The Air Force also sees lasers as multi-purpose offensive/defensive weapons that can fire in a low-power mode for self-defense, then dial up to a non-lethal offensive mode — burning out sensors or engines, for example — or all the way to “kill.”

“I used to think offensive first and foremost,” Heithold said. But after talking to industry about the art of the possible, he went on, he came to realize that “a single laser can be defensive and offensive,” depending on the power applied.

“Directed energy can be used against weapons coming at us but also used to go after the shooter,” Harris said. Near-term lasers may not have the raw power to blow an enemy aircraft out of the sky, but they could burn out its radar and other electronics.

“It is possible in the near term to develop and field the next generation of laser defenses that will burn out, not just blind, sensors on SAMs [surface-to-air missiles] and air-to-air-missiles,” said Gunzinger, a former Air Force pilot now at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, which co-sponsored the conference. In fact, lasers would be especially effective against the most advanced missiles, those with sensitive multi-mode sensors. “Within the next five years,” he told me, “we could have 150-plus kW lasers on aircraft, [starting] on gunships and bombers.”

The Air Force, however, is focused on fighters. That’s a tighter fit than gunships or bombers, so the Air Force Research Laboratory has a relatively cautious three-phase plan, AFRL commander Maj. Gen. Thomas Masiello said at the conference:

A defensive system with “tens of kilowatts” of power called SHIELD, the Self-protected HIgh-Energy Laser Demonstration. It will be demonstrated circa 2020.
A longer-range defensive system with 100 kilowatts of power, to be demonstrated in 2022.
A 300-kilowatt offensive system capable of destroying enemy aircraft and ground targets at long range.

All these systems will be weapons pods or other external add-ons to existing aircraft, not “fully integrated” inside the airframe like a gun or radar, Masiello cautioned. That means radar-evading aircraft like the F-35 or F-22 couldn’t use them without sacrificing stealth. “We’re talking decades to have some sort of a 300-kw laser possibly integrated into a fighter,” he said.

http://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/air-force-moves-aggressively-on-lasers/

This really would basically redefine air combat. Hardening a missile to resist a powerful laser would be extremely difficult. Consider that the missile must keep its nose pointed at the target more or less throughout the engagement, and do so even as the range decreases to zero. (letting the laser focus its work on one specific part of the missile) Next consider that the nose of the missile must allow the seeker to function, you can’t just build it out of any material you like, whatever it is must transmit some part of the EM spectrum well. You also don’t want to put a lot of weight right at the nose of a missile for fairly obvious reasons…

Also, the author is wrong about adding pods wrecking the F-35’s stealth. The F-35 was designed from the start to use a stealthy centerline pod.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]239780[/ATTACH]

if they pick EF, its proof Rafale is seriously overpriced,
for how else could the total cost of EF be significantly less than Rafale ?

If they pick either they haven’t learned their lesson. Neither aircraft is affordable, the most recent offer for 36 Rafales proves that… even without local production.

F-35B Declares IOC

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/u.s.-marine-corps-declares-the-f-35b-operational

A big day indeed.

did you miss out @sintra story how Portugal AF was sent to intercept an unknown plane when Air Force 1 was incoming ?
it turns out their interceptors was too slow, by the time they reached interception point,
the unknown plane was gone, and the US president had already landed

So? How much did they miss it by? Seconds?

Would some other fighter have made a difference?

Mine apology, allow rectification.

You were making claim that APG-81 jamming will allow suppression of the nearest peers, I made assume that you meant peer like Russian IADS.

I was explaining the concept of stand-off jamming and its difficulties, I hoped you would see the overestimate of APG-81 radar, and how ungainly it is to use jamming against world-level enemy.

You made claim that the ability is unique to F-35, it is not.

Is it clear now?

@mig31bm, I hope you realize that average RCS for F-35 is significantly greater that what you write as in your post.

It is the USAF that described the simulated opposition in that exercise as a “near peer.”

I don’t think this is likely to be a productive exchange.

o
Yes, I am asking how do you know because there is nothing like that written there.

That is why it helps to have read other widely available material. 😀

There is no mention about the EA capabilities of the APG-81, whatsoever. And even less is there a mention about hi-power EA jamming. The APG-81 has some ~1,450 TRMs, rated 10-12W each, the total power output is some 14-16kW, what high power are we talking about, at all? The old ALQ-99 has almost 11kW dedicated to jamming alone. Is that the device intended to fry enemy radars at dozens of kilometers? Don’t be silly. The article doesn’t mention anything of the sort.

It doesn’t need to specifically say it was the APG-81. That is what the F-35 uses for its jamming. If an article said a Rafale jammed a radar would you bicker because it didn’t say specifically that it was its Spectra self protection jammer?

So you are saying by your own calculation that the APG-81 has significantly more power than a dedicated stand-off jammer? …and who said anything about “frying” enemy radars. We are talking about “suppressing” them.

If you would like to start educating yourself on the APG-81’s jamming capabilities you might look at some of the numerous articles that have come out about it over the years:

2009:

The F-35s APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar was integrated in the exercise when it was mounted on the front of a BAC 1-11, a Northrop Grumman test aircraft. The APG-81 test event represents a major milestone in protection testing in an operationally representative environment, accomplished years ahead of normal developmental timelines.

The airborne tests of Northrop Grumman’s APG-81 radar validates years of laboratory testing versus a wide array of threat systems, showcasing the extremely robust electronic warfare capabilities of the world’s most advanced fighter fire control radar.

http://www.jber.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123156090

2011:

A return participant, the AN/APG-81 AESA demonstrated robust electronic protection, electronic attack, passive maritime and experimental modes, and data-linked air and surface tracks to improve legacy fighter situational awareness. It also searched the entire 50,000 square-mile Gulf of Alaska operating area for surface vessels, and accurately detected and tracked them in minimal time.

http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/112953/continued-testing-of-f-35-jsf-sensors-a-success-at-northern-edge-2011.aspx

Advanced electronic warfare capabilities enable the F-35 to locate and track enemy forces, jam radio frequencies and disrupt attacks with unparalleled precision. All three variants of the F-35 carry active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars with sophisticated electronic attack capabilities, including false targets, network attack, advanced jamming and algorithm-packed data streams. This system allows the F-35 to reach well-defended targets and suppress enemy radars that threaten the F-35.

While F-35 is capable of stand-off jamming for other aircraft — providing 10 times the effective radiated power of any legacy fighter — F-35s can also operate in closer proximity to the threat (‘stand-in’) to provide jamming power many multiples that of any legacy fighter.

…

Advanced electronic warfare capabilities enable the F-35 to locate and track enemy forces, jam radars and disrupt attacks with unparalleled effectiveness. All three variants of the F-35 carry AESA radars with sophisticated electronic attack capabilities, including network attack and advanced jamming techniques. This system allows the F-35 to reach well-defended targets and suppress enemy radars, all without the need for dedicated electronic attack aircraft support.

https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities/electronicwarfare

Starting to get it yet? Maybe a little? :confused:

Guess what, it wasn’t. The IOC of the Rafale F1 was rushed by Marine Nationale which had to get rid of their F-8Ps at the time, leaving only upgraded Super Etendards in the MN fixed wing inventory. And since the SuEs were designed for anti-ship and strike roles, there was no need to add that capability to early Rafales.

At the same time, Air Force was less interested in the Rafale as a pure A-A asset as they had Mirage 2000s to depend on. That is why they inducted the bird years later in the F2 config. It’s all clear and quite logical, wonder what your problem is.

So you don’t remember FAF Rafales dropping bombs over Afghanistan needed help to do so?

Originally from Janes but reproduced at link:

To cut development time, it was decided not to equip the Rafale with a laser designation pod. Instead, the aircrews will have to rely on buddy-lasing, with Mirages or Super Etendards co-operatively holding a laser spot on a target so it can be struck by weapons dropped from the Rafale.

Alternatively, a forward air controller on the ground or a suitably trained special forces commando would be able to designate targets for the Rafales.

Afghanistan deployment

A total of six navy and air force Rafale Standard F2 deployed to Afghanistan in mid-March 2007 – the three French Air Force two-seat fighters flying to Dushanbe in Tajikistan, while the three French Navy single-seat aircraft joined the Charles de Gaulle carrier air group at Djibouti – bringing the overall number of Rafales in the area to 15, including the nine Standard F1 aircraft used for air-defence and buddy-buddy refuelling missions from the French Navy flagship.

The first GBU-12 firings were carried out by a navy Rafale on 28 March, when two bombs were delivered in support of Dutch troops on the ground. The laser illumination was provided by a Super Etendard Modernise. Two days later, a French Air Force Rafale working in conjunction with a Mirage 2000D dropped a GBU-12 for the first time while providing fire support to NATO ground forces.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1183844042/another+Rafale%27s+thread%28%C3%A0+la+TMor%29

There is no high gain EA with the F-35. There is simply EA, surely quite advanced once developed complete. But the idea of the F-35s flying around and using its 15kW power to cancel all radars in the vicinity while staying completely unaffected by megawatt-class ground-based radars doing the same, do you realize how dumb that sounds?

Really? And how have you discovered this interesting fact while apparently learning nothing else at all about the F-35’s EA capabilities?

With the F-35, high gain EA missions can be executed by multiple nations with their indigenous capability.

https://www.japcc.org/f-35-the-backbone-of-next-generation-nato-operations/

:stupid:

And you know that how? From the remark “suppressing those radars via its advanced electronic warfare capabilities”? In my books that translates into ability to use a jammer, nothing less, nothing more.. Congratulations, I am glad that the bird starts kicking, but you can spare us that “league of its own” and “no one else can do this” garbage.. This BS surrounding every single thing the pig does is exactly the reason why people get fed up with the F-35 even before it has entered service..

How do I know? :rolleyes:

Maybe if you spent half as much time reading about the F-35 as you don’t cluelessly trashing it you wouldn’t have to ask that.

The F-35’s EA capability is through its APG-81 AESA radar. So while it is fair to say that the F-35 used a “jammer” a more informed reader would understand that the APG-81 offers an exceptionally high power and high gain jamming capability… enabling stand-off jamming.

Of course this is also exactly what the article is describing when it says: “locating adversary surface-to-air missile radars and suppressing those radars via its advanced electronic warfare capabilities.”

This is very different from the self protection jammer operational on other fighters which are only designed to protect a specific aircraft or at most a specific flight of aircraft.

Rafale /EF were not meant to use smart bombs at or near their IOC, in the first place. Both entered service in A-A optimized version (Tranche 1, Rafale M F1) with forces sufficiently equipped with mud movers (Tornado for RAF/AMI/LW, Hornet for EdA, SuE for MN) but lacking modern A-A assets at the same time (Tornado F3 for RAF/AMI, F-4F ICE for LW, Mirage F1M for EdA, F-8P for MN). I understand that you’re desperately looking for some points to score with your pet aircraft but next time at least choose a feature which is really important to anyone.

Oh, so the “omnirole” Rafale wasn’t intended to use smart bombs near its IOC? Do you find it a little odd that a fighter that wasn’t “intended” to use smart bombs was deployed multiple times to war zones to drop smart bombs… with the assistance of older aircraft. 😎

How about the missing datalink? Was the Rafale just not “intended” to have a datalink? :confused:

There is absolutely nothing in that article which would even remotely point out at things no one else can’t do. Wishful thinking..?

Actually, the high gain EA is a perfect example of something the F-35’s competitors can’t do. Read up on it sometime, you might find it interesting.

Of course the F-35’s stealthy airframe is another capability none of its competitors can approach…