[QUOTE]

The SAP-518 will even the odds no matter what you say.
And sinCe you seems to Down play them, pls tell me the SAP 518 limitations as a jamming system?

SAP-518 is some what similar to ALQ-211 AIDEWS or ALQ-184 on F-16 , it a good jammer ,no doubt ,however that doesn’t mean it will even the odd again stealth aircraft ( to even the odd mean it will negate all advantage of VLO characteristic , that cannot be further from the truth ):
firstly , we know F-35 can also jam enemy’s radar by APG-81 or ALE-70 so Su-35 isn’t the only one that can use it’s jammer
secondly , low RCS will give F-35 considerably advantage in jamming


not only that lower RCS reduce radar detection range and burn through distance , jamming power required will decrease in the same rate as RCS reduction ,50% reduction in RCS = 50% less power required to overwhelm real radar reflection with noise ( you can work it out for yourself , 99.9% reduction in RCS= 99.9% less power required to achieve same level of effectiveness , and so on )
Frontal arcs ( around 45-50 degree frontal )
1) su-35 : RCS = 10 m2
2) F-35 : RCS = 0.001 m2
so from su-35 to F-35 then RCS is reduced by 99.99%=>99.99% less jamming power require to achieve same effectiveness
which mean again a very powerful enemy radar : if F-35 need 5 kW jammer to shield it’s radar reflection with noise then Su-35 will needa 50 MW jammer , , you can argue that su-35 can carry more powerful jammer due to it’s bigger size but certainly Su-35’s jammer cant be that much more powerful than F-35 ( something like SPY-1 only have 1 MW transmitting power )

The Irbis has that low speed scan mode where it should be able to both track and lock the F-35 (assuming .1m^2 RCS and not absurd .01m^2 figures that exist only in fantasy land) at 90km’s absent jamming. That’s still BVR range. There are videos on youtube.

the 0.001 m2 figure isn’t a fantasy land figure at all , it have been demonstrated many times before
1) E-2 , E-3 wasnt able to detect F-22 in exercise
2 ) From their simulation ,BAE concluded that AWACs have to stay out of F-35’s 60 degree frontal arcs to be able to detect it
3 ) F-22 , F-35 have to carry luneberg lens so that massive ground surveillance radar can detect them

in fact i would doubt more about the range of irbis-e , it surpassed massive ground radar according to advertising figure

90km is BVR range. 105km range on AIM-120C5 gives the F-35 really a 15km edge in missile exchange. That’s a lot but does it really translate to 4 to 1 advantage?

detection range isn’t the same as tracking range

, and missiles range isn’t a fixed value either , it also depending on altitude , launch speed
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=43.0

That rule of thumb is from NATO for low RCS aircraft.

can you link the source?, that sounds like very weird rule though
For example :
if that rule is true then RCS of an aircraft will remain the same between 10 Ghz and 9 Ghz, but reduced at 9.5 Ghz?

or consider this : if you use 3 different frequency to measure a VLO aircraft’s RCS , these frequency are 10 Ghz, 9 Ghz, 8 Ghz

according to that rule : RCS at 10 Ghz is the same as 9 Ghz, RCS at 9 Ghz is the same as 8 Ghz. But from 10 Ghz to 8 Ghz RCS will change alot because 10-8 = 2, 2^2 = 4???
totally confusing

Maybe we should contract MSphere and Mig-31 to build our next plane.

err what? did you read my post jessmo?, iam not the one who say stealth doesn’t work

Page 28

your point ?

True, and in my favor.

i really dont see how it could be in your favor?
they clearly stated E-2, E-3 wasn’t able to detect F-22

:highly_amused::highly_amused::highly_amused::highly_amused::highly_amused::highly_amused::highly_amused::highly_amused::highly_amused::highly_amused:

Acquaint yourself with what low observable aircraft actually use to conceal their RCS and make them visible for air traffic controllers, or when intercepting an enemy.

luneburg lens is what they used

Yes indeed, and I can only wonder what difference elevation angle make, or actual real scenario…

1) that simulation was made by one of LM’s competitors, they wont be so stupid to not consider elevation if that can give them some advantage
2) consider that most fighter cruise at relative similar altitude ( not much than 10000 ft different ) , their elevation angle is only around 2-3 degree
also F-35 was designed to neutralise S-400 and other modern SAM, so iam pretty sure they take into account RCS in elevation
3) in real scenario : aka Northern exercise, E-2, E-3 wasn’t able to detect F-22, that is as real as you could get at the moment

2 billion dollars and 2 year delay.

to get a fallback capabilities, that a good to decision

A fall back capability they certainly fell back on.

1) B-2 still haven’t use the low flying capabilities in actually mission
2) also the reason for low flying is networking defense ( bi static radar, rather than B-2 isn’t stealthy enough again mono static radar )

I believe you meant bistatic radar, Mig-31BM.

yeah, fair enough, you got me there, typing error

-I am aware I am againist VLO targets, So I am flying at sea level, my radar is in high PRF at maximum volume scan, IRST on, and I am cruising at M0,9.

1 ) Radar have to wait for it’s pulse to reflected back , so high PRF actually reduced maximum detection range ( you will notice that CIWS’s radar often have much higher PRF than normal SAM fire control , surveillance radar )
2 ) the smaller, narrower the beam , the more power will be concentrated at the target place thus , using maximum wide beam searching isnt really a good idea if you want to see far

-If F-35 tries to fire Meteor at 10+ km altitude, it will barely reach Su-35 at 40 km range, even if Su-35 continues head-on towards the missile.

there an app here : http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=43.0

that you can use to estimate range of some missiles depending on launch altitude , loft angle , launch speed , target speed , target altitude , target aspect, very detail .
Anyway , so i used that software
it appear that flying at low altitude reduce missiles range very significantly compared to flying at medium altitude , even if the height different is the same , it still alot easier for a missiles to climb from medium altitude to high altitude than from low altitude to medium altitude ( due to air density)
:
For simplification : Let assumed all fighter fly at 1220 km/h , all use Aim-120B ,target aspect is 180 degree , all aircraft use 25 degree loft before launching their missiles :

First case :
Aircraft A fly at 45K feet (13700 meters )
Aircraft B fly at 70K feet ( 21336 meters )
altitude different between A and B is 25K feet ( 7636 meters )
when A is shooter , B is target , the maximum distance A can launched it’s missiles is 105.8 km before missiles dive lower than 70K ft
when B is shooter , A is target , the maximum distance B can launched it’s missiles is 132.8 km before missiles dive lower than 45K ft

Second case :
Aircraft A fly at 45K feet ( 13700 meters )
Aircraft C fly at 20K feet ( 6096 meters )
altitude different between A and C is still 25K feet ( 7636 meters )
When A is shooter , C is target , the maximum distance A can launched it’s missiles is 99.3 km before missiles dive lower than 20K ft
When C is shooter , A is target , the maximum distance C can launched it’s missiles is 48km before missiles reached minimum speed

So you can see that even though the altitude different is the same ( 25K feet ) , in first case the aircraft flying higher enjoy around 25% longer missiles range , while in the second case the aircraft flying higher enjoy 106% longer missiles range .

The F-35 would know the general vector of the incoming noise, but they would not know excatly how many there are.. until they are Close enough to burn through the jammer noise.. think about it.
This distant where this happend is highly debateble. It might be well within the Irbis-E to both detect and track the F-35.

in my opinion both Su-35 and F-35 can use jammer to protect themselves , however F-35 will have significant advantage here due to lower RCS

That is the high school report I pointed out as one that no heed should be paid to.

it not a high school report though

and it done by people who actually have education in the field using simulation , obviously it won’t be exactly the same with real aircraft, but that is as detail as we can get at the moment

No aircraft with empennage has such similar signatures over such a broad spectrum range.

according to graph the difference in signatures between 10 Ghz and 1 Ghz is around 10 dBsm, which mean 10 times different , i dont see how that remotely similar, at all

Published info from the mfg says <=35km for detection range, let alone identifying it as a F-35. No way in hell you ID it at 76nm (140km) which is greater than 4x the listed detection range.

Forget tracking it till you get to 20km thanks to your short ranged laser rangefinder.

In the same spirit as above, forget an IRST at 96nm.

agree, IRST in this simulation have such a massive god like range

about the same result as the Gripen vs Su-35 simulation,
with the difference that the Meteor used in Gripen sim is integrated and exist,
while the Meteor version in this F-35 sim is a paper missile, and as a spin-off, not integrated either

Meteor is in full production now, unlike RVV-BD or RVV-SD, integration would only required 20% smaller fin for AA station of F-35 ( same modifications between AIM-120B and C)
given the number of F-35 buyers far surpassed Rafale or Typhoon, MBDA would be retarded to leave that market out
http://www.mbda-systems.com/products/air-dominance/meteor/26/
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/meteor-missile-will-make-changes-to-accommodate-f35-0599/
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-mbda-reveals-clipped-fin-meteor-for-f-35-347416/

The fact that is a theoretical model?
Where is its radar(s)?
IRST? MAWS?
Seams between panels?
Flight equipment?
I could go on, there are a lot of things that separate theoretical aircraft from reality.

actually , they take into account almost everything that you can think of when they design that aircraft , the whole pdf file here
http://aerosim.calpoly.edu/media/cms_page_media/14/Vendetta%20-%20Final%20SAWE%20Paper_1.pdf

Countries acquire 5th generation fighters for a myriad of reasons, the key one being mine F-15 vs F-22 scenario.

You said yourself that ” stealth is useless again AWACs and modern IADS ” , and remember that most air force don’t use F-15 but they mostly use small fighter like F-16 , Mig-29 , Mig-21 , EF-2000 , Rafale , Gripen , Mirage which all have RCS of around 1 m2 or lower , so according to your assessment that stealth fighter have RCS of 0.3-0.4 m2 , then VLO aircraft will only offered 6-7% reduction in radar detection range

doesn’t explained why so many countries purchased stealth aircraft at all ( why would they want something that is significantly more expensive , more maintain intensive , offer no advantage when enemy have AWACs and modern IADS , only offer 6% in detection range compared to legacy fighter ) ?

Oh yes, stealth aircraft are so effective against IADS and AWACS, I can only imagine the effectiveness of B-2 against Soviet IADS.
I wonder why the spent 2 billion dollars on the low-level flight capability, then outright canceled it.
I wonder.
Fall back capability? For 2 billion dollars?
Then what was the cancellation of the program for?
Preemptive financial management?

One of the way to detect stealth aircraft is to looking at them from outside of their low RCS arcs ( in the other word :staying where their high RCS spike located ) , To do that you have to spread your emitters ( radar ) apart . The distance is between emitters however, is very long , draw a triangle and you will see ,if you want to stay out of the 80 degree frontal cone of stealth enemy , your emitters will have to stay about 424 km from others for 300 km detection range, emitters have to stay 285 km from others if you want to detect stealth fighter from 200 km. Even for 100 km detection range your emitters have to stay 141 km from others .It not so easy to position your fighters that way, and then there another problem, since you dont know where the direction VLO enemies come from before the mission, side to side position your fighter isn’t enough, you will have to position them something look like a square formation. Not only that doing so very hard because your fighter are likely take off from the same air field , going into position also gonna take a lot of fuel . Which is why Stealth fighter is very effective again AWACs and normal fighter. Ground radar , by contrast can very easily be position far apart , and they can literally stay in position forever until you want them to change position. The low flying capability of B-2 can be used to counter that , in your own article ,they said it is a fall back capability .

And B-2 isnt cancelled , it not produced any more due to massively high cost ( same reason with F-22 )

I have not contradicted myself anywhere.

first you said :

I have never said Stealth is no advantage

then you said

stealth made no difference.

like seriously , how is that not contradicting ?:confused: these are like opposite statement

Check your reality, the B-2 was changed from high to low level flight, then outright canceled, then slated to receive LRSO capability.

All the low level PR in the world cannot conceal the reality.

Let check reality :
1 ) Up until now B-2 have never fly at low altitude like Tornado in actual bombing mission
2 ) They said the low altitude requirement was a fall back capability for B-2
3 ) E-3 , E-2 in exercise was unable to detect F-22
4 ) General Hostage said : F-35 specially designed to effectively neutralise S-400 and their cousin
5 ) Euro fighter producer , in their own simulation , have to position their AWACs out side F-35 60 degree frontal cone to be able to detect it ( and we know AWACs use L , S bands )
6 ) all countries , even one that have AWACs ,modern IADS , and fighter with low RCS like F-16 , mig-29 , mig-21 still tri to acquired VLO fighter

if stealth fighter really did have frontal RCS of 0.4-0.5 m2 like you claimed earlier then they wouldnt be able to achieved these feat above ( since only 50 % reduction in RCS will only reduce radar detection range by around 6% )

You should know the B-2 RCS is far, far, far lower than the F-22.

well , NO , you dont have any actual evidence to prove that ” B-2 RCS is far, far, far lower than the F-22″
in fact , according to your own words ” the least reflected surface is the surface that doesn’t exist “
B-2 wing span is 52.4 meters , F-22 wing span is 13.56 meters , F-35 wing span is 10.7 meters , AGM-129 wing span is 3.1 metes
B-2 wing area is 478 square meters , F-22 wing area is 78.4 square meters , F-35 wing area is 42.7 squares meters

B-2 wing span is around 4 times longer than F-22 and 5 times longer than F-35 , wing area is 6 times bigger than F-22 and 11 times bigger than F-35
the different is size between B-2 vs F-22 , F-35 is similar to the different in size between F-22 , F-35 and AGM-129 . if you concluded that AGM-129 have lowest RCS that is far smaller than F-22 , F-35 then there is no reason to believed that B-2 will have far smaller RCS than F-22 , F-35
P/s : AGM-129 have vertical and tail fin as well
(btw iam talking about frontal RCS )

No idea where you got the frontal RCS of .4-.5 m2 RCS.

didn’t you concluded from start that stealth fighter cant excess that value ?

I purchased the copy.

then it would be super simple for you to take a photos of that page then post here , wouldn it

The B-2 original form envisioned high level flight, safe in its low observability. Now it utilize the same concealment technique in aircraft like F-111, Su-34, etc.

B-2 still haven’t fly any war mission at low altitude though , like i said it was a fall back capability and to deal with air defense that have radar position very far apart and linked together

2. I thought the endgame was SDB I/II?
3. A naval F-22 would far outperform any F-35 today

2) JSM, JSOW-ER more suited for anti ship , 2000lbs JDAM is more suited for heavy target
3) you dont know that , that purely speculation , modify an aircraft for carrier landing is extremely complicated

An exercise involving the USAF, the biggest purchaser of the F-35.

so ? :rolleyes: ” the exercise was done by USA so it must be propaganda ? “
what countries doesn’t test their own weapon in exercise ?

But what happened to all the multirole? All that working together to attack?

Is that not one of the main selling points?

F-16 was a multirole fighter , and they still divided aircraft in formation to different task , with some carrying out strike , some doing escort .

Yes, and I would bet it would be even easier in real life.

well , No , that was a BAE simulation to advertised their Typhoon , with the help of AWACs can detect and intercept F-35 , they have no incentive to pump up F-35 VLO characteristic ( if AWACS can detect F-35 from any direction then they wouldn’t have to specific mention that AWACS and interceptor have to be position at 30 degree relatived to F-35 flight path ) , if anything , in real life detect stealth aircraft will be significantly harder

What graph?

the part i high lighted in red

Only L-band AWACS that I know of is the Australian wedgetail

EL/M-2075 Phalcon use L band
E-7 Wedgetail use L band
A-50 use L band
Ericsson Erieye use L band
KJ-2000 use L band
E-3 use E/F band ( 2-4 Ghz )
E-2C use UHF band

actually all AWACs i can think of at the moment use something other than X band , despite that BAE simulation showedthat AWACs have to be positioned out of F-35’s 60 degree frontal to be able to detect it ), E-3 wasn’t even able to detect F-22 in exercise

I meant why it is implemented on 5th generation fighters.

to reduce RCS , especially frontal arc

I have given rather a lot

.
like what ? exactly ?
the only thing you provided was that B-2 was modified to be able to fly at low altitude ( which later shown to be a fall back capability again linked air defense ) , and that Eurofigher simulation showed that AWACs can detect F-35 ( only if they are positioned AWACS out side of F-35 ‘s 60 degree frontal arcs ), and then there in USAF exercise when E-2 , E-3 wasn’t able to detect F-22

RAM is certainly nice and useful, but there limits to what it can do.

Shaping is key.

iam not saying shaping isnt more important than RAM , but you cannot concluded that shaping allow for reduction of RCS three times more in magnitude than radar absorbent materials. Because there are many different kind of RAM and their absorption capability at different frequency are also different

B-2 cannot carry 2000km ranged nuclear cruise missile that the USAF eagerly try to implement on it.

You do know the USAF is in the midst of a huge strategic upgrade?

that still have nothing to do with your assessment that B-2 cant carry cruise missiles or JASSM isn’t a cruise missiles

Oh yes, SLBM and ICBM are far more precious, but you dodge mine question.

B-52H and F-22 in a strategic nuclear conflict will be the most important aerial assets of the USAF.

in strategic aerial asset like F-22 , B-52 will contribute very very little compared to ICBM and nuclear submarine
and B-2 would be more important than F-22 in that case

Yes they rather do need to maintain same density at increasing distance.
Does minimum signal density threshold mean nothing to you?

so in your opinion , as the density of jamming signal reduced , the density of radar reflection stay exactly the same ???? , the jammer on aircraft that can jam the radar at close range suddenly no longer effective as the range get further ???? even though radar wave have to travel 2 ways , it’s power will decrease at slower rate than the jammer’s jamming signal despite the fact that jamming signal only have to travel one way ????
and you dodge my question :

if S-400 radar have maximum detection range of 100km again F-35 , and it’s burn through range again F-35 using jammer is 25 km
what exactly do you think happened at distance X
with 25 km < X < 100 km ?

Oh yes I very much do.

The same kind of radius the B-52H has with its cruise missile as well.

i dont understand why you even posted this :
your original point was : they make a long range missiles for B-2 because it cant get close to Soviet air defense , then i explained that they make LRSO , because long range missiles will increase strike area greatly
i dont see how that even related to B-52

You can detect stealth aircraft even without their spike.

yes , if you come close enough , but the different between low RCS arcs and high RCS spike can be as much as 60-70 dBsm or even more

1. The US would not have been able to create B-2 without such equations, or any actual stealth aircraft.

Do you consider the guy discover electricity also the inventor of all electric equipment we use today ?
NO , design the F-117 and B-2 required scientist to deal with many others problem such as aerodynamic

2. Irbis is capable of offsetting RCS differences thanks to sheer power alone, nevermind its wide angle scanning capability.

that is your opinions not a fact , IRBIS-E still not as powerful as an AWACs radar
( quite funny that , you say LM stealth is just advertising but then believed everything Russian talk about their radar )

Their average RCS is indeed .01m2, and notice how both those missile possess nuclear capability which is why I mentioned them.

i was talking about RCS in frontal arcs
and i dont know why you have such an obsessions with nuclear weapon though , you know a nuclear war are very very very unlikely to happened right ?

Well that woke you up. If you are not a Troll which I am willing to accept you do have a forcefull way of expressing your opinions, to the point of insulting others.

I dont insult people unless they insult me first
and in this case you have insulted me many times

My questions are not rhetorical, nor pretentious, they are based on the basic theory. There is a big difference between knowing things and understanding them.

The problem isn’t the question itself but the ways you ask it, and the way you react to people’s answer, if you think people are wrong, you should explain your point on why you think they are wrong instead of saying things like ” you are wrong, you know nothing, you are clearly a troll.. etc” .

Indeed, knowing that the high velocity gasflow through an engine is a no no is true but it is to do with it’s construction. Sure the use of a variable geometry intake does slow down the air but it also increases the pressure and temperature. Basic theory work, V – P&T +.

i dont quite understand your answer, so in your opinion air is slowed down to increase temperature and pressure?
( how about scramjet engine ? )

I do have a question for you. You have a large collection of info on the F35. Why does it have a problem with pulling G at high altitude?
It’s out of curiosity I ask.

all aircraft have problems pulling G at high altitude, not just F-35, higher altitudes the air is thinner so engine thrust reduced and aircraft also have to move much faster to have same EAS as sea level

if you mean why F-35 is worse than F-22 and F-104 at high altitude, it is because F-135 is have higher bypass than F-119 , and J-79 is a turbojet so obviously work better at high altitude than turbofan