GepardI forget the F 35 should be excellent in milimetric bands.
GepardWell Raleigh scattering for one, original statements about “breaking the killchain ” by being X band optimised for stealth (affordable stealth I believe they called it) for another. Did I forget that wonderful aft geometry of the F 35. Look up F 35 and JSF on google and you will find Wideband stealth is explicitly omitted. If Locmart has said the F 35 is wideband stealth (and I think they will say anything these days to keep it alive),I’ve not seen it but perhaps someone on this forum knows otherwise. The lack of Ram on the F 35 suggests shaping dominates RCS efforts which appear smaller than the wavelengths of VHF and to some extent L and S band geometries.
GepardWhen many Australian Airforce officials (what would they know) and an Australian MP (name escapes me, but worked for Australian Defence Research) knock the F 35 , I think maybe, just maybe as in the case of the MP who leaked that Rand report which did have classified data that perhaps Dr Kopp etc may be on to something. I also point out that you don’t need classified information to arrive at every conclusion, its not always accurate anyway (Osama intelligence, India, Pakistani nuclear monitoring). Physics don’t lie. Hence Raleigh scattering. VHF detects stealth. Even the U.S casually mentioned it (cant be bothered quoting where) but it was dismissed by them because of poor angular resolution until recently.
Finally look at U.S R&D. Next Gen bomber, X 47B all have wideband stealth in their requirements. Is that for nothing? We forget the F 35 was conceived 11 years ago when no one though phased array VHF was possible. Now it is. The U.S are developing new jamming assets (they canned that project last year… to save money). I think that says it all.
Of course I could be wrong but piecing together U.S dept quotes over time can yield alot of information which when pieced together with acquisitions can confirm a great deal of scuttlebut.
Geparddidnt hurt either.
GepardOk F 35 was developed to defeat X band frequencies (fighter radars, short range battlefield sams that by their very nature (low cost, small size) have X band radars like fighters. The F 22 was conceived like the B 2 to operate over the entire Soviet Sam Umbrella (primarily S 300, Sa 11 for B2, S300V for F22) and so needed to defeat X band (engagement radars of said sams) L band and S band (surveillance radars) and to some extent VHF band (EW radars). One can with some confidence extrapolate all this from the threats both aircraft were intended to face and the attendant operating frequencies of those platforms. JSF was designed for battlefield interdiction and looking at its shaping its obvious Raleigh scattering occurs. If we look at F117 which faced similar threats, we know its was near immune to X band owing to its faceting in the size of this wavelength or greater but was detected by Iraqi IADS (hence the tomahawk strikes). Even an old type 1001 radar on a Sheffield class detected (but could not track) it. Now this ray path method of rcs prediction is only half the picture in that some radar waves flow over the airframe until they find a gap and reflect back (called crreping wave). The B2 and F117 used generous amounts of Ram to soak this up. In the longer bands both facets and indeed Ram thicknesses go up to control creeping wave. You notice this around the perimeter chines on stealth
aircraft.
As regards Russian abilities to develop stealth? Well the developed pulse doppler, lerx, wing blending and high bypass turbofans the last time the U>s reset the technology base (F 14 etc). we forget Russia has seen F117, YF 22, Yf 23, Tacit Blue, Have Blue, X 45, X 46, X 47, Yf 35, Yf 32, F 35 planforms so a great deal of work has already been done for them (shaping).
Computationally, the Soviets invented the algorithym to predict RCS, they didn’t wrote a program (Echo 1) to exploit it. Computersc are now freely available..
That F117 crash in 1999 prob
GepardIn answer To Spudman, do you know more than Russian radar specialists? Do you know more than Dr Carlo Kopp who has a PHD?As to debunking him, please lets see this evidence. Quoting LM just makes one naive at best, a spokesperson at worst.
GepardI think you will find the Vostok and Nebu SVU CAN track with enough angular resolution that a Aam or Sam datalinked from these radars may enter a killbox where the missiles own IR or active radar may acquire the VLO platform itself.
GepardThe technology isnt totally obsolete, just one form of its application. X band only stealth is largely obsolete (e.g JSF). Wideband stealth is not (Next Gen Bomber, X 47B and of course Pakfa one suspects).
GepardI think you will find Carlo Kopp addresses those operational regimes quite comprehensively by stating, (a), that S 400 class systems may employ anti access strategies to a Wedgetail by threatening it if its within 400kms of an S 400, (B) pointing out that such standoff weapons that the JSF may emply will be engaged by point blank optimised missiles (the new hittiles the S400 deploys) and finally that the RCS of said JSF carrying said stand off weapons would completely negate its alleged stealth.
It all comes down to our appreciation of the enemy. Are they stupid because they are not like us necessarily, or has Russia and China in particular gone to great lengths to develop counter-stealth and anti-access capabilities to JSF, ISR assets that Canberra in particular would like to pretend do not exist. The IDF made a similar mistake underestimating CW guidance in the Sa 6 Gainful in Yom Kippur for instance…
GepardFor more on VHF Radars, look at this… They have come a long way from the P 18 Spoonrest…
GepardI would be more worried about JSFs poor VHF stealth and the fact that such radars can detect an F117 at roughly 40NM in jamming environments and 190NM without jamming that today may simply be ineffective due to the inherent limitations of jamming active phased array radars and the fact none may be survivable (home on jam shots from S 300/ S 400). There’s a reason the U.S is quietly resurrecting the B 52 jammer (curiously now limited specifically to longer frequencies like VHF…), insisting on better stealth for the next gen bomber ( Isn’t the B 2 good enough?) and has brought the UCAV-N out from the cold for further testing (it has a very impressive diamond configuration embedded in a near all wing design to dramatically reduce signatures).
Surely the F 35 dropping bombs the S 400, Tor, Pantir which are all designed to engage PGMS at point blank ranges makes the concept of F 22 / F 35s dropping jdams on emitters a little naive?
GepardIts not the evil Lockmart conned the U.S airforce but rather poor strategic planning of the technology landscape defined the JSFs operating parameters including its stealth. Locmart have built what the specification called for. Problem is the assumptions underpinning that specification (adequate F 22s, B2s to destroy Long range sams, inability of threat nations to make VHF radar accurate enough) are now out of date.
Today its patently clear that X band optimised stealth is a mistake, wideband is required. So its not Locmart that is to blame but poor requirement definitions and given the Vietnam experience (no guns on Phantoms) or more recently operational problems in Iraq ( understating IEDS on vehicle armor) thats not beyond reasonable probability… however Lockmart could be more honest in portraying its product…
GepardI would be more concearned about the F 35s VHF signature. It isn’t invisible there and VHF radars now are solid state active phased array designs in 2008 and F 35 is still optimistically 5 years from service entry. What enhancements will the Chinese and Russians make by then? The F 35 may well be obsolete in its stealth strategy (X band all aspect, moderate L, S Band) before it enters service and likely within 5 years of service entry…
You don’t think the U.S quietly resurrected the B 52 jamming effort (now primarily in high VHF bands) for nothing do you? Or the sudden “need” for the next-gen bomber to have enhanced stealth (Why isn’t B 2 good enough?), nor the “in from the cold” resurrected funding for UCAV-N aka X 47B?
GepardCarlo kopp is always tarnished unfairly in my opinion as F 22 biased. Wanting the best value is what Kopp is striving for. If you know Australian procurement history, the F 111 was a tremendous success in that though expensive it was so capable that it stayed ihn service longer than any cheaper alternative. Kopp sees an F 22 buy as yielding long term effectiveness. Look at the F/A 18 EFs for instance. Buying 1 jet the F /A 18 just to supplement it with superhornets is more expensive than one long term acquisition. As for JSF, Kopp sees a plane that initially rivals the F 22’s cost without its capabilities especially in regards to wide-band stealth. Lets remember the Russians already have accurate VHF radars BEFORE the F 35 even enters service. Over the F 35s life can we assume these will not get much much better? Hence Kopps and for that matter, my own criticism of JSF.
GepardIts sad that the navy UCAV with minimal VHF, S BAND, L band and X band RCS could much like a semi autonomous tomahawk take out an S 400 much more easily than a F 22 or F 35 owing to its vastly reduced signatures and the fact its optimised against VHF type threats which JSF was not and the F 22 allegedly is ( I wonder about its faceting in regards to Raleigh scattering and its canopy and rear quadrant stealth in higher bands) yet here we are buying 3000 JSFs. Its a criminal waste of money when one also considers just lobbing air breathing harms (development cose say 3 billion) and firing these would be far more cosrt efective than flying f22s and f35s within sam range to drop bombs. Even worse how many s 300s will there be on a battlefield? 5 maybe 10. Surely lobbing 400 harms at say 500,000 each is more cost effective than fielding 3000 jsfs even factoring say 4 or 5 wars over the jsfs lifetime. One last thought. Is an attack by 70 tactical tomahawk to overwhem an S400 more cost effective than sending in 4 or 5 130-230 million jsfs?
Sign In
