Correct, but if the sensor is jammed he can not forward data to he shooter.

Good luck in jamming an AESA radar to that level of degradation though, assuming that the signal was detected in the first place.

Depends on how high both aircraft are flying. And what altitudes are F-35s supposed to operate in the AA role?

F-35s can easily fly at 50k+ feet for A2A, meaning that you’re looking at a roughly co-altitude situation.

It’s INS/GPS won’t help it to hit the target and have fun to HOJ on the jammer. First and foremost the seeker must be able to distinguish between his own radar returns and deception jamming, which is not the same as noise jamming. And for the matter you don’t need to detect the launch in order to detect the missile before it goes active.

Not in and of themselves, but they will make it more difficult to make the missile think the target is elsewhere.

And from where does the range data for the AN/APG-81 come from?

Here’s a rough comparison between the APG-81 and the CAESAR.

APG-81 AESA (F-35A/B/C)

For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 16 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 28 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 90 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 160 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 240 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 285 km+

CAESAR AESA (EF-2000 Tranch3, post-2015 with 1,500 T/Rs)

For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 18~21 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 32~38 km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 104~122 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 185~216 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 278~324 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 330~385 km+

So while you see that the CAESAR will have range advantages over the APG-81, it won’t make up for the RCS difference, in terms of which range each fighter can detect each other.

Well if the conditions are right maybe, but who says they will be?

If you’re flying towards an enemy, then most often you’ll be taking a head on shot in BVR engagements. If you’re shooting them from behind, then they’ve likely already had a successful mission over your territory.

I fixed that for you, mate..

Radar ranges(Toan did this):-

F-35 RCS is using a number of quoted sources… as derived by Toan…0.001m2… Typhoon is around 0.1m2 according to most sources (although one recently claimed 0.5m2). The figures below were mathematically calculated by Toan using the most common publically legitimately stated figures.

The base radar formula used is (RCS1/RCS2)^0.25. So the F-16C reduced RCS is 1.2 m2, standard fighter is 5 m2. (1.2/5)^0.25 = 0.69. Therefore the F-16C can be detected at 69% of radar range as compared with a standard fighter.

CAESAR AESA（EF-2000 Tranch3, post-2015 with 1,500 T/Rs）：
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 18~21 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 32~38 km+
For RCS 0.01 m2 class target: 58~68km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 104~122 km+ JSF
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 185~216 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 278~324 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 330~385 km+

APG-81 AESA（F-35A/B/C）：
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 16 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 28 km+
For RCS 0.01 m2 class target: 50 km+
For RCS 0.05 m2 class target 75km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 90 km+
For RCS 0.5 m2 class target: 120 km+ Typhoon
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 160 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 240 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 285 km+

You may want to look at the first sentence there-

F-35 RCS is using a number of quoted sources… as derived by Toan…0.001m2…

but I’ll commend your earnestness.:D

Sorry, mate, it’s M1.3 without load until it demonstrates better.

Or until flight testing is done, and the test points are reached methodically, expanding the envelope. They don’t just take new planes out, and just go all out to see what it’ll do.

OTOH, I would be really surprised if a plane equipped with a non-supercruising engine in fact did supercruise.. 😉

Which definition of supercruising are we using though? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t use LM’s assertion that the F-35 won’t cruise at M1.5 or greater, as evidence that it can’t cruise at M1 or greater.

F-35’s radar and radio comms will provide the Typhoon’s ESM a bearing from hundreds of miles away 😮 :p

Not likely.:rolleyes:

1. Is unlikely you’d get 100 miles against a reduced RCS Typhoon (notice how the semi stealth argument can be worked against you…) and even 100nm is a big problem at those speeds to manoeuvre into a firing solution while keeping head on.

Considering that clean, the Typhoon is ~.5m2 RCS, and with missiles and EFTs, would be over 1m2, which would be detectable at 100nm by the APG-81.

2 and 3 are your problem.. how far out does the JSF launch?. think range of AMRAAM

In a head on launch, a C7/D could be fired at >100km.

IRST range is over ~100nm for target in reheat.. ~50nm for non reheat.

Those are pretty optimistic figures, especially for a head on target. You might see those kinds of ranges against a receding target.

Radar ranges(Toan did this):-

F-35 RCS is using a number of quoted sources… as derived by Toan…0.001m2… Typhoon is around 0.1m2 according to most sources (although one recently claimed 0.5m2). The figures below were mathematically calculated by Toan using the most common publically legitimately stated figures.

The base radar formula used is (RCS1/RCS2)^0.25. So the F-16C reduced RCS is 1.2 m2, standard fighter is 5 m2. (1.2/5)^0.25 = 0.69. Therefore the F-16C can be detected at 69% of radar range as compared with a standard fighter.

CAESAR AESA（EF-2000 Tranch3, post-2015 with 1,500 T/Rs）：
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 18~21 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 32~38 km+ JSF
For RCS 0.01 m2 class target: 58~68km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 104~122 km+
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 185~216 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 278~324 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 330~385 km+

APG-81 AESA（F-35A/B/C）：
For RCS 0.0001 m2 class target: 16 km+
For RCS 0.001 m2 class target: 28 km+
For RCS 0.01 m2 class target: 50 km+
For RCS 0.05 m2 class target 75km+
For RCS 0.1 m2 class target: 90 km+
For RCS 0.5 m2 class target: 120 km+ Typhoon
For RCS 1.0 m2 class target: 160 km+
For RCS 5.0 m2 class target: 240 km+
For RCS 10.0 m2 class target: 285 km+

I fixed that for you, but nice try. :rolleyes:

OK here’s your story:-

A pair of Typhoons, one behind the other, the rear emitting and the front receiving and they don’t manage to pick up the JSF at what in effect would be less than 25 miles. even though the angular difference makes the JSF far less stealthy.

Why the 25 mile figure? A -120C7/D can be fired much further than that in a high altitude head on engagement.

Amazingly the Typhoons gets painted by the JSF LPI radar and targetted (please note the L in LPI) and it doesn’t notice that either.

Perhaps, perhaps not. (L(ow) probability of intercept)
Even if the Typhoon eventually detects the LPI signal, the question then is whether it can be done in a tactically useful time period. The emitter still need not be the shooter though.

The JSF is using reheat to accelerate to Amraam launch speed and the Typhoons IRST doesn’t work well enough to pick that out.

At extreme BVR ranges, the FOV of an IRST is pretty narrow, and the firer may not necessarily be within the azimuth limits of the Typhoon’s sensor.

obviously a useless piece of kit as the F-22 doesn’t have it, and the JSF’s is mounted in the wrong place for AtoA (you might want to note down the cruising/combat heights of the Typhoon and the JSF as this has a bearing on range)

The F-35 will be flying at high altitudes for A2A missions to maximize sensor/weapon ranges, so the mounting location won’t be an issue

The JSF launces a salvo of Missiles at the Hapless Typhoons who are just cruising along blissfully unaware of the JSF which has had its doors open and is dropping AMRAAMs like confetti, the ASEA radars of the Typhoons are just not good enough to spot those either.

The entire firing sequence from door opening, firing, door closing is ~2-3 seconds. At extreme BVR ranges, the brief RCS spike will be negligible, in terms of trying to track a target.

The usual missile avoidance routines are ignored even with the AMRAAMs twanging away their terminal radars away like teenager on a suspender belt.

AMRAAMS don’t go active till in the terminal phase(if at all, depending on the mode)

None of the Typhoons change course so as to avoid the need for the JSF to do any mid course corrections that would take it well in to WVR.

Unless the missile launch is detected, the Typhoon won’t be aware that it needs to avoid it, until it is pretty close. At this point the AMRAAM will have its own sensors, datalinks, INS/GPS, and HOJ providing guidance.

One of the eagled eyed Typhoons pilots sees the AMRAAMS, But heavens above – none of the Typhoons extensive Jamming suite works.. the Jaff or the Towed radar decoyits all useless.

Not useless, but not invincible either.

Please bear in mind that it converts fuel much quicker than the Typhoon, do the math and look at the ranges the JSF, That engine in that airframe eats fuel!

Please bear in mind that the F-35 has as much range on internal fuel, as the Typhoon with internal fuel and EFTs.

BTW the quote of LPI detection was published in a Keypublishing magazine via email from a source that requested anonymity.

Well I guess that settles it. A single uncorroborated source.:rolleyes:

That is taken out of the context. Juat like a sentence “a BMW 330d with common-rail diesel engine has better acceleration that Porsche Carrera S.”

This sentence is true, but I forgot to add that it only has superior acceleration for first 1-1.5sec where torque plays more important role. F-35 is similar – at low speeds where drag is much less important than brute power, it might out-accelerate the F-16 – the bottom line is that it’s pretty much useless for combat..

Except the range that is given in that statement, is considerably larger than the equivalent 1.5 sec burst, in your example. There have been numerous remarks from pilots talking about continually pulling away from F-16s(and them having to go into burners, just to keep up.)