Amiga500Re-framing your augments I see 🙂
You started out by claiming that an enemy fighter would see the F-35 at 200 miles and now you say that it would require GCI and a ground based LW radar… Well at least you’re being honest.
I did nothing of the sort.
You assumed (as do most of the F-35 fanbois) that only Ku-band or X-band radars on the enemy aircraft count!
If there were an LW radar with the capabilities to detect & track the F-35, several things would/could happen.
There are. Get used to it.
1. That LW radar site would be the receiver of multiple attacks early on before other F-35s would be openly operating in the area. These attacks would likely involve NOE, multiple SDB, Spear3, Cruise Missile, and other various tactics to ensure that the radar site is taken out.
So your basically saying, this much vaunted (and very very expensive), first day fighter is unable to operate until others reduce the keypoints of the IADS to rubble?
2. Assuming that the site does get a vague idea of the F-35’s track, any communication with the vectored fighters will likely give them away.
Oh yes, because only one side has secure datalinks… and remote transmission is obviously impossible.
3. The vectored fighter will have to go active since the F-35’s track is vague in nature.
Why?
Is that not exactly what IRST is for?
4. The airport that the vectored fighters came from will also be getting a lot of attention prior to F-35s openly operating in the area.
The airfield which is deeper into the protected airspace. Good stuff.
My point is that you cannot assume that the F-35s will come blindly into an area where they know where the LW radars are and know where the vectored fighters will be coming from without addressing those threats.
Knowing about it and being able to do something about it are exactly the criticisms being levelled at the JSF for a long time!
Amiga500Some people ascribe near-magical properties to AESA, and I am suspicious of the claimed “subarray partitioning”. To the best of my knowledge (from speaking with US radar companies) all current AESA fighter radars interleave from one task to another – they do not try to tackle multiple jobs at the same instant.
With any luck, I might get some clarification of this at Paris.
Why not? Every T/R module will have a unique connection to the controlling IC. If it says, right, modules 1-100, you point that direction at that wavelength with that power output… and modules 101-200, you point this other direction with this other wavelength, at whatever power output. Then you’ve two unique responses to look out for. It probably wouldn’t even be that hard to code up.
As you know, responses by their nature arrive back to the receiver at various times, so interpreting the two signals is relatively straightforward.
Obviously, you are sacrificing ultimate potential performance performing both roles simultaneously, but for some applications, you may be operating well within the range/resolution capabilities of the radar anyway, like getting a ground fix for instance, while terrain following.
Amiga500You’re “assuming facts not in evidence” as NOBODY has ever made a claim to be able to detect “see” an F-35 from another fighter platform at 200 miles.
Been away for a bit. Right, back to this.
You don’t need to see it directly. Your argument is continually missing this point!
Your GCI either vectors you, or even better, uploads a position and flight path (albeit, not a very precise one) of the F-35. [something Saab had back in the 80s]
You then approach from a beneficial angle, probably from the F-35’s flank, using offboard and passive sensors to develop your track to a point where you can light off missiles (with radar guidance by a lead aircraft and launches from “trailers” approaching from the front of the F-35 if necessary).
So yes, given suitable long-wavelength radar coverage, a fighter can “see” (to a sufficient resolution) the JSF from 200 miles away! If the F-35 were a Mach1.5 interdictor (like what the J-20 **might** be), then this may not be quite such an issue, as the intercept curve is challenging.
But, with JSF being relatively slow… enemy fighters do have time to formulate an effective response.
Amiga500Net centric capability is here to stay…Most of the things i have mentioned would be capabilities that the F-35 would enjoy pretty much from IOC or shortly thereafter…These are the capabilities that adversaries would have to deal with…Future investments in upping interoperability, net centric capability is also Clear, investments are going to go up and more capability added..Buzz words they may be to you, but for the USAF and many western air forces (RAAF for example from the article above) net centric operations is a part of war doctrine and not some future fancy buzzwords..
A buzzword loses its impact when others can already do the same. But don’t go crowing about it.
Amiga500What if the F-35 “sees” the other a/c 100 miles away and the other a/c “sees” the F-35 only when it’s 10 miles away…?
Then the other aircraft is dead.
Can you give some examples of the opposite? Note references to professionals that have had access to classified info is really of interest in this discussion.
Like the South Koreans KF-X or the Japanese ATD-X or the Turkish TFX?
Amiga500Even the Ăśber F-35 Haters at APA do not think that the F-35 can be picked up at 200 miles (think less than 30-35 miles at best).
I knew this was going to come up. I have made distinctions between trace and track for this reason, and also used “see” for this reason.
So back to the statement.
If the F-35 “sees” the other aircraft 300 miles away and presents the information clearly to its pilot, and the other aircraft “sees” the F-35 200 miles away and presents the information clearly to its pilot – what effective difference is there?
Amiga500The problem here is going to be solved by SA edge over potential enemy/adversaries…
You just aren’t getting it at all.
If the F-35 “sees” the other aircraft 300 miles away and presents the information clearly to its pilot, and the other aircraft “sees” the F-35 200 miles away and presents the information clearly to its pilot – what effective difference is there? Well, apart from a being able to stick “50% greater detection envelope” on a LM or USAF powerpoint.
Yes it is, but plenty of scope still remains to up the ability further….Just look at the net centric approaches being contemplated and developed, this really opens the door up for even greater investments, and capabilities especially when UCAS’s are brought into the realm. An F-35C passivly tracking a red force may choose not to use its own weapons, but to pass on the information to an F-22, Or to an AEGIS system…In such a case an SM3 is as good as having another wingman….What this increased SA allows you to do is carry out air campaigns with impunity and really allocate your resources very efficiently, no longer do you need dedicated assets for 100% of the requirements, and you are thinking not as per WHAT SYSTEM should i add to my air force/navy but WHAT CAPABILITY must i add..You just needs greater leaps in Data links and voila you have instant ISR assets in your AESA and IR sensor equipled VLO fighters/bombers…You need clever software and your AESA equipped fighters and bombers can be EW assets with remarkable ability….Ultimately the goal is to help win campagins hence the Australian Admiral countinues to emphasize MISSION SUCCESS because the goal is to carry out the OBJECTIVES in a manner which is most decisive…
Death by buzz-word.
Not to extrapolate from the Australian article, but in practice the Stealth force does go up against credible red force in the US. You have AESA equiped birds on the other sides, and various scenarious are practiced to develop tactics….The USAF/USN do have an enviable training and simulating setup …
Indeed they do.
However that is not the problem. I have no doubt that example was truthful. But the information omitted is vitally important in ascertaining (1)how realistic the scenario is to being replicated and (2)whether the things that allowed the F-22 to kick ass will also be present in the F-35 when it is eventually in service (in 2020 or so :dev2:).
Amiga500Anyone else pounded the issue of the collective RCS of a group of F-35 goes up exponentially with increasing number of a/c in the flight ?
(by radar bouncing against each other)
nah – well… kinda nah – the probability of something worthwhile being reflected back to the transmitting radar in a coherent form is very low.
Multi-static systems might be a bit different, even if its a case of multiple weak returns from multiple aircraft in close proximity giving the radar a ghost single track…
Amiga500http://tinyurl.com/kzz8nsd
page 12-14
So the 2005 F-22 sees an 1985 F-15D before the Eagle can see it and maneuvers accordingly.
Examples like this of operating in bubbles do more harm than good. Where was the GCI feeding the Eagle information? Was the eagle modern enough to take that information and present it coherently to the pilot?
Amiga500A good point, it may be to try to sneak up on the VLO craft
Why sneak up?
Hypothetically, if something *like* a Flanker can trace (if not quite track) an F-35 from 300 miles away and visa-versa – then it has the kinematic performance, endurance and combat persistence to bully the F-35 into an engagement where it (JSF) is at a disadvantage.
Basically, my issue with the JSF mostly revolves around this – it can see exactly what is happening before most others – I’ve no doubt about that – but if the other guy can see far enough, then the JSF might not be able to do an awful lot about the information it does have. [note, for the purposes of this, far enough includes offboard feeds from GCI.]
Amiga500That is the Million dollar question, and the increasing Net-centric posture of most world air forces means that this question is going to be answered by the force that has higher NC capability and greater SA over the battlefield.
First look =/= first shoot.
If the other guy is aware of where you are (even if they cannot directly track you) when you are far outside weapon range, then “first look” becomes irrelevant and it moves toward a of kinematics, both of aircraft and missiles.
Regarding manuvering, what would be interesting is to see some of the tactics that stealthy fighters (not just the F-35) adopt…Given highly efficient bi-directional Data linking and the ability to Sensor-Share (On the F-35 ) it could well be that the initial MRAAM could be launched as a fire and forget weapon while the launching fighter gets into different position to position itself for the second shot while some other fighter either behind or ahead takes over targetting…
Well, the premise behind Captor-E is that it can track over 90deg off centreline. So, for instance, a Typhoon could launch and run on a parallel course while maintaining track.
Obviously, your datalink point is a good one and I believe is already in practice.
Amiga500I do not think that the sort of maximum-range “shoot and run’ you are talking about represents a realistic scenario for air combat.
Indeed.
What is more likely is.
– Fire first missile, to force the target aircraft into defensive maneuvering.
– The shooter maneuvers away from the general heading of the aircraft it has fired on, but will seek to close on a somewhat “inverse” reciprocal course, increasing speed for the subsequent choice of:
— turning “in” to fire a second (and possibly 3rd missile, with Russian doctrine, this would be where the ARH and the IR homing missiles are fired) which would be much closer (perhaps not quite NEZ) and against a target that has already bled off KE in its initial evasive maneuvers from the first missile.
— turn “out”, disengage and seek to put distance between itself and the enemy aircraft, which would have a low KE level from evading the initial missile, which means it is in a relatively poor launch position for its own missile, resulting in a relatively poor Pk.
The issues then become:
– Who can get into a launch position first.
– Does the initially targeted aircraft have confidence in their ability to both shake off the incoming missile and retain KE enabling them to turn the nose approximately on the initial firing aircraft and make a decent counter-launch?
While the F-35 *may* get “first-see”, its ability to get “first-shot” is up for debate.
Its ability to shake off the incoming AAM is reliant on directed countermeasures rather than the more traditional chaff, flares and turning. Whether that works remains to be seen – what is noteworthy is that the original plan was to have a pukka DEW incorporated onto the -A and -C variants… those plans seem to have gone silent.
Is that a case of the AESA set will do the job, or is that a case of money?
Amiga500The MOD examining the Tomcat and the RAF wanting it are two very different things.
Indeed – my understanding is:
– it was offered.
– it was examined.
– enthusiasm wasn’t great.
For what reasons I don’t know. Cost? Protection of indigenous manufacturers? Capability? Bad aftertaste from the teething Phantom issues?
Amiga500There is a difference between claims made by PRODUCERS and developers (Such as Lockheed and Sukhoi) then there are claims and performance guarantees made by Services and Auditors…The FTD’s that i am reffering to are from the USAF, and GAO and not from LMA…If you are going to throw them out as not ACCURATE then you must do the same for all claims made by Russian air force, the russian government …and ofcourse all those claims made by Pogo are marketing hype then !
When did I say the M1.7 wasn’t accurate?
I guess the concept of understanding a figure in context is beyond you, so I’ll just leave it at that.
Because where is that ULTRA VLO design that would be one generation ahead of the competition? Is the all aspect VLO superior to the F-22? If the F-22 acheived Mach 1.72 in 2001 – 2002 and PAKFA achieves the same or slightly better nearly 12 – 13 years later , is it a generation more advanced?
Do you know what the RCS figures are? Do you know what RAM they are using? [or for that matter, do you know the details of the reference, in this case the F-22?]
If the F-22 can cruise at ~M1.7 for 500miles, and the PAK-FA can cruise at M1.7 for 1000miles, do you regard that as “the same or slightly better”?
yet whats the evidence of a Lowered VLO design compared to the F-22?
You are the one who said it isn’t possible. Onus is on you.
I am not throwing out that possibility…but there is not really any evidence to suggest the same…
As I said, computing power has moved on, as have materials. Why wouldn’t the capabilities move on?
Where’s the revolutionary next generation RCS reduction from the OLD F-22?
What are you expecting? A klingon cloak?
Where’s the revolutionary propulsion that allows very very high speed flight …Where’s the optionally manned capability? Do they offer self-healing structures which are being thought about for Next gen fighters? I am afraid i see no evidence ….
There is talk about CNF-infused resin composites – and that includes ceramics as the fibres. That is quite a shift in materials from the F-22. That can result in a sizeable shift in engine performance.
Unmanned capabilities are not there yet. It would require constant pilot in the loop.
Self-healing structures is a pipe-dream. [at least, beyond an iteration on self-sealing fuel tanks!]
The paradigm shift I am looking for is DEW. Once we’re at a point where they can be mounted on a fighter airframe and can “melt” seeker heads, then aerial combat as we know it now changes.
Amiga500So everyone is MARKETING and HYPING, while you claim comments of Sukhoi head, test pilits and Russian officials which are to be taken as gospel? Tell me from where all this spec about Su-35 and PAKFA are coming? Have you flown them yourself?
Look on up the page.
My point is very simple. LM will always present the bit of information that makes their product look the best, regardless of how out of context that is. Others do it too – unfortunately far too many fanbois (on both sides), see a number, grasp it and treat it as gospel, even if that number is only representative of 0.01% of scenarios. Like RCS values for instance.
Wow….Fighters are developed over decades….No one makes them in 5-6 years…Both the f-22 and Pakfa trace their origins to studies in the 80’s and early nineties…
The MiG 1.42/1.44 could trace its origins to studies of that era. The PAK-FA… not so much (although obviously they won’t have chucked the data out!).
Its not like the PAKFA is going to have some ULTRA advanced capability in stealth, supersonic flght / hypersonic flight or some magical sensors that are so 21st century while the F-22 is old school.
Out of interest, why do you dismiss the possibility?
Computing power has moved on a lot, metallurgy has moved on, composites have moved on.
While I personally don’t expect the PAK-FA to signal a paradigm shift in aerial combat, I’d be interested to know your reasoning for it being impossible for the PAK-FA to contain revolutionary technologies.
Certainly, its design has gone in a very different direction from the F-22 in a number of areas, which of course leads to the question of; what advantage did they see in doing it like that?
Sign In
