Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 4 of 75 FirstFirst 123456781454 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 2230

Thread: 2017 F-35 news and discussion thread

  1. #91
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,769
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Considering the F-35's mission set, the access U.S. has had to early S-300 systems, I wouldn't say it is unreasonable that the F-35 performed well against simulated threats.
    Considering the US have access to S-300P, I'd say it's completely unreasonable to predict that it would operate similarly against the S-400.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,199
    Things to remember.

    F-35 brings a method of attack to the fight which is different than what was traditionally used by Gen 4 aircraft. Get used to it.

    F-35s fight as a 4-ship flight.

    That means 4 APG-81s and ETOS, coordinated by MADL, can provide precise target location from long range for an attack from up to 8 GBU-31s.

    A GBU-31 can be tossed a very, very long distance from a jet at Mach 0.8 and 35,000 feet.

    The four APG-81s have the ability to perform coordinated electronic attacks to suppress RF-based defenses during GBU flyout to the target.

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Cantabrigia
    Posts
    1,338
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    first comes a dope smoking engineer etc etc etc....
    Goodness gracious - two well-considered and detailed responses in a single day!

    Your rambling opening paragraph makes no sense, other than to show an interest in the recreational habits of some (unspecified) engineer, plus some strange size-related obsessions.

    The claimed range performance of various radars against defined targets can often be obtained from manufacturers' brochures. From there, the process of working out the level RCS reduction needed to achieve a militarily useful reduction in radar range is not difficult, and gives ballpark values for the RCS that a stealthy platform or missile must possess.

    Such ballpark values are unclassified and have appeared in the open literature, giving a good idea of how far the 0.000... square metre sequence must stretch. However, the exact values of RCS that have been achieved by various programmes is classified, as are the way that these vary with frequency and with aspect angle.

    The practice of flying aircraft such as the F-22 with radar reflectors when on non-operational flights is well documented.

    As for the ability to "nail a mach 4 harm or a maneuvering fighter", my own real-world experience of missile operations tells me that the results obtainable on the Ashuluk range may not translate into combat results, especially if the attacker is using a salvo, or has support from a stand-off jammer, decoys or other penetration aids. Operator fatigue (and operator funk) might also degrade performance.



    Quote Originally Posted by MSphere View Post
    Considering the US have access to S-300P, I'd say it's completely unreasonable to predict that it would operate similarly against the S-400.
    The US may not have an S-400, but I would be fairly confident that they will have reverse-engineered the system to create an accurate threat simulation. That is what they did with the SA-2 and other earlier SAM systems.
    Mercurius Cantabrigiensis

  4. #94
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurius View Post
    The US may not have an S-400, but I would be fairly confident that they will have reverse-engineered the system to create an accurate threat simulation. That is what they did with the SA-2 and other earlier SAM systems.
    US will have reverse engineered the S-400? Are you sure you are ok, Mercurius? You slowly start to sound like JSR.. well, a bit..

  5. #95
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    190
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    I would say that this one about bombing radars is just a way of playing with worlds.
    F-35 actually (and for a long time) cannot carry any ARM so it's limited to use its own Jdams/laser guided bombs.
    It means it could at best operate a preordinated strike against a stationary target whose location is know in advance and that have not any meaningful redundancy and/or multi-layered capacity.
    Needless to say this is not what you can expect by any modern AD system, being it russian, chinese or western.
    It also mean it could not operate at all in a Wild Weasel mode i.e. protecting strike packages against sudden/pop up threats.

    Let's add that if is true that in performing this task it have to be escorted by a Growler I just wonder if it would not be better to just send the AGM-88E HARM capable one of the odd couple...

    This not to trash the F-35 at all, just this damned habits of persons having an humanistic background like me to critically examine any given text and their retorical figures...
    Ahem! You forgot the 70nm JSOW, guy.

  6. #96
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,388
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Yeah there were, overlooked the non-USAF participating units.

    Considering the F-35's mission set, the access U.S. has had to early S-300 systems, I wouldn't say it is unreasonable that the F-35 performed well against simulated threats.
    so early generation give you idea about later generation S300. why Chinese imported that system continuously for 20 years?. could they not replicate from earlier systems?
    Chinese are the closest who can replicate considering there vast spending on missiles and large pool of scientific graduates.
    US has been building million of automobiles and still Germanic dependency from Sigmar Gabriel statement.
    http://www.mediaite.com/online/germa...d-better-cars/
    The US car industry would have a bad awakening if all the supply parts that aren’t being built in the US were to suddenly come with a 35 percent tariff. I believe it would make the US car industry weaker, worse and above all more expensive,” he continued

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,769
    Quote Originally Posted by djcross View Post
    F-35 brings a method of attack to the fight which is different than what was traditionally used by Gen 4 aircraft. Get used to it.
    Tossing bombs on SAM is not a virtue, it's plain stupid..

  8. #98
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,769
    Quote Originally Posted by SolarWarden View Post
    Ahem! You forgot the 70nm JSOW, guy.
    That's only approaching the ranges of currently fielded systems from below.. not exactly a next-generation performance.. plus it's non-powered and takes much longer time to eliminate the target.. the F-35 needs a proper ARM..

  9. #99
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,199
    Quote Originally Posted by JSR View Post
    so early generation give you idea about later generation S300. why Chinese imported that system continuously for 20 years?. could they not replicate from earlier systems?
    Chinese are the closest who can replicate considering there vast spending on missiles and large pool of scientific graduates.
    US has been building million of automobiles and still Germanic dependency from Sigmar Gabriel statement.
    From your response, I assume you have never heard of HQ-9 in its multiple versions?

  10. #100
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,486
    Quote Originally Posted by SolarWarden View Post
    Ahem! You forgot the 70nm JSOW, guy.
    Explain me please , what velocity it can reach and can it be aimed on a pop up target or it need to have precise coordinates?
    So its about the same efficacy of a SDD or an JDAM bomb with a diamondback kit for what it takes a Wild Weasel mission.
    Seriously, do you really read other people's post or have only Pavlovian reactions?
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 5th February 2017 at 20:57.

  11. #101
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    I would say that this one about bombing radars is just a way of playing with worlds.
    F-35 actually (and for a long time) cannot carry any ARM so it's limited to use its own Jdams/laser guided bombs.
    It means it could at best operate a preordinated strike against a stationary target whose location is know in advance and that have not any meaningful redundancy and/or multi-layered capacity.
    Needless to say this is not what you can expect by any modern AD system, being it russian, chinese or western.
    It also mean it could not operate at all in a Wild Weasel mode i.e. protecting strike packages against sudden/pop up threats.

    Let's add that if is true that in performing this task it have to be escorted by a Growler I just wonder if it would not be better to just send the AGM-88E HARM capable one of the odd couple...

    This not to trash the F-35 at all, just this damned habits of persons having an humanistic background like me to critically examine any given text and their retorical figures...
    In the Youtube clip from 32:00 - 33:15, the Lt. Col. explained that one of their scenarios was to locate and destroy pop-up SAMs. This is dynamic SEAD as would be used to protect a Gen 4 strike package against pop-up threats. But as the other Lt. Col explained at 12:45, the GBU-31 is a more effective weapon against the SAM battery than a HARM.

  12. #102
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    Explain me please , what velocity it can reach and can it be aimed on a pop up target or it need to have precise coordinates?
    So its about the same efficacy of a SDD or an JDAM bomb with a diamondback kit for what it takes a Wild Weasel mission.
    Seriously, do you really read other people's post or have only Pavlovian reactions?
    JSOW Block III has Link-16 based dynamic re-targeting. which means the target coordinates can be refined while the weapon is in flight. The dynamic re-targeting capability allows a quick-reaction launch before the target's exact coordinates have been determined. During weapon flyout, the target's precise coordinates are determined and sent via Link-16. The BROACH warhead is better suited for anti-shipping use than against SAM TERs.

  13. #103
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,388
    Quote Originally Posted by djcross View Post
    From your response, I assume you have never heard of HQ-9 in its multiple versions?
    that's what I said 20 years not 26 years. but still there is S400 import. it will be while that China can produce exportable system comparable to S300.

  14. #104
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,486
    Thank for the info.
    Still, again: how much time it would take for a plane equipped with gliding bombs to engage and destroy a pop up SAM system at, let's say, 50 km (i.e. Buk-2)?

    There is a reason because the Harm missiles are designed for reaching velocity even superior to the same air to air ones, you know...
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 5th February 2017 at 21:24.

  15. #105
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,043
    Quote Originally Posted by djcross View Post
    JSOW Block III has Link-16 based dynamic re-targeting. which means the target coordinates can be refined while the weapon is in flight. The dynamic re-targeting capability allows a quick-reaction launch before the target's exact coordinates have been determined. During weapon flyout, the target's precise coordinates are determined and sent via Link-16. The BROACH warhead is better suited for anti-shipping use than against SAM TERs.
    yo ! so now you're going to drop bombs on the assumption that you will actually find the target before the bomb hits the ground ?
    ...on a 2nd thought this could explain the hospital bombings USAF have gotten into habit of,
    and why stop there, why not fling missiles at aircraft on the assumption its an attack aircraft intended to attack,
    theres no reason to assume its merely an iranian airliner doing their job just because its peacetime, oh wait
    Last edited by obligatory; 5th February 2017 at 21:42.

  16. #106
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,486
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    yo ! so now you're going to drop bombs on the assumption that you will actually find the target before the bomb hits the ground ?
    ...on a 2nd thought this could explain the hospital bombings USAF have gotten into habit of,
    and why stop there, why not fling missiles at aircraft on the assumption its an attack aircraft intended to attack,
    theres no reason to assume its merely an iranian airliner doing their job just because its peacetime, oh wait
    Excuse me but exactly how all those things connect with what are we discussing here in a quasi reasonable way?
    I have enough difficulties in discussing with adversaries to have to defend myself from "friends" also.
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 5th February 2017 at 21:49.

  17. #107
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    5,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    Thank for the info.
    Still, again: how much time it would take for a plane equipped with gliding bombs to engage and destroy a pop up SAM system at, let's say, 50 km (i.e. Buk-2)?

    There is a reason because the Harm missiles are designed for reaching velocity even superior to the same air to air ones, you know...
    Wouldn't the jet attacking ground targets use a sniper pod to verify or at least ID the target.
    Cause as you say, just flipping HARM's away, what happens if the targets go dark again.. what can guide the Harm then and where?

    If so, what are the optical ranges of the latest sniperpods.
    BUK M3 will have max range of 70km.
    Last edited by haavarla; 5th February 2017 at 21:52.
    Thanks

  18. #108
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Mercurius View Post
    As for the ability to "nail a mach 4 harm or a maneuvering fighter", my own real-world experience of missile operations tells me that the results obtainable on the Ashuluk range may not translate into combat results, especially if the attacker is using a salvo, or has support from a stand-off jammer, decoys or other penetration aids. Operator fatigue (and operator funk) might also degrade performance.
    yes, salvo is the key word if your'e using lumbering gliders,
    let me guess, that "salvo" was 2-4 fictional 2000 lbs gliders and call it a day,
    luckily theres development of hypersonic ARM's, that will sport a chance of overcoming counter,
    especially if the attacker is launching a salvo

  19. #109
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,043
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    Excuse me but exactly how all those things connect with what are we discussing here in a quasi reasonable way?
    I have enough difficulties in discussing with adversaries to have to defend myself from "friends" also.
    i used to be a hunter, we had a principle of ID the target and assess hit probability before we fired,
    (or even flip off safety switch)
    rather than just spray the woods with lead on on the odd chance there was game in the bush,
    if nothing else for the simple reason the risk of collateral damage,
    altho for me personally a bigger reason was risk of being held accountable on the odd chance i shot a civilian
    Last edited by obligatory; 5th February 2017 at 22:07.

  20. #110
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    2,953
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Wouldn't the jet attacking ground targets use a sniper pod to verify or at least ID the target.
    Cause as you say, just flipping HARM's away, what happens if the targets go dark again.. what can guide the Harm then and where?

    If so, what are the optical ranges of the latest sniperpods.
    BUK M3 will have max range of 70km.
    just from memory, but could be wrong, once you shot teh HARM on a target, if the target shuts down the radar, the missile has the capability (how reliable I can't say) to maintain the course towards the coordinates it was aimed at... so, unless the radar moves, it may still be hit, even if it was shut down after the missile was launched and locked on it

  21. #111
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    Thank for the info.
    Still, again: how much time it would take for a plane equipped with gliding bombs to engage and destroy a pop up SAM system at, let's say, 50 km (i.e. Buk-2)?

    There is a reason because the Harm missiles are designed for reaching velocity even superior to the same air to air ones, you know...
    50km flyout with a GBU-31 is about 5 minutes. Double that time for a glide bomb such as GBU-53. But the target coordinates are very precise and those weapons have 1 meter accuracy with GPS enabled.

    HARM is point and shoot, but requires a small CEP due to its small warhead to be effective against a TER. A skilled SAM operator could neutralize even the latest HARM versions with AARGM and PNG by shutting down early (causes a dramatic increase in CEP) and use of decoy emitters (think of the decoy emitters being used like an aircraft's towed decoys). Yes, the TER is temporarily shut down, but starts transmitting again once the HARM threat has passed. And HARMs are useless against IR guided SAMs where there is no tale-tale RF signal.

  22. #112
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,043
    i think IR SAM is going to gain in popularity just as it has for strikers,
    so what is your opinion, does the fighter or sam battery hold the upper hand in detection ?

  23. #113
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,199
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    i think IR SAM is going to gain in popularity just as it has for strikers,
    so what is your opinion, does the fighter or sam battery hold the upper hand in detection ?
    It depends on the skill of the operators.

    When compared to the current inventories of airplanes, RF SAMs enjoy vastly superior radiated power and long detection distances. Combining effective decoys, camouflage and "shoot-and-scoot" CONOPS, SAMs are very difficult to neutralize. EO/IR guided SAMs are hampered by atmospheric moisture, but are very effective in a pop-up ambush, when the weather permits. The issue with SAMs is nobody can afford enough SAM batteries to cover vast territories.

    Airplanes allow the attacker to concentrate his forces into a small geographic area and overwhelm the SAMs. Yes, the attacker will take some losses, but the computer processing power in an A2G Gen 5 allows SAM targets to be quickly found using SAR maps and immediately attacked before the SAMs have a chance to relocate. As more A2G Gen 5 jets become available, the pendulum swings to favor the A2G Gen 5. An attack using swarming UAVs makes the SAMs' position even worse, unless the IADS also incorporates swarming UAVs. But proliferation of swarming UAVs probably will not happen for another 30 years.

  24. #114
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,486
    Quote Originally Posted by haavarla View Post
    Wouldn't the jet attacking ground targets use a sniper pod to verify or at least ID the target.
    Cause as you say, just flipping HARM's away, what happens if the targets go dark again.. what can guide the Harm then and where?

    If so, what are the optical ranges of the latest sniperpods.
    BUK M3 will have max range of 70km.
    Harm are not just launched flipping away, like not any other weapon, they are pointed against a recognized radar emission and direct automatically against them.
    It's about twenty years that different countermeasures have been implemented against the tactics to turn off the radar, actual AARGM (a joint development between my own nation and US btw)have both GPS/INS than millimeter wave homing active guidance: it means that they would autonomously direct against the last position their sensor has determined and even autonomously search for the target if it would move, and this while moving at a way superior velocity than an incoming SAM missile.
    Repeat: the discriminant there is being able to take it out before its own missiles strike.

    Now, in how much time a glided bomb would reach the radar instead?
    And above all which radar: the long search one, the battery one or the one of the launchers?
    No one of this would emit for more than some tens of second before to pass the targets at another link of the chain and haul the you know what off.

    So, i'm not saying that its not possible, just quite difficult task IMHO, so i'm not surprised at all that both USN than my own aviation, future F-35 users, plan to leave this mission to a specialized asset.
    This almost until a suitable ARM missile for the F-35 would be ready, after it i'm sure that the F-35 would be an excellent, if not fantastic, wild weasel plane.
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 5th February 2017 at 23:00.

  25. #115
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,486
    Quote Originally Posted by djcross View Post
    50km flyout with a GBU-31 is about 5 minutes. Double that time for a glide bomb such as GBU-53. But the target coordinates are very precise and those weapons have 1 meter accuracy with GPS enabled.

    HARM is point and shoot, but requires a small CEP due to its small warhead to be effective against a TER. A skilled SAM operator could neutralize even the latest HARM versions with AARGM and PNG by shutting down early (causes a dramatic increase in CEP) and use of decoy emitters (think of the decoy emitters being used like an aircraft's towed decoys). Yes, the TER is temporarily shut down, but starts transmitting again once the HARM threat has passed. And HARMs are useless against IR guided SAMs where there is no tale-tale RF signal.
    In five minutes a modern Sam launcher with a 50 km range has launched its missiles and is on the move, so not any GPS only weapon would do the trick, let's add the fact that they actually are often surrounded by Shorad/CIWS and the task became quite forbidding.

    Repeat: this is not a tentative to trash the F-35, just a caveat about not taking anything for granted and always exert out critical sense about anything is said.
    The Red Flags and all the other exercises are there just for that: finding a way to adapt to ever changing threats.

    So, looking at what I have read about this one, I'm very happy the F-35 seems to be delivering its promises but I'm also happy about other choices my own air force have made, like keeping a specialized ECR asset and implementing Storm Shadows on our Eurofighters, giving us a set of different ways to skin the cat.
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 5th February 2017 at 23:27.

  26. #116
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,199
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    yes, salvo is the key word if your'e using lumbering gliders,
    let me guess, that "salvo" was 2-4 fictional 2000 lbs gliders and call it a day,
    luckily theres development of hypersonic ARM's, that will sport a chance of overcoming counter,
    especially if the attacker is launching a salvo
    The Youtube Red Flag Debrief video mentioned GBU-31/B3s, not gliders.

    Toss bombing means the jet starts at Mach 0.8 and 35,000 feet and initiates a sudden pull-up. As the jet's nose passes about 33 degrees above the horizon, the GBU is released. The GBU follows a ballistic arc and has a range well in excess of 50km due to the streamlined shape of the Mk 84 bomb body.
    Last edited by djcross; 5th February 2017 at 23:49.

  27. #117
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo View Post
    In five minutes a modern Sam launcher with a 50 km range has launched its missiles and is on the move, so not any GPS only weapon would do the trick, let's add the fact that they actually are often surrounded by Shorad/CIWS and the task became quite forbidding.

    Repeat: this is not a tentative to trash the F-35, just a caveat about not taking anything for granted and always exert out critical sense about anything is said.
    The Red Flags and all the other exercises are there just for that: finding a way to adapt to ever changing threats.

    So, looking at what I have read about this one, I'm very happy the F-35 seems to be delivering its promises but I'm also happy about other choices my own air force have made, like keeping a specialized ECR asset and implementing Storm Shadows on our Eurofighters, giving us a set of different ways to skin the cat.
    As soon as the pop-up SAM started radiating, the F-35 four-ship flight's ASQ-239s would coordinate via MADL and pinpoint the RF source, initiate jamming and upload TER coordinates to GBUs. If the SAM launches missile(s), F-35 has several layers of defense using electronic attack from APG-81, jamming from ASQ-239 and the ALE-70 towed decoy. Yes, the GBU-53 has a longer time-of-flight than the missile but has an IIR seeker to hit moving targets, including fleeing SAM TELs. Meanwhile, the F-35 flight relies on stealth to increase jamming effectiveness and hopefully avoid shootdown.

  28. #118
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,486
    Quote Originally Posted by djcross View Post
    As soon as the pop-up SAM started radiating, the F-35 four-ship flight's ASQ-239s would coordinate via MADL and pinpoint the RF source, initiate jamming and upload TER coordinates to GBUs. If the SAM launches missile(s), F-35 has several layers of defense using electronic attack from APG-81, jamming from ASQ-239 and the ALE-70 towed decoy. Yes, the GBU-53 has a longer time-of-flight than the missile but has an IIR seeker to hit moving targets, including fleeing SAM TELs. Meanwhile, the F-35 flight relies on stealth to increase jamming effectiveness and hopefully avoid shootdown.
    Seriously, the more you try to demonstrate me the feasibility of the concept, the more I'm happy about the decision of my own air force to keep the Tornado ECR...

    If, it launch you say? By in the time the first bomb has made two kilometers a SAM would have just emptied all its canisters...

  29. #119
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by djcross View Post
    Meanwhile, the F-35 flight relies on stealth to increase jamming effectiveness and hopefully avoid shootdown.
    The big assumption is that the missile RF seeker will be able to track the F-35 at a tactically useful range. Based on published studies that is unlikely.

  30. #120
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,043
    the most cunning concept i saw was the A2A/ARM combo missile that unfortunately got slashed,
    every fighter out there is all of a sudden going to have potent ARM's at the ready,
    which step up suppression much higher than a scant few fighters dedicated to the task.
    even better yet would be swarming UAV with said missile,
    SAM batteries would need to transition into passive targeting at this point

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 2 guests)

  1. Dragonflyer

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES