tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:48 am

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?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Sun Mar 25, 2012 2:46 pm

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.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Sun Mar 25, 2012 4:50 pm

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]
 
kalvado
Posts: 580
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:15 pm

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.
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:40 pm

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:48 pm

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.
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:02 am

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.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:03 am

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]
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:21 am

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.
 
Powerslide
Posts: 577
Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:24 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:39 am

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.

 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2735
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:48 am

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.
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Mon Mar 26, 2012 3:11 am

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.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2735
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:51 am

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]
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:03 am

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?
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2735
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:53 am

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.
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:23 am

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]
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:45 am

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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11031
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Tue Mar 27, 2012 2:05 pm

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 avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3914
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:35 pm

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.
57 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3722
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:54 pm

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?
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:22 am

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.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2735
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:43 am

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 avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3914
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Wed Mar 28, 2012 1:51 am

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).
57 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3722
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Wed Mar 28, 2012 2:29 am

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
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:42 am

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?
 
Acheron
Posts: 1848
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:14 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:38 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 13):
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 18):

The F35 still has a role to play as L band will not be available everywhere

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 see then in this picture of the first production Su-35S. Its the rather large dielectric grey panel on the slat.
http://www.mycity-military.com/imgs2/143473_133209288_01su35-red04-m2012-1.jpg

Coupled with a main radar with a peak power of 25kW(if memory serves me right), should pose a credible threat to an F-35.

[Edited 2012-03-28 00:44:27]
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:22 am

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 effectiveness.
2. It is very expensive, so it will be adopted in far fewer numbers than planned.
3. But it is still a knife regardless of it's high price and limited effectiveness, acting as the lure.
4. It's an effective peace keeper, as many will replace their sharp knives with a fewer of these dull knives.
5. As the paraphrased saying goes: Humanity's ability to get into trouble is infinite, but God's resources are no less.

That's how I see it from 70,000ft.
 
User avatar
spudh
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:00 pm

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Wed Mar 28, 2012 5:37 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 26):
1. It is a dull knife as it has a limited load & range

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.
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:21 pm

Quoting spudh (Reply 27):
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.

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-35 with external or internal stores - it makes no difference, it still holds true.

It's a similar story against some other planes.

It is very interesting and amusing to observe the psychological brain wash that has been achieved. But go ahead, believe an F-35 carries more, farther and faster - than an F-15. Be my guest.

Interesting indeed.
 
PlayLoud
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:46 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:17 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 28):
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-35 with external or internal stores - it makes no difference, it still holds true.

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 down? If you bring up the F-15SE, then you lose the long range (no fuel in the CFTs, and no external drop tanks) and you lose the heavy weapons load (internal only).
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:42 am

Quoting PlayLoud (Reply 29):
What good is long range and a heavy weapons load if you get shot down?

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 know that the tactics employed work well. However, the F-35 tactic is new and, IMHO, will not work well. And it's due to the horizon:

How large is the radar horizon for a radar at 50ft to an F-35 at 25,000feet? Answer: 200 nautical miles.

How large is the radar horizon for a radar at 50ft to an F-15 at sea level? Answer: 17 nautical miles.

For all practical purposes, the X and L band radars are limited by the horizon. So by flying at ground level an F-15 can avoid the SAM radars if they stay 17nm away from them. Even if the F-15s fly into radar zones, it doesn't take long for the F-15 to fly out of them.

Sure airborne AWACS and fighter planes at altitude can see the F-15 from greater distances than 17nm, but the reverse is also true if that is the case. The F-15s can see high flying planes at a distance with their radar, as high flying planes are exposed and not blocked by the horizon. It then becomes an air war if they engage and the F-15 is very good at that.

On the other hand, the F-35 will cruise in at 25,000ft, and be in the L-Band radar zone of the SAMS for much of it's mission - for hours, probably uninterrupted. It's hard to avoid L-Band AESA radars, when the radar horizon is 200 nautical miles.

Flying behind the radar horizon makes any plane perfectly stealthy. A 17nm radar horizon is safer than a 200nm radar horizon, IMHO. But correct me if I'm wrong.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11299
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:20 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 30):
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

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 I can't find the method.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 30):
How large is the radar horizon for a radar at 50ft to an F-35 at 25,000feet? Answer: 200 nautical miles.

How large is the radar horizon for a radar at 50ft to an F-15 at sea level? Answer: 17 nautical miles.

Of course the F-15 isn't going to be going very far flying around at sea level. And the F-35 can fly low too.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:53 am

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 31):
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 I can't find the method.

None were lost to AAA or SAMS according to this source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_F-15_losses

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 31):
And the F-35 can fly low too.

Sure it can. But then why buy? Other planes do that far better.

Armed with four AIM-120As, four 2000 lb Mk 84s and fitted with LANTIRN and three drop tanks, the F-15E will manage a combat radius better than 750 nm with a Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi/100 nm dash mission profile.

The F-35 only has a 580nm radius, cruising at 25,000ft while carrying half the load.

[Edited 2012-03-29 00:22:26]
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2735
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:29 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 32):

None were lost to AAA or SAMS according to this source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...osses

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

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 32):
Sure it can. But then why buy? Other planes do that far better.

Armed with four AIM-120As, four 2000 lb Mk 84s and fitted with LANTIRN and three drop tanks, the F-15E will manage a combat radius better than 750 nm with a Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi/100 nm dash mission profile.

The F-35 only has a 580nm radius, cruising at 25,000ft while carrying half the load.

The same F-35 can fly dirty at low altitude carrying up to 15,000lbs of munitions and external fuel. And it will fly up to 728 nautical miles with two 426 gal. external fuel tanks.

Remember, this is already a major improvement over the aircraft it is designed to replace, the F-16, F/A-18, and the Harrier. The F-16 Block 40, goes 500 NM with two bags of gas, two Mk-84 type stores, and two AAMs.
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:51 pm

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
The same F-35 can fly dirty at low altitude carrying up to 15,000lbs of munitions and external fuel. And it will fly up to 728 nautical miles with two 426 gal. external fuel tanks.

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 set of external ordinances and with a low profile

You are comparing apples with oranges as the combat profiles of the F-35 VS. the others are very different. The F-35 achieves the range by staying at altitude, making itself visible to L-band radars as it is well above the radar Horizon for hundreds of miles.

ThePointblank, why don't you answer my question? How is the F-35 going to deal with being tracked by L-Band radars? from very far away?
 
BMI727
Posts: 11299
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:18 pm

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 32):
None were lost to AAA or SAMS according to this source:

Your source is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonne..._F-15_Eagle#Gulf_War_and_aftermath

Quote:
. The F-15E sustained two losses to ground fire in the Gulf War in 1991.[50] Another one was damaged on the ground by a SCUD strike on Dhahran air base.
Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 32):
Sure it can. But then why buy? Other planes do that far better.

You cannot compare an F-15 flying low to an F-35 that is about as close as it can come to being a sitting duck and expect to be taken seriously.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:21 pm

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.
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.

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 actually carry more wieght than yours.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 21):
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

The role of a journalist is to present a picture, fact-based if possible. Since we don't know many of the facts around the F-35, his opinion will have to suffice. I mean, let's face it, your RR has not budged of zero since you started down this path. Others commenting are well above that. That's not definitive about their actual knowledge, but it is an indicator.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:49 pm

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 35):
Your source is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonne...rmath

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 any F-35 supporters answer how the F-35 is supposed to survive when tracked by L-band radars for hundreds of miles?
 
User avatar
spudh
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:00 pm

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:18 am

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 36):
I mean, let's face it, your RR has not budged of zero since you started down this path. Others commenting are well above that. That's not definitive about their actual knowledge, but it is an indicator.

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 so is swimming against the tide of popular opinion on this forum so its hardly surprising that members are not exactly upping his RR. I often disagree with Pointblank and think he is flat wrong on the economics of the F-35 program but the vast majority of his posts are informative, well written and whether you agree or not his arguments are well constructed. Deserving of grudging respect even.

If I understand this RR crap properly (which most likely I don't) you can only get an RR rating on a thread you start which Pointblank doesn't do. A stopped clock is right twice a day, a prolific thread starter is bound to to strike a chord occasionally resulting in a higher RR than someone who doesn't post populist content and does that on other peoples threads.

I think Sweetman is trying to play the role of a Pierre Sprey of the F-35 program. There certainly aren't many more informed people out there and Sweetmans opinions should be listened to instead of censured. Each big fighter program has had its high profile critics, John Boyd and Sprey on the F-15 and ultimately the F-16. Every fighter programme in recent history has been late and gone way over budget (with the possible exception of the A-10). In most cases this was due in no small part to either new tech or add ons (both?). The fact that these programs outputted excellent fighters doesn't mean Sprey and Boyd were wrong. We'll never know how good they could have been if done differently.

Despite the monumental excercise in vanity that was commonality and concurrency, the F-35 will in all likelihood turn out to be a very effective platform (despite what this thread starter thinks). But the object of the program was to provide that capability (or to be fair, maybe less) at an affordable price. In this respect Sweetman is right and the programme has already failed as it will not be able to meet its original criteria. But that means that all the other programs were failures too.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 28):
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-35 with external or internal stores - it makes no difference, it still holds true.

Ahh, so the F-15E is the standard you've set now that the F-35 should meet so as not to be deemed 'Limited'. I wasn't aware that the F-15E was one of the types slated to be replaced by the F-35.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 28):
It is very interesting and amusing to observe the psychological brain wash that has been achieved.

????
I hope thats not aimed at me, the few functioning brain cells I've left are waaay beyond washing. They get the occasional soaking in alcohol but I don't think that constitutes washing.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 37):
Can any F-35 supporters answer how the F-35 is supposed to survive when tracked by L-band radars for hundreds of miles?

If L-band radar proves to be half as effective as you are claiming I'd be a hell of a lot more worried about the $45 Billion your, obviously inept if that is the case, military leaders already have invested in the B-2 than the F-35 which at least can fly a conventional mission profile.
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:23 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 33):
And it will fly up to 728 nautical miles with two 426 gal. external fuel tanks.

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 bombs (2 GBU-12 Paveways, 500lbs each) and 2 A2A missiles, it has a 728nm Surveillance Radius on a profile never below 5,000ft. Doing a Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi profile would reduce that range, I am sure.

F-35 range from Lockheed Brochure


F-16
Has a 630nm combat radius carrying 4,000lbs of bombs (2x 2,000lb Paveways), with LANTIRN pod and 4 A2A on a Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi profile, same as the F-15E's combat profile. What's the F-35 combat radius carrying 4,000lbs of bombs?

F-15
Carrying four AIM-120As and 8000lbs of bombs and fitted with LANTIRN and three drop tanks, the F-15E will manage a combat radius better than 750 nm with a Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi profile. What's the F-35 combat radius carrying 8,000lbs of bombs?
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2735
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:30 am

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 36):
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 actually carry more wieght than yours.

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 his work. Even the magazine he works for has suspended him in the past regarding his coverage on the F-35 programme. Even Sweetman himself admits to having a bias against the F-35 programme. Take that as you will into consideration when reading his coverage.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 36):
The role of a journalist is to present a picture, fact-based if possible. Since we don't know many of the facts around the F-35, his opinion will have to suffice. I mean, let's face it, your RR has not budged of zero since you started down this path. Others commenting are well above that. That's not definitive about their actual knowledge, but it is an indicator.

I refuse to engage in personal attacks like you.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 34):
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 set of external ordinances and with a low profile

You are comparing apples with oranges as the combat profiles of the F-35 VS. the others are very different. The F-35 achieves the range by staying at altitude, making itself visible to L-band radars as it is well above the radar Horizon for hundreds of miles.

ThePointblank, why don't you answer my question? How is the F-35 going to deal with being tracked by L-Band radars? from very far away?

1. F-15 is not a low visibility jet so no contest here.
2. Neither does the F-15, so compare apples to apples. A fully laden F-15 with external weapons to a fully laden F-35 with external weapons.

As has been pointed out many times by many people, L-band radars are not the stealth defeating radar systems you believe in. You take the point of view that L-band radars will defeat the F-35. Guess what, while it may be true, your L-band radar will also defeat the F-22 and the B-2 as well, as well as every other stealth fighter being developed by the Russians and the Chinese. Guess what, BOTH the Russians and the Chinese are investing in stealth fighters. I will now ask you, why would the Russians and the Chinese invest in stealth technology when it is clear according to your claims that stealth technology has been defeated by L-band and VHF radars?

Conventional radar is vulnerable to detection and attack by electronic warfare and air-delivered weapons because the nature of radar means that such systems radiate and expose their locations, meaning that one can either stay far enough away to avoid being detected by such systems, or fire a weapon at the radar to destroy or disable it. There are many ways that the West has defeated integrated air defence systems; for example, in Gulf War I, we blew a hole in the Iraqi air defence and detection grid on day one of the air campaign with AH-64 Apache's firing Hellfire missiles at early warning radar sites. We then systematically dismantled the Iraqi air defence and detection system allowing for almost complete air superiority over many areas of Iraq (save Baghdad due to the disastrous Package Q Strike which pretty much closed off Baghdad air space to everything except for stealth bombers and highly coordinated conventional air strikes).

The historical record for SAMs and flak isn't very good. In Vietnam and Yom Kippur it was 1 kill for every 60 missiles. That's declined since. In Kosovo it was 1 out of 170 or so... then again its against single digit systems. I fully expect if we go up against an effective opponent, it will return to 1 out of 60 launches. If not less. However I really really really doubt its nearly as effective as certain parties would like to claim it would be.
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:44 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 40):
As has been pointed out many times by many people, L-band radars are not the stealth defeating radar systems you believe in.

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 real combat horizon limited AESA L-Band radars. Either that was misleading or you were confused.

IN any case, you have again sidestepped the question. Let's stay on topic and talk about the F-35. How will it survive being tracked by L-Band radars, as the radar manufacturers claim to be able to? You never broach that subject, and instead attack everything else. It's noticeable you are not answering this question.

Once again, please answer: How is the F-35 going to survive while being tracked by L-Band AESA radars for hundreds of miles? Answer this please.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 40):
You take the point of view that L-band radars will defeat the F-35. Guess what, while it may be true, your L-band radar will also defeat the F-22 and the B-2 as well, as well as every other stealth fighter being developed by the Russians and the Chinese.

Partially true. However, unlike the F-35, the F-22 is stealthy even against L-Band radars. The designers where smart enough to do that. It is also hard to hit simply because it is at 60,000 feet, while super cruising and very maneuverable at that altitude. Any missile with enough power to get to it under those conditions has to be one of the bigger ones, so not very maneuverable. The F-22 is real stealth from multiple angles under multiple radar bands and the F-35 is not.

Besides the topic here is the F-35, isn't it? Please start you own thread on F-22, B-2, Russian, Chinese planes or whatever it is you wish to discuss and those airplanes L-Band signatures.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 40):
I will now ask you, why would the Russians and the Chinese invest in stealth technology when it is clear according to your claims that stealth technology has been defeated by L-band and VHF radars?

Making an airplane stealthy in the L-Band is possible you know. It's just that it hasn't been done on the F-35.

In any case, isn't this thread about the F-35?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 40):
The historical record for SAMs and flak isn't very good.

So why do we need stealth for then? Hiding behind the horizon on low profiles has worked well. You just argued against stealth technology.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 39):

F-16
Has a 630nm combat radius carrying 4,000lbs of bombs (2x 2,000lb Paveways), with LANTIRN pod and 4 A2A on a Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi profile, same as the F-15E's combat profile. What's the F-35 combat radius carrying 4,000lbs of bombs?

F-15
Carrying four AIM-120As and 8000lbs of bombs and fitted with LANTIRN and three drop tanks, the F-15E will manage a combat radius better than 750 nm with a Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi profile. What's the F-35 combat radius carrying 8,000lbs of bombs?

Answer:
F-35
Combat radius with 4,000lbs of bombs as the F-16 in my example is 580nm - less than the F-16 with the same load and 2 fewer A2A missiles than the F-16.


Let's talk about the F-35 here please: How will the F-35 survive, flying above the radar horizon and being tracked by L-Band AESA radars?
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2735
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:13 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 41):
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 real combat horizon limited AESA L-Band radars. Either that was misleading or you were confused.

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 to the work of Nicholas J. Willis, and Hugh D. Griffith. All three are radar engineers.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 41):
IN any case, you have again sidestepped the question. Let's stay on topic and talk about the F-35. How will it survive being tracked by L-Band radars, as the radar manufacturers claim to be able to? You never broach that subject, and instead attack everything else. It's noticeable you are not answering this question.

Once again, please answer: How is the F-35 going to survive while being tracked by L-Band AESA radars for hundreds of miles? Answer this please.

Simple. It will either avoid such emission sources, or directly attack them using electronic methods and using hard kill methods. L-band radars aren't new; in fact, the USN has hundreds of L-band air search L-band radars. AESA doesn't do much beyond making the radar slightly smaller.

In order to have a chance of detecting the F-35 using L-band radars, the systems need to be very big:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=0WuG...%20section%20in%20L%20band&f=false

At page 59 it shows that, indeed, an L band radar can detect a low RCS target (- 20 dBsm) at ~280 km. Looks impressive, no? But, take a look at page 56, where the parameters of this radar are displayed: P=1MW. 1MW!!!! Do you want to hazard a GUESS at the size of a 1MW radar (hint: such radars are extremely large, fixed, ground based systems that are not known for being mobile). The authors further notes that if you switch to a UHF radar, your detection range against an aircraft with a low RCS increases depending upon the parameters of the radar, but the radar would be so inaccurate, you won't be able to even direct an interceptor to find the target in the first place.

So yes, the F-35 will survive against such large radars. We'll just blow them up in the first wave at standoff range with JASSM. Problem solved.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 41):
So why do we need stealth for then? Hiding behind the horizon on low profiles has worked well. You just argued against stealth technology.

Because even if you even were to deter enemy aircraft by making them drop weapons and abort their missions, its still a 'win' for the defenders. You remove that ability for ground defenders to properly defend their targets, you increase the likelihood of mission success.
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Fri Mar 30, 2012 8:56 am

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 42):
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 to the work of Nicholas J. Willis, and Hugh D. Griffith. All three are radar engineers.

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.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 42):
Simple. It will either avoid such emission sources, or directly attack them using electronic methods and using hard kill methods

How exactly will the F-35 avoid such emissions? By flying huge detours around them?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 42):
or directly attack them using electronic methods

The F-35 can only attack/jam in the X-band, not the L-Band, from what is publicly known. How is it going to attack in the L-Band?

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 42):
and using hard kill methods

What are these exactly? You are typing words but you are saying nothing.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 42):
So yes, the F-35 will survive against such large radars. We'll just blow them up in the first wave at standoff range with JASSM. Problem solved.

Yes, shooting cruise missiles at them is one option to suppress or destroy them. True. This suppression method can also be employed by existing planes.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 42):
In order to have a chance of detecting the F-35 using L-band radars, the systems need to be very big:
http://books.google.ca/books?id=0WuG...%20section%20in%20L%20band&f=false

At page 59 it shows that,

The little I read on P.59, is that if, Start Quote instead of the L-Band system End Quote - a UHF radar is used - then fighter vectoring is not likely due to poor resolution. Did you not notice that he is specifically NOT talking about the L-Band resolution, but about a UHF radar system resolution, which at 1MW would have a range of thousands of miles? I am not talking about gigantic UHF radars installations with over the horizon ranges of thousands of miles. I am talking about the much shorter range 200-300 mile horizon limited L-Band AESA radars.

PS: This was my last post on this topic for a while. Secondly, why is Lockheed not saying a word about the L-Band/F-35??? Later Gators.

[Edited 2012-03-30 02:06:21]
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:06 am

Quoting spudh (Reply 38):
I think Sweetman is trying to play the role of a Pierre Sprey of the F-35 program. There certainly aren't many more informed people out there and Sweetmans opinions should be listened to instead of censured. Each big fighter program has had its high profile critics, John Boyd and Sprey on the F-15 and ultimately the F-16. Every fighter programme in recent history has been late and gone way over budget (with the possible exception of the A-10). In most cases this was due in no small part to either new tech or add ons (both?). The fact that these programs outputted excellent fighters doesn't mean Sprey and Boyd were wrong. We'll never know how good they could have been if done differently.

Despite the monumental excercise in vanity that was commonality and concurrency, the F-35 will in all likelihood turn out to be a very effective platform (despite what this thread starter thinks). But the object of the program was to provide that capability (or to be fair, maybe less) at an affordable price. In this respect Sweetman is right and the programme has already failed as it will not be able to meet its original criteria. But that means that all the other programs were failures too.

I'd agree with the above portion of your post.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 40):
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 his work. Even the magazine he works for has suspended him in the past regarding his coverage on the F-35 programme. Even Sweetman himself admits to having a bias against the F-35 programme. Take that as you will into consideration when reading his coverage.

Bias in journalism does not render a given piece invalid, see any article written w.r.t. a given political or economic situation. Aviation should be no different. Forcing a writer to be "even handed", whatever that actually means, effectively neuters that writer's ability to present a point.

Sweetman is trying to make the point, and has been successful at it, that trying to make a "one size fits all" solution simply won't work due to clashing requirements. The F-14A/B was a failure. I think you'd have to go back to the Mosquito to find a (relatively) succesful multi-mission a/c.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 40):
I refuse to engage in personal attacks like you.

Oh really ? You've never ever done that. But just an observation (supported by facts as stored within A.net).
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:58 am

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 44):
The F-14A/B was a failure

F-111A/b, not F-14. My bad. Early here, not enough coffee.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
User avatar
spudh
Posts: 342
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 11:00 pm

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:58 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 44):
I think you'd have to go back to the Mosquito to find a (relatively) succesful multi-mission a/c.

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 the outset as a multi mission aircraft. The F-4 was as close as any came to being reasonably successful across the full spectrum of roles but was by no means the best at any and I don't know if multi role was in its design brief.

Most agree that air superiority fighters tend to make a decent fist of most other roles. Their low wing loading and high T/W ratio means that they almost always have the lifting capability to lift impressive loads. Their limitation comes in when an air superiority fighter is asked to perform the interdiction/low level strike role. this is where commonality falls down. Here a high fuel fraction is important but I've read that close to a penalty of 4kg structural weight is paid for every 1kg of additional internal fuel capacity once you go beyond say 0.28 of a fuel fraction.

A low wing loading appears to be a penalty at low level too where structural strength is required to endure the turbulance. Internal carriage of weapons is a big advantage at low level too from an endurance point. Recognised top low level performers like the F-111 and Blackburn Buccaneer combine a lot of these properties. The F-35 ticks a few of the right boxes here too but maybe at the expense of other sides of the spectrum. The big unknown for me about the F-35 is drag. Its pretty bluff looking and while it has demonstrated the ability to supercruise I've no idea how that is going to translate to low level speed.

I think it is highly doubtful that otherwise superb aircraft like the Eurofighter and Rafale will be able to sustain low level operations. They both are low wing loaded high T/W ratio aircraft. Unless new composite construction materials have solved the strength/weight/fatigue balance I can't see how they will be able to keep it up but even if they are structurally up to it they are going to get thrown around a lot more than say an F-15E or F-35. So the pilot will be the next weak link there.

This is where arguments like the survivability of the F-35 get so complex. The battle between the IAD/SAM and Fighter has ebbed and flowed across the decades. For armchair enthusiasts its a fascinating story. In the Israeli conflicts SAM went from being irrelevant in the 1967 6 Day War to giving the Israelis a well and truly booded nose in the 1973 Yom Kippur war to Israeli defeat of the IAD/SAM network in 1982. While IADs got more sophisticated since then, with the advent of stealth SAMs are even further on the back foot. The total number of western aircraft lost in conflict to SAMs over the last 30 years wont extend far into double figures. Of those only 1 was a stealth fighter and the tactics of that particular mission were questionable to say the least.

On the evidence available, SAMs have not caught up with conventional fighter tactics just yet, let alone pulled together a coherent defence against the newer technology of stealth. GW1, GW2 and Libya are proof that a tier 2 nation dedicated to miltary strength can be absolutely overwhelmed right now. In the face of SEAD the SAM answer so far is increased mobility rather than being able to out gun the SEAD threat. Maybe some of the newer AESA and L-band tech might start a swing of the pendulum back the other way but I have my doubts. The US had a 20 year head start with stealth before anyone else even knew it was realistic. You can be sure every type of radar under the sun was pointed at the F-117 and B-2 when they were black projects, Lockheed and Northrop know exactly what works and what doesn't and they certainly will not be allowed sell technology that is proficient at detecting stealth on the open market. The F-35 has the beneift of all that experience. To calibrate an L-band radar, even if it worked, would require a lot of flight testing with real stealth fighters flying against it. Thats pretty difficult when the US has the only ones operational. And even if they do manage to detect it, that just puts them at the same stage as they are with conventional fighters, on the back foot.

The biggest threat to F-35 survivability is not to be found in L-band radar or mach 8 missiles, its in its 24carat gold price tag.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Fri Mar 30, 2012 9:21 pm

Quoting spudh (Reply 46):
I think it is highly doubtful that otherwise superb aircraft like the Eurofighter and Rafale will be able to sustain low level operations.

Rafale ws, however, designed principally for A2G ops, not A2A like the Typhoon.

Quoting spudh (Reply 46):
The biggest threat to F-35 survivability is not to be found in L-band radar or mach 8 missiles, its in its 24carat gold price tag.

No question about that. I think even the US military are getting nervous about the cost, as they see budget as shrinking even further looking forward. Not that they'll kill it, but they'll get far fewer than what they currently state.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2735
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Sat Mar 31, 2012 2:13 am

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 43):
The F-35 can only attack/jam in the X-band, not the L-Band, from what is publicly known. How is it going to attack in the L-Band?

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 generations of radar warning receivers. With this system, an F-35 has a threat detection and identification capability comparative with the RC-135 Rivet Joint, with far more precision, and can of course, fly much closer to the actual emitter.

Whereas older equipment might be able to narrow down the direction of enemy radar to roughly a quadrant, the F-35's AN/ASQ-239 can precisely locate the direction of the threat. The unusual thing about the F-35 is how the radar plays a role in electronic warfare; the radar plays a role in targeting and jamming hostile radar emissions.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 43):
Yes, shooting cruise missiles at them is one option to suppress or destroy them. True. This suppression method can also be employed by existing planes.

Against a highly fixed, immobile target. Once your L-band radar is destroyed, F-35's will come in and mop up the remaining air defence systems, and conduct their missions.

Quoting tommytoyz (Reply 43):

The little I read on P.59, is that if, Start Quote instead of the L-Band system End Quote - a UHF radar is used - then fighter vectoring is not likely due to poor resolution. Did you not notice that he is specifically NOT talking about the L-Band resolution, but about a UHF radar system resolution, which at 1MW would have a range of thousands of miles? I am not talking about gigantic UHF radars installations with over the horizon ranges of thousands of miles. I am talking about the much shorter range 200-300 mile horizon limited L-Band AESA radars.

PS: This was my last post on this topic for a while. Secondly, why is Lockheed not saying a word about the L-Band/F-35??? Later Gators.

Not reading the book right. The book states that theoretically, a L-band surveillance radar can detect a low RCS target (- 20 dBsm) at ~280 km. However, such a radar would A: has to provide at least 1MW of power, and B: have a radar of at least 10m across as per page 56. The authors are talking about the very same L-band radars you are talking about.

The authors THEN go on and say that a UHF surveillance radar would be able to detect a low RCS target much further out depending on specifications, but the UHF radar would not have the resolution to even guide an interceptor to a target.
 
tommytoyz
Topic Author
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 9:08 am

RE: F-35 Survivability Against New Defenses

Sat Mar 31, 2012 3:38 am

Sorry folks, I have to set this straight:

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 48):
Not reading the book right.

They are not talking about L-Band on P.59, here is the sentence:

Quote:
For instance, if a UHF surveillance radar is postulated,instead of the L-Band system, .....it would be unlikely that in that case the surveillance radar would have sufficient resolution....

It is clear as a bell they NOT talking about the resolution of the L-Band radar.

From Boeing on the airborne L-Band Wedgetail radar:

The steerable beam, L-band electronically scanned array is designed to provide optimal performance in range, tracking, and accuracy. The radar is able to track airborne and maritime targets simultaneously and can help the mission crew direct the control of fighter aircraft while continuously scanning the operational area.

− 360 degrees/Air and Maritime modes/200 + nmi range/All Weather

Many nations are working on these types of radars, not just the Europeans or Americans.



Pictured above is the Russian NEBO M Multi Band AESA Radar, on 4 trucks X, L and VHF bands



[Edited 2012-03-30 20:41:00]

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: olle, Ozair and 1 guest

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos