dark light

Hotshot

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 481 through 495 (of 1,028 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2170804
    Hotshot
    Participant

    The fact that the Russians and Chinese are both heavily investing in LO fighter types is also instructive.

    I am not against stealth, for sure it increases survivability, but against a very modern IADS it might not be enough. Even during GW1 the F-117s were sometimes helped by EF-111s.

    Also the enemy would certainly use anti-stealth tactics using all sorts of sensors integrated via high bandwidth datalink. For instance IRSTs on the ground can triangulate the position of the F-35s to enable a missile shot, or a ground AESA radar can be turned on only when in range to get quick targeting data for a missile shot. It is not as if standard radars were completely useless against stealth. And the APG-81 can do its jamming trick only in the front sector. Anyways you can be sure the Russians and Chinese are developing ( and have already developped ) that kind of tactics. And for sure those who are in charge of sending the F-35 against an advanced IADS would not have the attitude of fanboys.

    2018 is less than 20 months away. As for long range weapons, the F-35 will have both the SDB I (110 km) and JSOW (130km) available with the Blk 3F. JSOW-ER (500 km+) too is available as an option.

    110 km sounds a bit exagerated for the SDB1, except if it is launched from an F-22. Usually the range given is more like 70 km. The JSOW has more range but can be easily shot down. You can bet the enemy defenses would try to protect their anti stealth radars with short range SAMs. Also the F-22/F-35 cannot get sufficiently precise coordinates for a GPS weapon at that kind of range. What would be needed is at least a anti radar seeker coupled with terminal seeker. Or at least the SDB2. The F-35 could drop like 4 SDB2s from over 100km in a search box and hopefully one will find the radar. Even at that the SDB2 doesn’t have anywhere near enough range for long range surveillance radars. Even against an S400 or S500 it might be too short ranged, depending on how effective the APG-81 jamming is against it.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2170850
    Hotshot
    Participant

    You do realize that is the same article loke posted from national interest. The veracity of the “analysis” interjected by Osborn in between the quotes from Winston about the NGJ are questionable. If you notice, none of the quotes from the actual EW officer or Raytheon official support Osborn stating that “modern air defenses, such as the Russian-made S-300 and multi-function S-400 surface-to-air missiles, will increasingly be able to detect stealth aircraft at longer distances and on a wider range of frequencies”

    Notice the “will” in that. There is no doubt that advances in powerful digital processors increase the accuracy and offer clutter reduction in low frequency radars. They most certainly can, in ideal conditions, detect LO aircraft from tactically significant distances (and track at longer ranges than mid-band).
    The one trillion dollar question is how consistently can the track (in hostile EW conditions, less than idea atmospheric conditions) and direct targeting radars against LO targets.

    While some act like low frequency radar utility for detecting low RCS targets is new, there were scholarly papers published in the 1980’s. The USAF studied the issue (and that’s all they will say). Yet from the F-22, to the SH, F-35, B-21, various drones…. they continue to invest in LO airframes. A discerning mind would conclude that low frequency radars, systems like the s-300 that uses arrays operating in several different frequency bands, are not a panacea. While the days of operating “stealth” aircraft unprotected and unsupported over hostile territory may very well be over, I do believe we have a few more decades before radio/micro wave LO is completely obsolete.

    Well it seems to me it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the Russians and Chinese will do everything they can to detect stealth planes. The F-35 is hardly in service and won’t have significant capabilities before 2018 at best ( even at that it won’t have long range weapons before many years later ) , and will remain in service for 50 years. Compare a new radar with a radar that was built 25 or 50 years ago and tell me radar technology doesn’t evolve. Same for IRSTs. The Russians have been working on the problem for decades, it is not as if they had suddenly discovered that US stealth planes exist. That’s why the Navy continues to invest in growlers and NGJs.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2170852
    Hotshot
    Participant

    I don’t think he realises that a F-22 employing stand off weapons is a kinematic monster. I would be deadly in some circumstances even with out stealth. Also arnt the B-21 and B-2 stealthy in the L- band?

    Oh so now you’re trying to make a point with the F-22 aerodynamic monster, what happened to the F-35? Most air forces will have to make do with F-35s.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2171052
    Hotshot
    Participant

    Do you mean L-band? Why would I try and Jam the L- band when I can jamm the Fire control radar? Survalience radars cant achieve accurate firing solutions. They will only be able to vector fighters. If I want to spoof the Survalience radar Id use a MALD.
    But we all know this we have done this dance before. I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT 5TH GEN PLANES AND TACTICS ONLY WORK IF YOUR COUNTRY IS BUILDING THEM.

    Here’s an article on the subject.

    If your radars enable you to know the approximate location of the stealth planes, obviously you send your own fighters to intercept them, included stealthy ones if you have some, you spread your fighters in a way that enable them to detect the stealth planes with their IRSTs. All the defense fighters are datalinked so as soon as one detects the incoming F-35s the other fighters rush in to intercept them too.

    It is also possible to launch a bunch of SAMs in the general direction of the incoming planes and have them cover the volume of sky.

    It would be MUCH BETTER for the attacking stealth planes to remain undetected. They can attack at low altitude and launch long range missiles carried internally ( like JSMs or AARGM-ERs ) to extend their range.

    in reply to: F-35 News and discussion (2016) take III #2171153
    Hotshot
    Participant

    http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/revealed-the-us-navys-new-1-billion-electronic-war-attack-16025

    The F-35 will perhaps be easier to detect in the not-to-distant future than some F-35 fanboys want us to believe?

    And the APG-81 cannot jam surveillance radars. It will either have to enter at low altitude or it will need some help from aircraft with NGJs.

    in reply to: Frankenplane Prototypes #2174014
    Hotshot
    Participant

    [HR][/HR]

    Could one of our artists here tackle a F16D-XL block 52, with spine, CFTs & some nice colours (Israeli, UAE, polish, Greek…).

    Nic

    I’d also like to see designs that would have a real utility. That would be more fun.

    Regarding the XL with CFTs, the CFTs would sort of defeat the aerodynamics in transsonic and supersonic I believe. I think it would need an F119 to supercruise. But from what I know the F119 could fit in the engine bays of the F-15, so maybe it could fit in the engine bay of an F-16. Combined with 4 semi recessed meteors and wingtip AMRAAMs it would be impressive. I would have liked to see something like that for Canada.

    in reply to: Electronic attack against ground hardware #2176223
    Hotshot
    Participant

    Ok, it’s clear now, thanks for the explanation. Why then does the director of fighter business development for NG say it can cause physical damage to a system? This guy certainly knows what he is talking about, and I don’t see why he would say that if it had no practical utility.

    in reply to: Electronic attack against ground hardware #2176385
    Hotshot
    Participant

    Gain describe how narrow a radar beam is
    Radar Basic

    I don’t see where he takes into account that it is a beam. There should be another parameter in the equation for the narrowness of the beam. ( instead of 4pi^2 I think )

    in reply to: Electronic attack against ground hardware #2176419
    Hotshot
    Participant

    Where do you take into account that the AESA emits like a beam? The energy receive might be 100 or 10000 times larger, hard to say given the fact that we don’t know how narrow the beam is.

    in reply to: Electronic attack against ground hardware #2176646
    Hotshot
    Participant

    Didn’t Boeing made a HPM weapons that can be carried by JASSM airframe?
    http://mil-embedded.com/news/raytheon-emp-missile-tested-by-boeing-usaf-research-lab/

    On the AGM-86.

    in reply to: Electronic attack against ground hardware #2176655
    Hotshot
    Participant

    It make a difference if the target is stealthy, jamming techniques is very important too.
    https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/electronic-countermeasure-ecm/

    A stealth aircraft can better exploit the jamming capability for sure. I don’t know if it can make an EA or jam and guide a missile at the same time. Possibly yes, given that the missile needs only updates on the targets at regular interval, and not continuesly.

    I don’t know if an APG-77 or 81 could jam or damage a russian tank APS radar for instance. It might be able to do it.

    in reply to: Electronic attack against ground hardware #2176685
    Hotshot
    Participant

    No. The EA Mode in both radars are basically jamming, probably deception one. Not HPM.

    The answer is no.

    For range however you can make basic calculations based on power density. to determine how much power received by target at range. You can look at Filippo Neri’s “Introduction to Electronic Defense” 2nd Edition. for the calculation method.

    I am not so sure about that, check this article that was originaly on defensenews.com:

    Posted 05/30/05 15:24
    By MICHAEL FABEY
    DefenseNews.com

    The radar mounted on the F/A-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) can be used to fry electronic parts of ground-based radars and disable airborne cruise missiles, program officials for the planes acknowledge.

    U.S. Air Force officials and contractors have longed bragged about the active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, citing its ability to track multiple targets, map terrain and protect planes from attack. And there have been hints of offensive capability, like a brief mention of “high power electronic attack” on one of the JSF’s glossy marketing brochures.

    But contractors say they have not publicly talked about the capability — until now.

    “It could cause actual physical damage to a system … providing it’s on the X-band,” a common frequency for military radars, said Wayne Wilson, the director of fighter business development for Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems.

    The radars — the AN/APG-77 for the Raptor and the more advanced AN/APG-81 intended for the JSF — emit electromagnetic emissions that could be used to damage or disrupt guidance components in cruise missiles, Wilson said. Other sources said the radar also can help deflect air-to-air missiles.

    It’s been a given that pilots could use the radar to track the missiles, or other aircraft, in order to attack them with their own air-to-air weapons. But, military analysts say, it’s the offensive possibilities that make the sensor-turned-weapon a much more powerful tool.

    They say the Air Force could fly a “wall” of Raptors or JSFs through an area to knock out enemy radars, sweeping a battle zone clean of many threats to aircraft and ground forces.

    The revelation comes as Air Force officials work to convince Pentagon officials to allow them to buy more of the stealthy, supersonic Raptors. Service officials want more than 400 of the jets, but Pentagon officials decided to cap the program at about 180.

    AESA Advance

    Mounted in an aircraft’s nose, the AESA radar is an active array of more than 1,000 modules, each with its own transmitter and receiver, phase shifter and amplifier. It’s almost like having a thousand small radars in one honeycombed dome.

    Onboard computers can delegate the modules to perform separate tasks, so that the radar can simultaneously track enemy aircraft, search for more, and check out the ground ahead. In the Raptor, the modules are arranged in three groups — one pointing forward, one to the left and one to the right — giving the pilot a wide field of vision.

    Northrop’s AESA radar was originally designed for the Raptor, then tweaked for the JSF. Now company engineers have created a new version of the Raptor’s AN/APG-77 by adapting design elements of the JSF’s AN/APG-81 and the AN/APG-80, which flies aboard Lockheed Martin F-16 Block 60 fighters. The new variant is intended to cost less to produce and maintain.

    “We’re taking the improvements we’re making on the Joint Strike Fighter and pushing them back on the Raptor,” Wilson said.

    Northrop Grumman produces the Raptor’s radar under contract to Boeing’s Integrated Defense Systems unit, which is integrating the avionics for the F/A-22 program, led by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. Raytheon Systems of McKinney, Texas, is a joint-venture partner on the radar.

    The JSF radar passed a key milestone May 23 by detecting airborne targets at a Northrop Grumman laboratory. Two days later, Northrop Grumman delivered a new AESA radar version for the Raptor to give the plane better air-to-ground combat capability.

    The way the Raptor’s radar antenna is integrated physically and electromagnetically with the airframe helps provide a much larger transmission bandwidth for the radar, using less power, according to GlobalSecurity.org, a defense consultancy.

    The book “Advanced Tactical Fighter to F-22 Raptor: Origins of the 21st Century Air Dominance Fighter” called the radar improvements “dramatic,” especially in areas of performance, reliability and versatility. Written by a trio of authors including Albert Piccirillo, the Air Force’s advanced tactical fighter program manager from 1983 to 1987, the book said the active array capability would “undoubtedly lead to a variety of novel operations and quantum enhancements in electronic countermeasures.”

    There are other planes that use phased array radar — which use multiple electronically controlled beams and frequencies — but they have one transmitter and receiver for the whole radar.

    A different AESA radar will fly aboard the newest batches of the U.S. Navy’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters, which are being fitted with the AN/APG-79 developed by Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems, El Segundo, Calif. •

    The radar emits a narrow beam, and the closer the Aircraft is to the target the more EM power it will receive.

    in reply to: Electronic attack against ground hardware #2177225
    Hotshot
    Participant

    The APG-77 and 81 can make EAs. There’s supposed to be able to damage enemy aircraft electronics. But the enemy aircraft might absorb a lot of energy through its antenna.

    As for the range, that’s what I am wondering. If the stealth aircraft comes in at very low altitude using the terrain and suddenly pops up above a enemy column of vehicles. What would happened if it did a fast EA from close? Could it rapidly Attack all the vehicles? It could damage the enemy AD systems at the same time.

    Of it’s not stealthy it’s pretty much the same in fact.

    in reply to: RuAF News and development Thread part 15 #2177229
    Hotshot
    Participant

    The LCS is gonna get the longbow hellfire.

    in reply to: Impressive Weapons Load 2 (again) #2178260
    Hotshot
    Participant

    F-15C carrying 8 AAMs – on one side. Never seen a C model with type 4 CFTs and those new racks. The photo doesn’t seem to be a fake.

    [ATTACH=CONFIG]245101[/ATTACH]

    Maybe they’re trying to convert the F-15Cs to arsenal planes for the F-22s. Wouldn’t be a bad idea.

Viewing 15 posts - 481 through 495 (of 1,028 total)