Anti-Radiation? Such thing doesn’t exist for A-A missiles, and won’t due to space constraints and the need of specialized equipment for this task.
This actually isn’t true.
Google the R-27EP… it doesn’t appear to have ever been put into wide service but an air to air anti-radiation missile was once in production. (probably intended for use against SARH shooters)
There was also work ongoing at one time to develop an anti-radiation seeker for the AMRAAM.
The US Air Force is developing a secondary passive anti-radiation seeker for the Raytheon AIM-120 Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM).
The Passive Adjunct Seeker Antenna project is led by the USAF’s Wright Laboratories Armament Directorate. A demonstration of the passive seeker antenna has already been carried out, says the USAF research organisation.
A passive adjunct seeker would provide the AMRAAM with a dual-mode capability. At present, the AIM-120 relies on its active radar seeker for final target acquisition and terminal guidance.
A secondary seeker would allow for the passively guided launch of an AIM-120 against a target aircraft when the latter’s air-intercept radar is emitting. Such an engagement would not require the launch aircraft to use its own radar, with the AMRAAM’s passive seeker homing on the radio frequency energy from the target radar. Were the target aircraft’s radar to be turned off, then the AMRAAM could revert to the active seeker to relocate it.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-air-force-works-on-passive-amraam-34141/
That doesn’t mean non-stealthy aircraft are completely defensless againist F-35, but its not simple as that. For example flying very low and fast non-VLO aircraft can mitigate stealth advantage to a degree because;
1- Even the most modern radar will operate reduced effectiveness againist ground clutter, and in theory low power modes will be affected more. However slight the difference maybe, it will delay detection/tracking range and make tracking unreliable when aircraft moves in and out of radar shadows of ground objects. It will also put F-35, in unobstructed view againist clear sky, and provide slightly higher FOV to increase detection range.
This would be suicide, it is true that flying low would likely reduce the range at which the older fighter would be detected, but the F-35 would retain a huge detection range advantage. Meanwhile, such low flight would wreck the fighter’s range, endurance, and ensure that any shot it did take would be both up hill and flying through the thickest part of the atmosphere.
2- When BVR missiles are fired to very low flying objects, they have very short range, even if they are fired from higher altitude; ~20 km head on range for AIM-120B, againist non-maneuvering target for example. This will force stealth aircraft into IRST range, and missiles like MICA-IR and R-27TE can be used quite effectively.
See above.
3-Low flying aircraft can turn very well due to increased lift, and turbofan engines are at their peak power to regain energy after hard turns. As missiles are too fast, they are already G limited to benefit from increased lift, and increased drag at low altitude will heavily degrade their terminal Pk. So evasion of missiles (by maneuvering) at low altitude is easier than that of high altitude.
Flying low would ensure that the aircraft was going at most slightly above M1, and while it could sustain high-G maneuvers better, it wouldn’t be able to open up distance effectively.
There are a whole list of reasons fighters want to stay high if they anticipate going into an air to air engagement. Intentionally going into such a fight at low altitude would be a very very poor decision.
Sign In
