Define RF cyberwarfare? It is a huge subject!

Well it’s starts with radar jamming but then moves into overloading and corrupting datalinks used for missile guidance and comms, as well as messing around with RWR and certain kinds of doppler-based MWS. So at the end of it, the opponent has a non-functional radar, they can’t communicate with missiles supposing they could get lock, they can’t communicate with other assets and they’re RWR/MWS is driving them mad. Possibly, it also includes corrupting their entire avionics suite so that it begins to operate like a Packard Bell and messing up their DSMS so they don’t even know what weapons they’re carrying, possibly even jettisoning them along with any drop tanks they have. AESAs can be used to send massive amounts of data. What’s even more disturbing is that aircrafts are flown by FCS. This may be why the resistance had to fight Skynet with A-10s.:very_drunk:

At present not all AESAs can even jam, so it’s a misrepresentation to say that all AESAs have this capability.

Neither.

Fire support needs to be timely, accurate and lethal. When seconds count, CAS is only minutes, sometimes hours away. The reality is that CAS is a scarce, budget-restricted commodity which cannot be everywhere all the time. Proper fire support needs to be provided by Battalion artillery using precision guided munitions.

But that means Army or Marines would need to field precision munitions and the network capabilities to direct/call fires. This is something the top brass from Army or Marines refuse to promote because of the risk of procurement system failure. So, Air Force gets blamed for Army/Marine unwillingness to provide troops with timely, accurate fire support.

GMLRS, SGP, MS-SGP, LRLAP, ATACMS, HOPLITE (future)

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2004/pdf/army/2004GMLRS.pdf

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2004/pdf/army/2004GMLRS.pdf

http://ri.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9mSs3BG1phTDCAAzphLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTE0cWhyY29kBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2lyMgR2dGlkA01TWVVLMDRfMQ–/RV=2/RE=1402554055/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.baesystems.com%2fdownload%2fBAES_157357%2f5-in-saboted-standard-guided-projectile-sgp-datasheet/RK=0/RS=CGKgY6UDSn97yjfVexY8EquirZw-

http://ri.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9mSs3d71phTOnAARutLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTE0cWhyY29kBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2lyMgR2dGlkA01TWVVLMDRfMQ–/RV=2/RE=1402554108/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.baesystems.com%2fdownload%2fBAES_027604%2f5-in-standard-guided-projectile-sgp-datasheet/RK=0/RS=31JWQSf3o3W2MEKM3iKpv.UwFgs-

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/mfc/pc/LRLAP/mfc-lrlap-pc.pdf

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/mfc/pc/atacms-block-1a-unitary/mfc-atacms-block-1a-unitary-pc.pdf

http://www.mbda-systems.com/files/docs/Hoplite-2013.pdf

Condolences go out to the family and friends Capitán Fernando Lluna Carrascosa of the Spanish Air Force!*

Then you’ll look the more silly than you already are, its quite astonishing how you can’t comprehend the differences of the two radars. What exactly don’t you get about ‘CAESAR maiden flight in 2007’ and ‘Captor-E maiden flight in 2014’… Surely Crayons aren’t needed.

YF-22 made it’s maiden flight in 1990, so the F-22 can’t use the name ‘F-22’ and will have to find another name. They are two completely unrelated aircraft clearly buy your logic. I’m sticking with CAESAR because it sounds better than CAPTOR-E and the acronym is still functionally correct. Your pedantry is scarcely believable.

Nobody is questioning what the acronyms stand for, we all know what they mean, and it doesn’t really mean both are exactly the same.

Nobody said they were, but I’m still calling CAPTOR-E ‘CAESAR’ because it’s a development of the same program and the acronym works correctly.

So, then why didn’t Typhoon just operate with a single drop tank during Operation Ellamy? Every sortie they flew was with two.

1. Because they were using bombs not cruise missiles.

2.Those drops tanks are smaller than the Tornado drop tanks.

3. It was carrying 4 1,000+lb EPWII bombs, whereas Tornado was mostly carrying 12 Brimstones (total weight ~2,000lb including triple launchers at 200lbs each).

What’s untrue? That Typhoon can’t carry such cruise missiles on it’s inboard wing pylons? That was what Halloweene and others & myself were pointing out earlier, do you think otherwise?

It could but it never will because it’s (a) unnecessary and (b) impractical in terms of realistic mission execution. If you’ve noticed the mounting points for a Storm Shadow are a lot nearer the rear of the missile than the middle and there’s about almost a metre of space behind a 3.68m EPW II loaded on the same pylon. An SS is 1.4m longer, so 80cm out back and 60cm out front…..

……but it never will because you could only fly that load with air supremacy and you don’t need stand-off missiles when you have air supremacy. That’s the plain fact of it. It’s a functionally retarded load that you’ve now spent 5 pages discussing.

I love the way you and the other Rafale-fanboy find time to focus on this rather than examining the fact that the Typhoon will be able to carry 18 Brimstone IIs or 24 SPEAR + 6 AAMs, whereas a Rafale will only ever carry 12 AASMs and 6 AAMs maximum. You know, taking out 18-24 SAMs or tanks instantaneously in one go at ranges up to 120+km might actually be useful but no, lets try fly 16,000lbs of load through extremely hostile airspace instead.

Because you did.

What is this? Punch and Judy?

The word moot seems to be your favourite at the moment. It doesn’t make your point any more valid.

Well I keep hearing moot points about functionally useless 16,000lb load configurations that will never be used in a million years.

I looked, and I found you to initially start off the argument. By the way, I’m still waiting for you to quote the “Rafale-Numbty” that stated three external drop tanks are the be-all and end-all.

It started before I joined the thread and the ‘Rafale-numpties’ were happy to continue it.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?128252-Eurofighter-Typhoon-Discussion-and-News-2014&p=2132834#post2132834

See below.*

Well actually, CFTs have a significant amount to do with Storm Shadow carriage, and Taurus and the likes of Paveway III carriage too for that matter. If Typhoon wants to carry any two of those weapons over a distance that needs more than 1,000 litres of fuel in an external drop tank then CFTs are essential. Fact!

Which it would never need to do without refuelling so… guess what……… the point is moot!

Oh gosh. You really need to catch up. In case you haven’t heard… And you obviously haven’t, the RAF too are receiving the F-35B, and they are on the cards to replace the Tornado GR4, as is the Typhoon. See Group Captain Ian Gale’s tweet from months ago whom stated the Typhoon will replace Tornado in the A/G role.

The Tornado is being phased out – true. The RAF are getting the F-35B – true. That was also the case with the Harrier. It was rotated between land and carrier operations to prolong airframe life. This does not mean that the F-35B replaces the Tornado, which was a multi-role land-based fighter in its time, performing both primary air superiority and strike roles. Only one aircraft is capable of performing both the roles successfully, and it isn’t the F-35B, which is primarily a STOVL naval strike fighter, much more similar to the VTOL Harrier. In short, it’s a supersonic stealth Harrier.

It shows drop tanks are carried even when not necessarily needed. Fuel = flexibility, or in pilots words: the only time you have too much fuel is when you’re on fire.

Or when a missile gets fired at you.

Not sure how I can help here…

I think someone said RB199s had a lower SFC than EJ200s and then stated wiki de as a source. Except that seems to show the exact opposite, not that it’s necessarily factual, since there is no reference cited.

Well you seem to be fairly certain. Still a source would be nice.

Well I have stated sources on the EJ200 development.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurojet_EJ200

The XG-40 would be fundamentally different from the RB199: During the RB199 for the subsonic cruise missile was designed at low altitudes, the XG-40 for a flight envelope with armament of Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.6 at 10 km to 13 km height can be optimized. To achieve this goal had to the dry push against the RB199 are increased by 80%, [5] to about 70 kN. The Nachbrennerschub should be increased by 40% [8] to 90-100 kN. [4] In the dry thrust specific fuel consumption of the RB199 should be maintained while the specific consumption of the afterburner should be reduced by 30%. [5]

[5] http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1985/1985%20-%202458.html

[8] http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1985/1985%20-%201542.html

You said Typhoon must have longer legs than Tornado because it’s more modern. I replied just because Typhoon is more modern doesn’t imply it has longer legs as it was not designed to replace Tornado. Now you say F-35 will replace Tornado. Well, yes?
(note: I know F-35B has less range but it wasn’t designed to replace Tornado either)

F-35B replaces the Harrier. Since when was Tornado a naval fighter? An F-35A could replace a Tornado but there’s nothing on the cards for that and at the moment Typhoon is the likely candidate with the qualification of Storm Shadow set for later this year along with the phased A2G weapon upgrades going forward to 2018-2020, after which Tornado will be phased out of the RAF in 2021.

It was an example how design choices are good at certain conditions and worse at others. Like Tornados original low level optimising. But Typhoon isn’t without compromise either. Or do you think large delta wings and low BPR turbofans are the best choice throughout the envelope incl. cruise? That must be why all modern airliners look like Concorde. :eagerness:

Concorde didn’t have any BPR but did have a Mach 2 supercruise.:cool: The pressure ratio is also a factor though, as is compressor/turbine efficiency, which improves constantly (new materials, improved cooling etc), and combustion efficiency. The other crazy thing is that I’ve worked for both RR and BAE in the past and I’m nearly sure I saw something saying the EJ200 BPR was variable up to 1:1 but I can’t seem to find anything that verifies that now. Maybe it was considered and dropped.

But when on the subject of cancellation, that would be a fantastic engineering feat to produce a robust operative function with cancellation. To be able to accurately predict the how the return echo from the pulse would look would be very hard. Things like scintillation will affect the echo a lot and is unpredictable. The level of required knowledge of own RCS with enough fidelity is maybe cumbersome to achieve but probably not that ‘hard’ in engineering sense but considering the irregularities of a normal a/c RCS, in three dimensions, and the accuracy of a modern (with short base interferometry) EW-system which is in the range of 1-2 degrees I see it as very challenging to achieve a robust function. For lower frequencies it might be a bit easier and also a low signature a/c might be easier since they probably have a more predictable RCS, e.g. without corner reflectors. But still a large engineering challenge so kudos to those who succeed.

As I understand it, modern EW systems with interferometry are accurate down to 0.1deg, or sufficient for targeting. But in the case of an APG-81 (or similar), most of it will be done by the radar. Once you get the first quarter cycle you know what wave you’re getting and you instantly develop a counter, which goes active before the end of the first cycle. In fact less than a quarter cycle. That’s where the prediction comes in. You’re not receiving a whole signal and then deciding, or trying to guess in advance, you’re examining things in real time, pico-second by pico-second. There are already very sophisticated software packages for calculating RCS and of course actual measurements but so long as you cancel the waves, the false echo you generate, or don’t generate (passive jamming), isn’t important. After you cancel the incoming you can then, if you want, have a bit of a laugh with them by sending them an echo equal to a cargo plane 100km behind you, possibly one full of rubber dog**** being flown out of Hong Kong by a disobedient ex-Navy pilot*. Implementation is difficult but a lot of work has gone into this area.

For the F-35 I would say that implementing a cancellation function would be a waste of money since it would be far easier to get a more robust function by using background jammers to target opposing radars with simple noise to raise the thresholds of the radars which would make the probably small echo from an F-35 even harder to detect. A stand-off jammer would also probably have the advantage to be able to target radars in a larger part of the EM spectrum whereas the F-35 only have (for what is publically known) electronic attack capability from the radar which can be assumed to be in the X-band, or part of the X-band.

That’s active jamming. It’s useful too but once you start doing that the enemy knows you’ve arrived even if they’re not sure exactly where you are. EA-18Gs with Raytheon’s next gen jammer will likely major in this area, hence why they were ordered presumably. I think the radar can jam in other bands but with significantly less power than in X-Band. I could be wrong though.

*Top Gun reference.

Not to dismiss advances in ECM/EW but a modern AESA radar could have well been the factor which would have enabled an early AMRAAM shot. Whatever IR-signature reduction efforts incorporated on those aircraft simply aren’t likely to prevent a modern IR-guided SRAAM with HOBS capability from getting an easy lock from any angle at “dog-fight” ranges. Even the previous generation of IR-guided SRAAMs (AIM-9L) would allow for a head-on shot before the merge with a decent chance of a hit and kill. It seems increasingly likely that one side or the other will be shot down before anybody has the change to get on somebody’s tail.

What amuses me about the getting on someone’s tail, point-and-shoot philosophy is that all aircraft that currently have TVC are actually at a distinct disadvantage in a dogfight because the same aircraft don’t have 360deg HMCS and LOAL capability.

Gripen pilots had an excercise in the UK a few weeks ago where they went up one Gripen vs 2 Eurofighters. http://blogg.forsvarsmakten.se/flygvapenbloggen/2014/06/06/verklighetsnara-taktikutveckling-av-jas-39-i-england-meatball-ur-en-pilots-perspektiv/
It showed that obtaining a radat lock was really hard, even at WVR ranges! In tis scenario the range started at 25 miles with closing speeds above 1100knots. Roughly 7,5 s before merge. And neither one could get a radar lock so both moved over to IR. The fight didnt end until the fighter was on the tail of the target to get a clean kill.

Actually that very article says that the Gripen was allowed to use HMCS and the Typhoons weren’t. What it demonstrates is that aircraft not using HMCS and 360deg LOAL don’t stand a chance WVR.

However, I have an advantage! I am wearing an HMD, Helmet Mounted Display

To judge by what I have been reading and hearing of late – and I’m not long returned from an EW conference – that is not the case. A modern EW system knows the bearing from which the last pulse came, and knows the range of frequencies within which the next must fall, as well as the electronic characteristics that it will exhibit. The goal is to spot that next pulse and respond within a time interval measured in nanoseconds. The speed with which that process can be done, compared with the length of the enemy pulse, will determine the effectiveness of the jamming.

That was my understanding too, the incoming pulse is almost immediately turned on its head 180deg and that’s used as cancellation. Some systems are even doing it in programmable hardware, so it’s virtually instantaneous, kicking in before the first full wave cycle has hit. Then after doing that there’s the possibility of sending a string of false echos on top of that cancellation. I.e. I’m not here, I’m there, there and there. So rather than a pulse bouncing back from your present location, it’s cancelled and then a delayed echo(s) is sent afterwards potentially. It can also be done against more than one threat simultaneously.