrive. Indeed, the range from which the Joint Strike Fighter would need to release the SDB would in many IADS geometries leave it exposed to long range SAM shots, which it is ill equipped to handle.

As a result the tactical options available to Joint Strike Fighter users when confronted with penetrating modern Integrated Air Defence Systems (IADS) are mostly those necessary to ensure the survival of non-stealthy legacy aircraft types.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12160 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8739 times:

Gen4/4.5 aircraft would be coming in fast and low level that will reduce their exposure time to AAA, SAM, and radar tracking. Stealth aircraft do not fly as much low level because of the wear and tear it puts on stealth coatings.

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8728 times:

APA-NOTAM-140909-1.html" target="_blank">http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-140909-1.html

If a sensor can bypass the stealth of the F-22A Raptor, this fighter still has sufficient aerodynamic performance to compete effectively in both Beyond Visual Range and close combat. The same is not true for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, since it is an overweight and underpowered design, incapable of competing aerodynamically against the newer Flanker variants, and completely outclassed by the latest supercruising Su-35S Flankers.

Dr Carlo Kopp of Air Power Australia explored low band AESAs embedded in fighter wing leading edges in 2007 and concluded that this concept is operationally and technically viable. Study results were not published by APA, due to the potentially adverse impact – APA has a long standing policy of not publishing concepts that might provide potential adversaries with a competitive combat advantage.

However, unbeknownst to APA, Tikhomirov NIIP were already working on this concept for two or more years, and revealed the technology at the Russian MAKS 2009 Airshow this August.

The appearance of the first L-Band Fighter Radar is an excellent example of focused and intelligent lateral thinking which targets opponents' weaknesses. This is sound technological strategy and practice on the part of Russian industry.

The new Tikhomirov NIIP L-band AESA is the first example of a technology which negates the intended X-band stealth advantage well before the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter achieves even limited operational capability.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8728 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 4):
Here's another conclusion by another souce:
APA is not a source.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Gen4/4.5 aircraft would be coming in fast and low level that will reduce their exposure time to AAA, SAM, and radar tracking. Stealth aircraft do not fly as much low level because of the wear and tear it puts on stealth coatings.

Stealth aircraft will be used at the commanders see fit.
Quoting kalvado (Reply 3):
Probably for those older machines, last generation missile would be too expensive to fire - missile would cost more than the aircraft.

I have never heard of an enemy not fire a missile or otherwise to kill an aircraft because of budgetary issues. The Anti-JSF camp is really picking at the bits now.

[Edited 2012-03-25 17:04:48]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8716 times:

APA-NOTAM-140909-1.html" target="_blank">http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-140909-1.html

APA has previously commented on the fallacy of defining air combat requirements against 1990s threats, locking-down the specification, and refusing to acknowledge – let alone respond to – developments elsewhere, especially by potential adversaries.

The Joint Strike Fighter program is an example of complete detachment from the operational reality of the world outside the closed minds of the Joint Strike Fighter community - this technology should have been anticipated a decade ago given US development of L-band AESA radars for systems such as the Wedgetail AEW&C/AWACS aircraft.

The West will find it difficult to jam fighter L-band AESA due to the requirement to build and field L-band jammers with high gain antennas. The NIIP design has huge growth potential in power-aperture, putting Western jammer development into a perpetual “catch-up” mode.

Wing leading edge mounted L-band AESA radars now join the other five demonstrated Russian technologies that, individually, challenge and overmatch key aspects of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter designs while, collectively, now make the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter family of aircraft obsolete well before they have even been operationally fielded. While recent history suggests how the bureaucrats will react to this development, we will have to wait and see exactly how the reality of this “game changer” is explained away.


User currently offlinePowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 571 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8712 times:

Very credible source. Please continue.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nati...ure-think-tank-20120208-1t91z.html

Some of the most vehement critics of Australia's involvement in the Joint Strike Fighter program had their day in the sun on Tuesday afternoon when they testified before a high level parliamentary defence committee.
Representatives of anti-JSF think tank Air Power Australia and RepSim Pty Ltd were given an hour to make their case before the defence subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade.
By the time the group was 30 minutes into its presentation at least five of the committee members had left the room.



User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1776 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8700 times:

Like we said, APA is not a source. In fact, APA has been told their analysis has been flawed by the Australian MOD:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/...ts-soon-SF9UZ?OpenDocument&src=hp8

Quote:
Air Vice Marshal Kym Osley, head of defence's new air combat capability program, rejected criticism of the JSF by organisations such as Air Power Australia (APA) on grounds they had not seen all the classified US data on the aircraft's performance...

The JSF has faced steady criticism that it would be late, expensive and wouldn't deliver the promised level of capability.In a committee hearing last month APA said JSF was totally outclassed by new Russian and Chinese aircraft and radar systems and was also more expensive than the much more capable F-22 Raptor.

Air Vice Marshal Osley said the APA analysis was flawed through incorrect assumptions and a lack of knowledge of the classified F-35 air combat performance information.

In fact, APA's analysis uses, get this; a computer game to conduct their analysis. This is not solid analysis; I expected alot more than a computer game hack as the basis of their "computer simulation." You would be laughed out of the room for even suggesting a computer game would be a valid simulation of an aircraft under development.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8627 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 10):
Like we said, APA is not a source.

Is Aviation Week a credible source in your eyes?

Secondly, care to respond to anything that was said regarding new defense capabilities and radars? The fact that APA was allowed to make a presentation, means they must have some credibility.

Thirdly, the ones using simulators to gauge performance of the F-35 was the Australian MoD, not APA. Gulp. You belittled the MoD on how they evaluated the F-35 - and rightly so.

"We have had Australian pilots flying high fidelity simulators and they have been very impressed with the combat capabilities of the aircraft.

.........

The JSF has faced steady criticism that it would be late, expensive and wouldn't deliver the promised level of capability."


The F-35 so far has been late and expensive, and the 3rd is yet to be proven.

The Australians are saying the APA is wrong because:
Air Vice Marshal Kym Osley, head of defence's new air combat capability program, rejected criticism of the JSF by organisations such as Air Power Australia (APA) on grounds they had not seen all the classified US data on the aircraft's performance.

The main criticism from APA and others, including the article in Aviation Week, is not about the shortcomings of the F-35. The point is more about criticizing the entire reliance on VLO because new defenses will and have improve to the point where the F-35 VLO will not make much of a difference anymore. You have not commented on any of these new radar and detection capabilities and threats against the F-35. The Air Vice Marshal takes a similar tactic by not addressing what the threat is - new defense capabilities.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1776 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8596 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 11):
Is Aviation Week a credible source in your eyes?

Secondly, care to respond to anything that was said regarding new defense capabilities and radars? The fact that APA was allowed to make a presentation, means they must have some credibility.

Thirdly, the ones using simulators to gauge performance of the F-35 was the Australian MoD, not APA. Gulp. You belittled the MoD on how they evaluated the F-35 - and rightly so.

"We have had Australian pilots flying high fidelity simulators and they have been very impressed with the combat capabilities of the aircraft.

1. The story you posted is from Bill Sweetman... I've already mentioned the issues surrounding Sweetman and his coverage of the F-35 program before, so I won't respond here.

2. First, APA was given a chance to present because in a parliamentary democracy, you have the right as a citizen to testify to our Senate Committees and give your opinion. You just have to register as a witness and show up. These guys haven't done anything extraordinary and this isn't the first time they've done it, nor will it be the last I expect.

I can register as a witness to speak to say, the Canadian Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry even though I know jack about agriculture and forestry. Does that make me creditable source on agriculture and forestry?

APA members were used by an Australian political party to drum up public support for possibly buying the F-22, a position that party took in opposition to the governing party but never planned to implement, beyond the issues regarding F-22 exportability. This gave APA credibility.

Three, APA members stood to gain financially from refurbishing the F-111 like they have been harping about for the past few years instead of buying new. That is left out and it should be fair game for discussion, as it is clear conflict of interest.

3. We've already discussed the technical issues that VHF radars have and you have choose to ignore them. So I won't bother wasting my time repeating myself when you can look up what was said earlier.

4. If you actually LOOKED at the submission the APA submitted to the Senate Committee, you will see that APA did the simulation, not the Australian MoD.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
Gen4/4.5 aircraft would be coming in fast and low level that will reduce their exposure time to AAA, SAM, and radar tracking. Stealth aircraft do not fly as much low level because of the wear and tear it puts on stealth coatings.

Flying low and fast poses two issues; first off, many fighters today have look-down, shoot down radars that can pick out aircraft flying in ground clutter. Flying nap of earth against a opponent with a fairly modern air defence system is just as risky as flying any other way, and you add the potential for every person armed with a gun a chance to shoot at you, let alone MANPAD's.

Also, flying fast and low uses a lot of fuel. It's only useful for short dashes, not prolong penetration into enemy air defences. You still have to work your way into enemy air defences to begin with.

[Edited 2012-03-25 21:58:39]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8541 times:

ThePointbalnk: The following radars use L-Band

1. Northrop Grumman's AEW&C MESA radar mounted on a 737s, known as Wedgetail, operates in L-band and has for years.

2. Raytheon builds the PHALCON AEW&C radar, which stands for PHased-Array L-band CONformal radar. It is mounted on several different frames.

3. Israeli's Elta Phalcon operates in L-Band and is mounted on 707s.

4. IL-76 AWACS operates in L-Band

5. G-550 CAEW is an L-Band based AWACS

6. Thales' SMART-L is mounted on ships and has a 250 mile detection range

ThePointblank, I don't know why you assume L-Band radars are somehow not useable or used, when they clearly are. It's even easier on non aerial vehicles. Sufficient resolution can be achieved with more power and larger array sizes, which is why they are not used on missiles and fighters. But power and size is not a problem on larger vehicles nor on the ground.

So what's the F-35 to do against the an ever increasing number of powerful L-Band AESA radars that can detect it?


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1776 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8156 times:

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 13):
ThePointbalnk: The following radars use L-Band

1. Northrop Grumman's AEW&C MESA radar mounted on a 737s, known as Wedgetail, operates in L-band and has for years.

2. Raytheon builds the PHALCON AEW&C radar, which stands for PHased-Array L-band CONformal radar. It is mounted on several different frames.

3. Israeli's Elta Phalcon operates in L-Band and is mounted on 707s.

4. IL-76 AWACS operates in L-Band

5. G-550 CAEW is an L-Band based AWACS

6. Thales' SMART-L is mounted on ships and has a 250 mile detection range

ThePointblank, I don't know why you assume L-Band radars are somehow not useable or used, when they clearly are. It's even easier on non aerial vehicles. Sufficient resolution can be achieved with more power and larger array sizes, which is why they are not used on missiles and fighters. But power and size is not a problem on larger vehicles nor on the ground.

So what's the F-35 to do against the an ever increasing number of powerful L-Band AESA radars that can detect it?

L-band radars are only meant for long range detection, not targeting. I will note that with the ships equipped with the Thales SMART-L radar, it is used as a search radar, not a targeting radar; the targeting function goes to APAR, which is an X-band radar. Look at every weapons platform that uses an L-band radar; they have an X-band or an upper S-band radar working as a targeting radar.

There is a massive difference between a search radar and the targeting radar. One will tell you there is something there that is worth having a closer look, but doesn't tell you what it is, or exactly where. The other lets you aim a weapon at something. Learn the difference.


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 23 hours ago) and read 8083 times:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 14):
Learn the difference.

I never said L-Band was used for targeting, are you inferring that that's what I mean? I gave the list of modern AESA L-Band radars to disprove your false statements about these radars.

For instance, the Thales' SMART-L is a surveillance, detection and tracking radar, operating in the L-Band and it has been installed on a bunch of NATO ships. From what I read, all the L-Band radars I mentioned have target tracking capabilities, well beyond a fuzzy - something is out there - capability. It's much more accurate than that. Do you really think they would be deployed and relied on if that's all it yielded? They are used to track small cruise missiles from hundreds of miles away.

Small, fast moving space Junk is also tracked via L-Band radars, and pretty accurately too. The L-Band radars can cue in fighters or SAMS close enough for them to lock onto the F-35 via their own IR or Optical sensors or close range X Band radar.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 14):
Look at every weapons platform that uses an L-band radar; they have an X-band or an upper S-band radar working as a targeting radar.

That is false. Some L-Band cued SAMS use IR seekers for final targeting, some radiation seekers, others optical sensors. Not all use X band radar. Same for almost all fighter planes, including the F-35, they can target without any radar. From close range, the F-35 is not stealthy to X Band and certainly not from the rear.

Another example is the Boeing 737 Wedgetail with a radar by Northrop Grumman that does NOT operate in the X or S bands and which can vector fighters to the target, which then engage and destroy the target without use of X or S - band radars.

It's obvious L-Band radars work very well. Why else would the Wedgetail rely on L-Band exclusively?

So again, how does the F-35, flying a typical mission at 25,000ft or so, deal with powerful L-Band radars, which can see the F-35 from long distances, through any weather?

I find it important to add: Why is this not mentioned in any F-35 presentations? It is ignored.

[Edited 2012-03-26 22:28:23]

User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 8028 times:

Here is how fine grained the L-Band radar on the 737 Wedgetail is:

The RAAF purposely chose to equip the Boeing-made Wedgetail with the large, Northrop Grumman-designed, L-band, all-weather Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array (MESA) radar. Special radar modes can increase its range. Northrop Grumman admits to more than a 200-mi. range for the radar. In fact, it is often limited only by the horizon and radar specialists contend that AESA radars double or triple the range of conventional mechanically scanned radars. The 737-700 Increased Gross Weight variant has a 15-ft. plug between wing and tail replaced and reinforced for the 3.5-ton radar and two 12-ft. long ventral fins added for aerodynamic stability.

“It’s fast enough to keep track of maneuvering targets that you could not keep track of if the radar was taking a snapshot every 10 sec., which is the scan rate of an AWACS,” says Bob Hendrix, chief architect for Northrop Grumman ISR systems division. “Supersonic missiles are in the target set. The technology also is there to pick out individuals walking in a huge area” like the savannah of Northern Australia where drug and immigrant smuggling is big business.


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Against powerful L-Band AESA radars, the F-35 can not even begin to hide. Via data links, missiles and fighters could be guided towards the F-35s by the L-bands. And flying at 25,000ft in that environment, they're sitting ducks.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12160 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 7910 times:

Quoting Powerslide (Reply 7):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):Gen4/4.5 aircraft would be coming in fast and low level that will reduce their exposure time to AAA, SAM, and radar tracking. Stealth aircraft do not fly as much low level because of the wear and tear it puts on stealth coatings.
Stealth aircraft will be used at the commanders see fit.

Correct, and they will not risk a stealth, or any other aircraft on any mission that does not have a reasonable chance of success. Stealth capabilities garuntees nothing.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 12):
1. The story you posted is from Bill Sweetman... I've already mentioned the issues surrounding Sweetman and his coverage of the F-35 program before, so I won't respond here.

Mr. Sweetman's opinions are just as valid as yours, or mine. Just because you disagree with him doesn't make your opinion more valid than his.


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4840 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 7843 times:

The F35 still has a role to play as L band will not be available everywhere so they will still be a good 1st day of war weapon etc. What this does raise however is the need for a cheaper fighter (ie $60-80m each) that can be fielded in greater numbers. Of course the future is also in armed UAVs where pilots won't be put at risk and who's cost is minimal compared to manned combat aircraft.


56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3640 posts, RR: 27
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 7835 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 18):
The F35 still has a role to play as L band will not be available everywhere so they will still be a good 1st day of war weapon


Aaah! a crystal ball gazer!... Now we know who we're building the fleet to attack.. only countries without L band radars... Now that list includes which aggressive powers?


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 7711 times:

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 18):
The F35 still has a role to play as L band will not be available everywhere so they will still be a good 1st day of war weapon

If the F-35 is to be used where there is no L-Band radar on day 1, Gen 4 planes could do the same job there - better and cheaper and carrying far more bombs further - even if the F-35 is operated with external bombs. For instance, despite what ThePointblank said, the F-15 carries far more than the F-35 does - further and faster too, even if the F-35 is operated with external stores. It's no contest. And the F-35 costs more to operate and acquire.

Perhaps it would do the world good with less capable weapons available. So perhaps it's a good thing that very capable Gen 4 attack fighters will be replaced with far less capable and far more expensive Gen 5 attack planes.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1776 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 7708 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Mr. Sweetman's opinions are just as valid as yours, or mine. Just because you disagree with him doesn't make your opinion more valid than his.

Fine, I shall repeat myself again on Sweetman:
Sweetman's neutrality has been called into question by many, even by Aviation Week, the magazine that he works for. In fact, he's been suspended from covering the F-35 in the past. Flight Global has a little editorial on the situation with Sweetman:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...viation-week-suspends-bill-sw.html
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010...of-lockheed-jet/?utm_source=co2hog

The main criticism regarding Sweetman has been the way he covers F-35. Even Sweetman acknowledges he covers the F-35 in a certain slant, that of an analyst who has empirically concluded the program is a flop. That position is always going to create a tension with his traditional role as journalist. The role of a journalist is to simply to report the facts offered by both critics and supporters, allowing the readers to draw their own conclusions. His coverage is simply not balanced, and he blows up the negatives and covers up the successes of the F-35 program.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
Correct, and they will not risk a stealth, or any other aircraft on any mission that does not have a reasonable chance of success. Stealth capabilities garuntees nothing.

It creates more options for force planning. With a fairly homogenous fleet of F-35's in the USAF fleet, it would greatly simplify force planning compared to the many variants of the F-15 and F-16's that we have that may not be able to use every weapon in the inventory.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 16):
The RAAF purposely chose to equip the Boeing-made Wedgetail with the large, Northrop Grumman-designed, L-band, all-weather Multi-role Electronically Scanned Array (MESA) radar. Special radar modes can increase its range. Northrop Grumman admits to more than a 200-mi. range for the radar. In fact, it is often limited only by the horizon and radar specialists contend that AESA radars double or triple the range of conventional mechanically scanned radars. The 737-700 Increased Gross Weight variant has a 15-ft. plug between wing and tail replaced and reinforced for the 3.5-ton radar and two 12-ft. long ventral fins added for aerodynamic stability.

“It’s fast enough to keep track of maneuvering targets that you could not keep track of if the radar was taking a snapshot every 10 sec., which is the scan rate of an AWACS,” says Bob Hendrix, chief architect for Northrop Grumman ISR systems division. “Supersonic missiles are in the target set. The technology also is there to pick out individuals walking in a huge area” like the savannah of Northern Australia where drug and immigrant smuggling is big business.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs...=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Against powerful L-Band AESA radars, the F-35 can not even begin to hide. Via data links, missiles and fighters could be guided towards the F-35s by the L-bands. And flying at 25,000ft in that environment, they're sitting ducks.

The main issue is that these L-band radars are limited in accuracy, because a lower frequency requires antennas with very large physical size which determines angle accuracy and angle resolution. These frequency-bands are used by other communications and broadcasting services too, therefore the bandwidth of the radar is limited (at the expense of accuracy and resolution again).

The rule of thumb: your receiver antenna has to be several times the size of the wavelength it is detecting in order to get directional information. As such, you are not going to be guiding a 10 cm wide missile with a 1 m wavelength radar.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 15):
That is false. Some L-Band cued SAMS use IR seekers for final targeting, some radiation seekers, others optical sensors. Not all use X band radar. Same for almost all fighter planes, including the F-35, they can target without any radar. From close range, the F-35 is not stealthy to X Band and certainly not from the rear.

Name 1 SAM system that uses IR sensors for final targeting after L-band cueing.

And any fighter that gets close enough to a F-35 for actually aim a weapon with will be looking at an AIM-120 already inbound. Sure, you can fly close enough, but you will probably be well within the no-escape range of the AIM-120 fired by the F-35.

I don't think you know enough to know the difference between a smear track and a track that is of sufficient quality for targeting purposes. You can take Kopp's belief that the AESA VHF is sufficient for targeting if you want but it seems no one else with actual credentials in radar technology and design does. The issue with these systems, is that they're usually large, fixed sites, susceptible to targeting in the early stages of any conflict. The systems that are mobile, are not exactly quickly relocatable without someone noticing, again making them prime targets. Any air campaign takes these sorts of threats into consideration, and they are part of the high priority target set.

How many VLO aircraft have been engaged by enemy fighters vectored onto them? Iraq, Bosnia and Libya had plenty of VLF radars, plenty of fighters that would have made mincemeat of any VLO aircraft in theatre and they may have had bi-static radars too for all I know.

One single F-117 was able to be brought down under at best "dubious" circumstances that perhaps suggested more in regards to mission planning than anything else in all that warfare. An aircraft that was of far less capability and survivability when compared to an F-35.

I know for sure you don't know enough to know that even if these systems can slew another sensor and increase the probability of the slewed sensor providing targeting data that the interaction between the sensors creates another link in the kill chain, a link that can be weakened or broken.

I know for sure that you don't have a clue how X- and S-band VLO increases the effectiveness of decoys or jamming.

I highly suggest you read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Network-Centri..._1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331605586&sr=8-1

It talks about the importance of surveillance vs observables and the difference between tracking and targeting. If you don't know the difference between the two I can't really have a discussion with you unless you can somehow explain how you think a VHF radar enables one to target an aircraft.

I would also suggest you read this study by the Defence R&D Canada entitled "A Canadian Perspective on High-Frequency Over-the-Horizon Radar"

http://pubs.drdc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc81/p527279.pdf

From the exec summary:

"Large aircraft, such as commercial jets, can generally be observed 24 hours per day and located to within about 30 km of their actual position. Smaller airplanes and cruise missiles cannot be easily detected at night. In addition, the radar suffers vulnerability to outages due todisturbances in the ionosphere caused by adverse solar (or “space weather”) events"

30km for something as big as a Boeing 747? Ouch...


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4840 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 7706 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 19):
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 18):
The F35 still has a role to play as L band will not be available everywhere so they will still be a good 1st day of war weapon


Aaah! a crystal ball gazer!... Now we know who we're building the fleet to attack.. only countries without L band radars... Now that list includes which aggressive powers?

Well unless Russia decides to share its technology cheaply, the expense of it means that very few countries will be able to afford it and those that do (including Russia, China etc) will also likely not be able to cover all of their territory with it (hell they don't even cover all of their territory with any kind of radar in many cases).



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3640 posts, RR: 27
Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 7693 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 21):
Fine, I shall repeat myself again on Sweetman:

go look in the mirror and you'll see a pot calling a kettle black


User currently offlinetommytoyz From Tonga, joined Jan 2007, 1353 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7635 times:

Just as with your erroneous belief that the F-35 carries more and accelerates faster than an F-15, your are equally confused here about the capabiities of different L-Band radars. Let me show you:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 21):

I would also suggest you read this study by the Defence R&D Canada entitled "A Canadian Perspective on High-Frequency Over-the-Horizon Radar"

http://pubs.drdc.gc.ca/PDFS/unc81/p527279.pdf

From the exec summary:

"Large aircraft, such as commercial jets, can generally be observed 24 hours per day and located to within about 30 km of their actual position. Smaller airplanes and cruise missiles cannot be easily detected at night. In addition, the radar suffers vulnerability to outages due todisturbances in the ionosphere caused by adverse solar (or “space weather”) events"

30km for something as big as a Boeing 747? Ouch...

ThePointblank: You are totally confused. I clearly quoted a statement that says that the horizon is the limit for L-Bands tracking targets. Comparing "over the horizon radars" detecting targets to horizon limited L-band radars tracking targets, is like comparing apples with oranges. Secondly, you do not seem to understand the difference between "to track" VS. "to detect".

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 16):
Northrop Grumman admits to more than a 200-mi. range for the radar. In fact, it is often limited only by the horizon

The paper you linked to talks about detecting planes over the horizon between 500- 2,000 miles away by bouncing the beams off the ionosphere. Come on ThePointblank, do you even read the stuff you link to, because it certainly has nothing to do with this discussion.

Northrop Grumman also said about the TRACKING ability of their L-Band radar:

“It’s fast enough to keep track of maneuvering targets that you could not keep track of if the radar was taking a snapshot every 10 sec., which is the scan rate of an AWACS,” says Bob Hendrix, chief architect for Northrop Grumman ISR systems division. “Supersonic missiles are in the target set. The technology also is there to pick out individuals walking in a huge area”

In other words, the old AWACS can detect but can not track maneuvering supersonic missiles and such.

ThePointblank your wild theories about how AESA L-band radars can't track accurately are false. Boeing says they can, Raytheon says so, Northrop Grumman says so, Thales says so, etc....

Again, please answer (once and for all): How is the F-35's survivability impacted, while being tracked by L-Band radars by the enemy from a distance, while it approaches at 25,000 feet?


25 Post contains links and images Acheron : The lastest generation of the Flanker family, namely the Su-35S as well as the PAK-FA have L-band radar embedded on the slats of the wings. You can s
26 tommytoyz : My final take on the F-35 is this: 1. It is a dull knife as it has a limited load & range & is trackable by L-Band radar, limiting effectivene
27 spudh : You know, repeating that time and again as if it is a fact is not going to make it any more true than the first time you convinced yourself of such.
28 tommytoyz : The F-35 carries less than an F-15 and an F-35 has a shorter range than an F-15 and the F-35 is also slower than an F-15. Whether you operate the F-3
29 PlayLoud : But the F-15 can be detected from very long range, and with X-band targeting RADAR. What good is long range and a heavy weapons load if you get shot
30 tommytoyz : How many F-15s operated globally have been shot down anywhere over the past 30 years by SAMS or enemy fighters in hostile combat? Answer: Zero. So we
31 BMI727 : Actually one was lost to an SA-2 during the Gulf War. One other was lost during the Gulf War to AAA and one was lost to ground fire in 2003, although
32 Post contains links tommytoyz : None were lost to AAA or SAMS according to this source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_F-15_losses Sure it can. But then why buy? Other planes
33 Post contains links ThePointblank : 3 were lost according to this source, which lists the actual airframe number involved: http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/history/2296-f-15e-losses The sam
34 tommytoyz : But let's be clear: The F-35 will not do both at the same time - fly a 728 combat radius and: 1. with a low combat profile, as F-15 2. With a full se
35 Post contains links BMI727 : Your source is wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonne..._F-15_Eagle#Gulf_War_and_aftermath You cannot compare an F-15 flying low to an F-35 that
36 connies4ever : TopBoom is quite right here, Point. And since Sweetman works in the business (and I have no info on what you do for a living) his opinion might actua
37 tommytoyz : I stand corrected. A few F-15s have been lost. This shows the F-15 is very effective, operated as it has been. The horizon provides the stealth. Can
38 spudh : Ah come on Connies, I agree with you about Sweetman but I think you're being a bit unfair to Pointblank. He only posts on F-35 threads and in doing s
39 Post contains images tommytoyz : Yes, it will carry 1,000lbs of bombs and 2 A2A missiles with external fuel, cruising well above the F-15E at all times. F-35 Carrying 1,000lbs of bom
40 ThePointblank : I've pointed out that a number of other defence and aviation journalists have commented that Sweetman has a very strong bias and that it reflects in
41 tommytoyz : Who are those many people? Only you have made that argument and only by mentioning the characteristics of over the horizon radars.....rather than the
42 Post contains links ThePointblank : We've been here before, and you have ignored the response altogether. I deffer to the work of Christian Wolff, who is a radar engineer. I also defer
43 tommytoyz : You have not quoted any of them regarding horizon limited L-Band radars previously, so I did not have the opportunity to ignore them yet. How exactly
44 connies4ever : I'd agree with the above portion of your post. Bias in journalism does not render a given piece invalid, see any article written w.r.t. a given polit
45 connies4ever : F-111A/b, not F-14. My bad. Early here, not enough coffee.
46 spudh : Agreed 100%, Mosquito was awesome but was it actually designed as a muti-role?. I think the issue is to find a successful one that was designed at th
47 connies4ever : Rafale ws, however, designed principally for A2G ops, not A2A like the Typhoon. No question about that. I think even the US military are getting nerv
48 ThePointblank : The BAE AN/ASQ-239 Barracuda EW suite. Based on the F-22 Raptor's AN/ALR-94 suite, the AN/ASQ-239 is many times more sensitive than previous generati
49 Post contains images tommytoyz : Sorry folks, I have to set this straight: They are not talking about L-Band on P.59, here is the sentence: Quote: For instance, if a UHF surveillance
50 tommytoyz : Military UHF and L-Band radars can track targets: The proof is seen in the Hawkeye E-2Cs and E-2Ds planes using UHF band radars and the L-Band Radars
51 USAF336TFS : Actually it was our sister squadron, 335th, that lost those two F-15 Echos during the first week of the Persian Gulf War. One as you correctly said,
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
F-35 Survivability Testing posted Wed Apr 11 2012 17:34:50 by ThePointblank
Reuters: New US F-35 Fighter Dubbed "Lightning II" posted Fri Jul 7 2006 21:02:21 by N328KF
Charles & Camilla To New Brunswick posted Mon May 21 2012 07:04:38 by ghYHZ
New Restrictions For F-22 posted Tue May 15 2012 14:29:18 by moose135
Talk Of F-35 Project Being Scrapped! posted Sat Apr 28 2012 19:03:19 by Zkpilot
LM F-35/F-16 Fort Worth Plant On Strike posted Mon Apr 23 2012 05:02:19 by KC135TopBoom
New Startup To Mine Asteroids posted Mon Apr 23 2012 02:19:18 by maxter
New All Fly By Wire F-15s For Saudi posted Sat Mar 31 2012 13:58:45 by tommytoyz
Latest F-35 Total Cost Estimate = US$ 1.5 Trillion posted Thu Mar 29 2012 01:07:25 by faro
F-35 Lrip Costs Per Aircraft - Over $200 Million posted Mon Mar 12 2012 14:53:01 by tommytoyz

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format