[USER=”70376″]stealthflanker[/USER]

Thank you for giving me what i need. I will drop this subject with moonlight on this thread unless he brings a different subject up than this .

a) the location is my concern of the target.

b) once the jamming started. I agree that the missile could be fooled and led away only if the F-35 picked up the missile before the missile picked up the f-35.

“I hope that make sense, or you can see garry’s illustration of that technique.”

I got it from eloise or in other words mig-31bm http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=27364 So I guess I was not the only one for suspecting both garrya and mig-31bm very close similiarity as users. But I will still take garrya’s word for it that mig-31bm is not his 2nd user account here.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2…/#680aa3205a50

“Although an aircraft’s radar can only scan out in front of the aircraft, an aircraft can listen for incoming radar signals in any direction, so the scope is 360°. A digital signal processor looks for recognizable radio “chirps” that correspond to known radars, and displays their azimuth on the scope. A chirp is a distinctive waveform that a radio uses. See, if two radios use the same waveform simultaneously, they’ll confuse each other, because each radio won’t know which radar returns are from its own transmitter. To prevent this, different radios tend to use distinct waveforms. This can also be used by the target aircraft to identify the type of radar being used, and therefore possibly, the type of aircraft.
In this display, the RWR has detected an F-15 (15 with a hat on it indicating aircraft) at the 7-o’clock position. The strength of the radar is plotted as distance from the center — the closer to the center, the stronger the detected radar signal, and therefore possibly the closer the transmitting aircraft.”

Although the info of the 90 degree turns might be old information but the accuracy could have improved since newer RWRs can listen to lower noise levels.

“cooperate jamming”

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Warpac-Rus-PLA-ESM.html

stationary passive systems have better accuracy than self reliant RWRs on aircrafts. if more targets want to cooperate jamming a target than this will just give information that there is more than 1 target jamming for passive homing. Although there is possibly one more threat that stealth designs might run into.

“you can’t go back and forth between DF-15, Iskander, some random warhead as an illustration of RCS, and you can’t compare RCS of objects with size if their shape and material are not similar.”

we can pretend that they are warheads but warheads with that claimed RCS cannot have a lower RCS than a target that has less surface area exposure like a small air to air missile. If this was the case than the SU-34 is a far superior design in terms of 360 degree coverage than a F-35.

“I do not add or remove zeros from your reference, i displayed the equation to you and how to use it. “

ME: 13th April 2019, 02:01 “3.749kms was the tracking range for a .0001m2 target, 50% probability detection is even further than that. “

YOU: 15th April 2019, 15:49 “If the detection range for 0.001 m2 target is 3.7 km then detection range for 10 m2 target is 37 km”

Why did you take away my zero?

ME: 12th April 2019, 13:53 “https://aviationweek.com/technology/…tection-claims “
NNIRT says that the Chinese DF-15 short-range ballistic missile has a 0.002 m2 RCS in X-band, but is 0.6 m2 in VHF.” Notice that they are talking about the missile and no war heads. However having a missile fly straight at you the face of that missile would be the 1 diameter reflection along with the fins sticking out. However the sides and underbelly will reflect more.

YOU: 13th April 2019, 00:11 “a) a missile isn’t a warhead but a whole SRBM do not have 0.0002 m2 radar reflection”

Why did you add a zero?

http://tass.com/defense/958026

“And, as we irradiate an enemy in an unprecedentedly wide range of frequencies, we’ll know its position with the highest accuracy and after processing we’ll get an almost photographic image of it – radio vision,” Mikheyev said.

we emit an ultra-high frequency signal, it is reflected back and we receive and process it and get the radar picture of an object. We see what we need to do to make it optimal,” he said.”

Although lower frequencies than X-band are not accurate enough to be used as a tracking solution. The next question for the future is how powerful host radars on missiles are to correct the inaccuracy of lower frequencies to just get the missile on the right path to the target to do the rest. There also has to be a very good reason why the s-500 system’s newer warheads are able to track targets on their own.

@moonlight

but you can’t use that for air to air missile because target are constantly moving”

Thats why your aircraft has radars and RWRs. If a target is constantly moving like going zig zags he will just give back high RCS returns to update the missile. if the target does not want to give high RCS returns he will just fly a straight path to give the lowest RCS returns to his adversary but this will make you a easier target for the aircraft to update the homing air to air missile of its location through RWR.

“Please don’t tell me you don’t know what an Iskander-M look like
There is no way you can argue against measurement data with your eye ball analysis”

Iskander in terms of small surface area still defeats a f-22, su-57 or F-35 which is why .002m2 is a fair RCS. Lets just give you the benefit of a doubt that your -10 decibel small air to air missile is legitimate. Than I can proudly say with full confidence on this board that the SU-35’s mechanical steering and su-34s side and back radars, su-57s side radars all completely sh!t on whatever the US has in terms of offering better 360 degree coverage. I will ignore responding to yjust this part of our conversation later until you offer me an ultamatim.

“K-77M can’t have same accuracy as aircraft RWR or Kolchuga and it can’t use most passive ranging methods”

The aircraft can update the missile. There are literally sources for the R-77 that say 80% of its flight is from the information of the aircrafts radars the other 20% of its flight is done by the missiles radar but that is referencing a 3m2 target.

“There is no need for F-35 to fly zig zag, because the specific method linked to that countermeasure can’t be used by K-77.”

Your are exposing your sides to the adversaries 120 degree beam radar. That offers some good tracking information that can be updated to the missile.

“If the detection range for 0.001 m2 target is 3.7 km then detection range for 10 m2 target is 37 km
If the burn though range for 0.001 m2 target is 3.7 km then the burn through range for 10 m2 target is 370 km”

1st stop adding my zeros and stop taking away my zeros since this information is referenced from my sources.

For 10m2 target on AESA calculator the range is 34.560kms.
@A&D

“Even the F-35 program took off, because the US Government was able to strike export deals with several countries

If you want to find out which aircraft is better.

1) remove sanctions from the country developing the SU-57 or don’t threaten countries wanting to purchase russian equipment with sanctions.

2) Stop spending 70% for NATO than have the Russians join NATO(they have tried to join multiple times in the past) since most of these countries seem decently rich.

“stead what we see is plenty of bolts and other crap sticking out of it. It isn’t stealthy from the front with all of those bolts nor the back with exposed engine casings.”

Wait till the product is considered operational I get it that there are alot of F-35 diehards trying their best and seem to be the only users that go to other country aircraft threads to prove their selfworth of how great their things are. Well that is probably one of the reasons why the su-57 and russian aviation threads on this forum always have the highest views.

“Furthermore, currently Russia doesn’t even have any active service GaAS AESA radars”

They have changed computers, added fiber optics to their composite materials, changed navigation systems. Spoke of GaN MMICs in 2014 of 3 specific aircrafts which got new EW systems at the end of 2014, 2016 and 2018 and have had their jaming distance of orlan 10 increased by 3.5 times in range now I am hearing about pole-21 modules from tass news(dont know what kind of modules these are) which are being used in their other new mentioned equipment(people have the right to disagree on this if they want). Pika-m radars offer a 300km range for the su-34 side radars and according to the source this company is working on a 5th gen version which for all we know can go replace the current side radars on the SU-57. They are also are working on newer engines.

Wait for the MAKS 2019 airshow they might have some decent aviation revelations. However the only thing so far that I am looking forward to that was promised back in 2017 was visitors flying VTOL cars that can also travel on water.

I keep on hearing about stories like this all the time in Britain. Is the EU still imposing migrants to go to Britain. I heard Merkel is cutting down on numbers. If Britain is still on the remain side and brexit is ignored will their country by any chance cut down on migration like Merkel or no?

@moonlight
“Fire and forget is the mode of any missile with terminal seeker. It do not mean what you said it does”

https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit…ssia/aa-12.htm

“Operating modes of 9B-1348E are: active mode, fully autonomous (active) in the initial parameters of target designation without radar support for other radars in flight (“let-forget”), using only preliminary target designation, without radar support in flight; the inertial guidance mode with radio correction from the radar stations of the carrier aircraft and active guidance on the final phase of the flight. “

” a missile isn’t a warhead but a whole SRBM do not have 0.0002 m2 radar reflection”

I do not recall adding an extra zero.

“SRBM is big and they don’t have the stealth shape or radar absorbing material.”

Sure they are big but not as big in surface reflection than an F-35.

If you are looking directly at the face of the missile and the face of the F-35 which of these has the most surface area exposed from the front(not talking about stealth material absorption). Although I do not know if I have bad eyes or if there is any F-35 fan here browsing the sh!t we post. But I have the feeling that the pointy nose cone of the F-35 alone will be the entire front view size of the nose cone of a SRBM with its 1 meter diameter if we are talking about a face to face view only(f-22 .0001m2 was referenced from the front only). I am not even talking about the cockpit, wing, and air intakes since the SRBM from the front absolutely has none of those features(just the face of the nose and fins but that’s about it) adding additional surface area to be reflected. Also regarding your image is that a medium range air to air missile? I refuse to believe that it has a -10 decibel front view if a non-stealth aircraft like the F-16 has a smaller RCS return on its front view.

“b) As long as jamming work, staying in or outside radar field of view is the same”

yes if EO DAS exceeds the tracking range than what the K-77m has.

“unless DAS detection range is 100 meters, it will detect K-77M ,R-37 long before they can have a glim of F-35”

3.749kms was the tracking range for a .0001m2 target, 50% probability detection is even further than that. Start jamming than that will just make life easier for the missile heading your way unless you detected the missiles presence before the missile detected your presence and launching your decoy. There is something that we both have overlooked and besides EO DAS, RWRs can be used. Most of the K-77Ms guidance trip is done from the SU-57s radar and the missile only receives updates from the SU-57. The missile for the most of its flight would get radar updates from the SU-57 while just using passive guidance for the rest of the flight by not emitting any RF waves to the F-35 than turn its radar on when necessary. The missile can also get passive guidance from the SU-57s RWRs as an additional option. Meaning any added jamming source can be ignored for the missile

“the missile can’t continue to go after F-35 once the decoy actived because the noise level will be too high for the seeker to find a stealth target”

Which is why I said we need stealthflanker or garrya for this. The very small decoy can supress the RF waves of the k-77m but how much will it effect its detection probabality and tracking range?

[USER=”20936″]SpudmanWP[/USER] ”

In that way an inbound AAM will be be lured away from it’s target by an F-35 that is outside of it’s engagement envelope.”

https://www.globalsecurity.org/milit…ssia/aa-12.htm “The RVV-AE medium-range air-to-air guided missile is designed to engage air targets, such as fighters, bombers, attack aircraft, helicopters, military transports, and cruise missiles, at all aspects against ground and water surface, by day and night, in conditions of enemy electronic countermeasures, including a multichannel “fire-and-forget” mode. The missile is guided with an inertial/radio-corrected navigation system in the initial flight phase, and an active radar homing head in the terminal phase. It is powered with a one-mode solid-fuel rocket engine. “

I know where your going with your explanation by having 2 sources being 2 f-35s confuse the air to air missile. But these missiles have computers on them one example they give is in condition of enemy electronic countermeasures(like jamming) there is a fire and forget mode pretty much saying I will ignore the other source and just go for that source instead.

@moonlight

”

but I can assure you they are referring to the re entry warhead because that when the warhead is tracked.” You can insist on doing so but a missile is a missile and a warhead is a warhead. I assure you that a SRBM in the air in comparison to an F-22 will have a whole lot less surface to reflect from but thanks to stealth material absorption the F-22 was said to have a lower RCS.

“the scan sector is not the size of the radar beam. What you found is the field of view of the radar rather than the beam size.” Same 120 degrees, distance of tracking a low RCS target than using that distance to see how far the radar beam can stretch left to right. That radar view is something you would not want to be in regardless or it will track you however you call it.

“there is no requirement for APG-81 to be at the same level as the decoy because unless the kind of jamming used is a very simple amplify repeater such as on ALE-50 in that case the seeker see another target pop up and can be programmed to hit the first one. But with any other kind of jamming : barrage noise, RGPO, VGPO, Cross eye, cross polarization, cover pulse then the seeker of missile won’t be able to track the location of F-35,”

You have to remember that the missile is considered dual mode. The missile will rely on its own radar than as the next option use passive guidance to find the emitting source….Which is why I am repeating myself a bunch of times already to you is what distance does EO DAS see the missile 1st before the missile sees the F-35. If the F-35 does see the missile before the missile is able to either detect or track its location than sending a decoy with the proposed jamming will be able to fool the missile. If the missile is already in the range of detecting or tracking the F-35 1st before the F-35 can track it with EO DAS “than sends the decoy” the missile will more than likely ignore that decoy and focus intently what it detected or tracked on its radar.

“If the decoy is jamming and F-35 is not jamming, the missile can’t be programmed to go after the non jamming F-35 because it can’t find the non jamming F-35.”

dual mode is a b!tch. However no one knows the actual RCS of the F-35 or if the missile is approaching the sides of the aircraft offering a high RCS return(thus an even farther tracking range than estimated 3.749kms). The missile will go after the non jamming F-35 “only” if its within the missiles own host radar capabilities of either detecting or tracking the F-35.

“We know for sure that EODAS can track K-77M and R-37 from distance notably further than K-77M, R-37 can track F-35 with ECM.”

So whats the range of EO DAS? If the radar of the missile tracks the F-35 it will focus on the F-35, if the F-35 uses EW while the missile tracked it than it will use passive and active homing, if the radar of the missile tracks the F-35 and the F-35 releases a decoy to start jamming it will than just focus on the F-35 because the computer inside the missile is programmed to use fire and forget to just go after the F-35 because the F-35 made itself look very obvious to the missiles radar that it released a decoy and it will just ignore the decoy and go after the F-35………However if EO DAS has a farther detection and tracking range to quickly identify the missile and release the decoy before the missile is able to know its location than it will more than likely go after the decoy. But how far do these decoys go if released?

Do not get me wrong I am not doubting capabilities of the F-35 but there is not just enough information for me to draw a conclusion but I do know that the countermeasures for the F-35 are there if air to air missiles have approached it.