[USER=”77292″]LMFS[/USER]

was referring mainly to AMRAAM, speed 4 M with range well below 200 km, of which only four can be carried internally. Meteor is also 4 M apparently

AIM-120D is said to reach 185 km, though obvious it depend on exact condition , as with all missile, but it should be competitive with most missile like Mica, R-77, RVV-SD, PL-15 , R-27
Meteor is ramjet, so wwhile it top speed might not be as fast as solid rocket fuel missile, it will retain that speed for far longer period
Also in they are currently working to increase the internal A2A missile load of F-35 from 4 to 6, there have been many articles about that

have not looked the other missile, is it planed for USAF?

UK will use Meteor (ramjet missile)
Japan will use JNAAM (ramjet missile with AESA seeker)
US will use LREW

The configuration with 14 missiles was not approved yet AFAIK, maybe I am not up to date?

Not that it can’t be approved or it is hard to do, but rather that it not high in the priority list compared to internal configuration or A2G configuration so they will flight test others configuration first, but eventually it will get tested, dual rack is very common and had been here since Vietnam war, F-4 had them, F-18 had them, F-15 had them..etc. Argue that F-35 will never able to carry 14 missiles because it hasn’t done the separation test yet is like saying Su-57 will never launch RVV-sd because it hasn’t done so.

Regarding the interception of missile carriers, actually i don’t know how USAF plans to counter them. Of course planes like Tu-160 would try to launch while stand-off, with their range and speed plus range, number and flight altitude of the missiles themselves the payload could spread over literally millions of square kilometers, rather than following carrier and missiles the same predictable path. The missiles themselves would be difficult to detect and the latter you intercept them, the bigger the chance to have leakers. So i would suppose you would really want to catch the carrrier asap (and hence require a long range, high speed interceptor like a MiG-31 fielded as close to Russia as possible) rather than having to search for missiles over big areas, maybe you have more info on the actual approach to counter that threat?

Given that Kh-101/102 was advertised to reach 3000-4000 km ( some source even go as high as 10.000 km) then frankly, not even Mig-31 can intercept these carriers before they can launch their missiles because Mig-31 combat radius at Mach 0.8 is 1450 km and at Mach 2.32 is barely 720 km. That just not enough when your opponent can launch missiles from 3000-4000 km away.

Load / range / speed of the carried missiles is relatively low.

I don’t think range/speed of something like Meteor or JNAAM gonna be low.
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t96fc0adfab7e05285372222c4c20c683.jpeg Views:t1 Size:t78.3 KB ID:t3846459″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3846459″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH][ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:”Click image for larger version Name:t1fbdaa63.jpeg Views:t1 Size:t114.4 KB ID:t3846460″,”data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3846460″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]
Load out is depend on mission requirement, not necessary low
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”large”,”data-attachmentid”:3846461}[/ATTACH]

How a 1.6 M F-35 would intercept a 2 M Tu-160 carrying 12 x Kh-101/102 is not that clear to me.

Not even Mig-31 gonna intercept these bombers since Kh-102 range was advertised to be around 3000-5000 km

[USER=”77826″]XB-70[/USER]

But what I’m getting at is that at a great enough distance, it may not matter. Every electronic device has a natural noise floor, and a signal has to be above that floor to be registered. The Rafale can register the pulses from a targeting radar at a greater distance than that from which the targeting aircraft can get a proper pulse – because it has to attenuate by 1/d^2 again. (The converse is also true though, and the capabilities of both aircraft’s RWRs would have to be assessed here. My point was only that it may not matter!) And, again, if it does show up for a mere display frame or two it likely won’t matter then either.

My point is because the pulse duration doesn’t get shorter if the ECCM function of adversary radar can use leading edge tracking against RGPO and RGPI, it should be able to do the same against active cancellation.

[USER=”77826″]XB-70[/USER]

But the French have a problem since they are trying to use *electronic warfare*. Electrons in a conductor travel very fast, but they do not travel at the speed of light. Thus, the electronic processing is not instantaneous. And thus you cannot use a full real time approach to achieve full cancellation (you would always be reacting to events with lag). But engineers know how to cheat!! A phase shift is the same thing as a time delay. To cancel the reflected signal all you have to do is calculate a good time to start emitting the exact same signal! The time you choose will be such that the two signals (reflected and yours) are 180 degrees out of phase and thus cancel one another. So their system simply needs to first analyze the incident radar signal and determine what it is, pull characteristics of it out of memory, and then do some final processing to account for attenuation of the reflected wave, doppler effect and such (the time needed for these calculations are also precalculated and used for the final phase shift). Then you start transmitting. A proper radar return is sent back while the upfront analysis is being done but after that – practically nothing. And if it shows up for a frame or two it won’t really matter.After the upfront work is done there won’t be any leading edges to trigger on

But then that method will require your jammer to have perfect information of enemy radar. Not just their waveform or operating frequency range, but also exactly what frequency it will hop to at time t+1 aka the frequency hopping sequences and also the PRF jittering sequences, so kinda similar to what i said earlier about radar with constant characteristic (the difference is instead you know that radar well enough to know exactly what it will do at a given moment in future)

The limitation i was talking about apply for all kind of transmitter, whether AESA or not.

defense aerospace is a site dedicated to bashing the F-35 (among probably others

Defense aerospace is a site which highly biased against F-35, while highly favor the Rafale, you can just took any article from there and compare them to article from more reputable source like Aviation week or Breaking defense.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/197892/claims-of-%E2%80%98game_changing%E2%80%99-f_35-data-fusion-debunked.html
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/184921/f_35-paris-flight-demo%3A-much-ado-about-nothing.html

[USER=”77826″]XB-70[/USER] Tomcat is referring to self protection jamming (normally deceptive jamming) which is quite different from support jamming (normally noise jamming).
it is not correct that all form of jamming use board area noise, there are several kind of jamming that need precise phase/frequency characteristic such as cross eye jamming,
[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-attachmentid”:”3845377″,”data-size”:”medium”}[/ATTACH]
cross polarization jamming. Common deceptive jamming like range gate pull off or velocity gate pull off or inverse conscan jamming also require you to know the operating frequency of target radars.
Moreover, you can’t make aircraft RCS become zero, not even with active cancellation, because there will be a delay from when adversary signal hit your airframe and when the jammer can produce a 180 degree out of phase wave, in other words, there is a part of the pulse that you can’t cancel.

[USER=”77826″]XB-70[/USER] Internal storage # totally clean configuration. Because your aircraft is still heavier even with internal load.
Carry weapon externally under wing generate more drag obviously, but it doesn’t really (noticeable)affect the amount of lift you can produce at the same speed (by contrast, if you mount weapons on top of the wing then we have a problem but that very rare to see that configuration).
Generally your maximum ceiling is dictated by your weight and the amount of lift you can produce. Whether you carry weapons outside or inside, your aircraft still get heavier, and service ceiling figure considered the situation your aircraft is extremely light (very low on fuel, almost no weapons) Technically you can say your aircraft can fly faster and generate more lift with internal load, because the drag is smaller, however at your service ceiling, you are more limited by engine and inlet performer than drag because the air will be extremely thin.
and just because you carry extended range weapon doesn’t neccesary mean you get to you them at extended range. Simple example would be IADS radar which remain silent most of the time and suddently turn on once in a while. So that why almost no one crusing at their service ceiling in combat, may be with the exception of the U-2

@paralay: That is incorrect, F-35 and F-22 can deploy weapons from their bay at maximum speed, Su-57 likely follow the same trend