.
HTS R7 may be quite good, but whether it was available in this exercise is unknown. As M31 points out (although I did so earlier) we don’t know these vital details, ) we don’t know these vital details, so only dumb fanboys will go running around proclaiming the F-35’s invincibility.

I dont think USAF and NATO decided to do their exercise that handicap though, lacking basic equipment for SEAD mission , i mean you may as well claim they used iron bomb instead of HARM

No -88Es in the USAF. So you are back to the land of rosy ASSUMptions.

USAF have AGM-88D, it have GPS guidance so can attack radar that shut down as well

Again, what we know is that unspecified threats were able to claim kills against F-16s in unspecified configurations, operating with unspecified EW/SEAD/DEAD support or lack of same, but not against F-35s.

how often do we know the exact equipment that aircraft use in their exercise?

Also, forget the superwhizbang ALQ-184. The most modern pod in the AF (the first with DRFM) is the ALQ-131A, and I see no evidence that it is operational.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/26/idUS182026+26-Apr-2012+GNW20120426

i would say alq-211 is better, also ALQ-184v9 have towed decoy while alq-131 doesn’t

It also appears that the F-16 has not yet been budgeted for the ALR-69A digital RWR.

f-16 have ASQ-213 which is far better
http://defense-update.com/products/h/HTS.htm

. Another core criticism – that the F-35’s stealth technology was vulnerable to countermeasures – is far from disproved and has been obliquely endorsed by the CNO. The related prediction that potential adversaries would deploy VHF AESA and other counterstealth technologies has proven accurate.
.

no technology are perfect or invulnerable to countermeasures
, the counter stealth technology have their own disadvantages too
Low band radar are too big to put on Fighter or Ship , and too inaccurate for weapon guide, optical sensor have extremely narrow FoV at max range, slow scan rate, affected significantly by weather

got my PM?

Sorry, i forgot to reply , too focused in snafu352
Anyway : so here the pilot and your discussion you taking about ? https://m.facebook.com/vianney.riller?fref=ts
[ATTACH=CONFIG]237769[/ATTACH]

Can you screenshot your question and his answer in the same pictures ? cause his reply still a bit confusing for me, didn’t really mentioned Spectra

P/s : anyway good work, cheers 😎

Sure go ahead, I was and continue to be right. With the comments i made. Your inability to understand them is really not my problem.

Your simplistic inaccurate summary of the points I made illustrates this very well.

PS the Northrup articles supported my point. 🙂

No dispute from me that the EODAS can track.
I had reacted to claims that the EODAS managed targeting the same way that SPECTRA apparently can for the Rafale. i.e. without the need for other sensors to actually engage a target.
Your link here supports what i was saying. Thanks.

Wow , once again , you demonstrate to people how much of a shameless troll you are 😉 twisting words and denied , too bad for you , your old post werent deleted by mod so you cant hide your stupidity and trolling nature from anyone
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?123534-Dassault-Rafale-News-amp-Discussion-(XV)/page100
Here is how argument go in last thread for anyone too lazy to read every things
First Snafu claim this :

Oh dear, you are quite right no fighter has a 360 optical target tracking system. The F-35 staring eye system won’t do that either, it is a close range self defence system.

You’ll be able to share the full details of that then won’t you.
(PS Google doesn’t appear to be your friend here as no articles come up supporting your claim when googling “APG-81 electronic attack.”)

Then i showed him this :

oh really
https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities/missionsystems
https://youtu.be/qF29GBSpRF4
https://youtu.be/DN-A6PWRFno

it quite funny when you show people here that you are incapable of using Google :highly_amused:

https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=dJydBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=APG-81+jamming+F-22+radar&source=bl&ots=pvm3PaOUi_&sig=5JYsKZGlUDDTIveYHRhuVd0MYRg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=f-Q5Ve5qwelqsYaAoAE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=APG-81%20jamming%20F-22%20radar&f=false

https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=dJydBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=APG-81+jamming+F-22+radar&source=bl&ots=pvm3PaOUi_&sig=5JYsKZGlUDDTIveYHRhuVd0MYRg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=f-Q5Ve5qwelqsYaAoAE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=APG-81%20jamming%20F-22%20radar&f=false

Then Snafu tried to twisting the words , and denied , saying the books is not enough evidence for me to prove my point while himself provide nothing to support his own point 😀 , and he then said DAS can only track ICBM

Oh of course the f’in intercontinentalal ballistic missile… Great proof… Not.
And f35.com doesn’t exist any more…so…

It’s tremendous funny when you show people that you have no real evidence for yet another claim you’ve made. 🙂

One line in a book about the Australian Air Force dating from 2013… that’s the best you can do?
It even states at the front that: “…we cannot warrant that all information herein is complete and accurate.”

It is magnificent that you are so prepared to reveal the extent of the lack of substance behind your claims. Thank you once again.

Too bad for him , the book wasnt the only source that support my claim , and i was able to show the interview that specifically said APG-81 can jam enemy radar and video where DAS track AA gun and short range missiles as well

you claim that DAS cannot track target, the video clearly show it can
you claim DAS is only short range, and again the video show the range can very high depending on target and altitude
also, look at the last video, DAS doesn’t just track ballistic missiles, it can track small missiles and AA gun fire as well

https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=S9TbdH-QYlgC&pg=PA91&lpg=PA91&dq=CATbird+avionics+testbed+apg-81+jamming&source=bl&ots=WGXRuvUbca&sig=Y6s7MhZglqsfyOSszHMO_On4-oI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=seNIVfWEOOeumAWdvYHQAw&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=CATbird%20avionics%20testbed%20apg-81%20jamming&f=false
https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=dJydBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=APG-81+jamming+F-22+radar&source=bl&ots=pvm3PaOUi_&sig=5JYsKZGlUDDTIveYHRhuVd0MYRg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=f-Q5Ve5qwelqsYaAoAE&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=APG-81%20jamming%20F-22%20radar&f=false
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_releases.html?d=194881

also, It is magnificent that you said my claim lack substances while you are the one that made claim that are repeatedly prove wrong, and you cannot even provide a link to any website or books that support your claim

https://youtu.be/fHZO0T5mDYU
https://youtu.be/qF29GBSpRF4
and read the video description as well

A normal person would stop at that point since they know they are wrong , but Snafu35 as we know with his trolling nature still continued , and even claimed Northrop agree with him and attempt to mock me :highly_amused:

Targeting dear chap, targeting not tracking. Seeing something is useless unless you can do something about it.

Ok, so the second book you’ve provided a link to also has one line in it and strangely uses exactly the same words as the previous book you provided a link to, in fact reading the whole page is strangely familiar. How many times do you guys have to be told, repeating the same crap over and over again even if it is in a book doesn’t make it true or substantiate a claim?

The Northrup Grumman page makes no mention of electronic attack at all…??
It does say this however: “the F-35 Lightning II aircraft was equipped with Northrop Grumman’s revolutionary Electro-Optical Distributed Aperture System, which provides passive missile and aircraft threat detection”

That doesn’t sound like active targeting to me at all… can’t be right though… some internet nobodies have said it is wrong.
I expect they’ll be writing to Northrup Grumman who manufacture the system to tell them shortly.

Please stop embarrassing yourself mate.

But once again , he managed to make himself look even more of an idiot in front of everyone when i showed the video where Northrup Grumman claim APG-81 jam enemy’s radar and DAS can track , lock target

read the description in the video i posted for **** sake

oh really Northrup Grumman make no mention ?
https://youtu.be/wIwAOupjMeM ( from 2:30)
http://breakingdefense.com/2012/12/navy-bets-on-baby-steps-to-improve-electronic-warfare-f-35-ja/

https://youtu.be/e1NrFZddihQ
https://youtu.be/wIwAOupjMeM
:highly_amused::highly_amused:
so now all the books, interviews, producer’s video have prove that iam right and you are wrong, the fact that you repeating the same crap over and over again without any support evidence mean you are just a troll

Just put the trolls / less than thoughtful ones lukos mig-31bm solarwarden etc. on ignore.

Once nobody engages with them they will depart to pollute another forum.

It is revealing that despite abusing me and others at every opportunity they still choose to engage with those that they call all sorts of names.

That in itself shows that they are here for the trolling rather than for a reasoned exchange.

Trolling ? really ? look at yourself . You don’t have the high ground to call anyone here a troll snapfu. You bring nothing to an argument rather than insult and repeat the same thing over and over again without anything things to support your point

Assuming that that figure is the lowest frontal RCS figure is downright foolish IMO.

Disinformation is nothing new for the Russian defense establishment.

We have seen this figures quoted before, and they are as “accurate” now as they were then.

Agree , the number are rather BS
Make no sense to spending billions to make stealth fighter that still have RCS half of the F-16
Anyway here is the frontal RCS ( within 45 degree frontal) of LM and Northrop F-117 model in test again radar at different frequencies

http://www.hitechweb.genezis.eu/stealth2.htm

Well I suppose even B747 would have a RCS of 0.1 m2 if a fighter spots it at 700 km on his radar scope the signal would be weak and target would be faint.

Stating an RCS is 0.1 or 0.001 does not mean any thing unless the distant to the target is know and band/frequency of RF also other factor like if its receding or approaching target and what angle is RF wrt to target any of these or a combination of these can give variable RF returns

RCS isn’t the function of distance, i do agree that wavelengths affected them though