Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

LM revealed self defence weapon for Stealth fighter

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • mig-31bm
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Oct 2013
    • 2110

    #21
    Originally posted by Hotshot View Post
    He most certainly is NOT talking about 'radar' cross section. He was probably simply talking about the physical size of the planes. The F-35 physical cross section is smaller, but that doesn't mean.
    oh come on, if he was talking about physical size then his sentence would be meaning less, it would be the same as saying
    "oh F-16 is smaller than F-15 but it doesn't mean it superior '' that would make no sense because most of the time people will consider bigger is better not the other way round
    also he was talking about stealth in the previous sentence as well so it would make more sense if he still talking about radar cross section instead of randomly jumping to physical size, the sentence will also have more meaning, can be paraphrase as '' even though F-35 have smaller RCS, it doesn't mean it will be superior to f-22 when we go to war "

    Originally posted by Hotshot View Post
    Every stealth fighter is designed to reduced its IR signature, and they use several techniques for that, i.e. special exhaust, paints etc... When he says that the F-35 beats the F-22 in stealth he probably means that a subsonic F-35 has a significantly lower IR signature than the F-22, which is rather obvious. The question regarding stealth is, is it better to fly faster and have a higher IR or not? You gain on speed so the defenses have less time to intercept the plane but you're more likely to be detected in IR.
    Stealth for fighter have always mean VLO in radio frequency , i have never heard any aircraft producer use the word "stealth" to describe reduce IR signature
    , even though both F-22 and F-35 have topcoat and special nozzle to reduce IR signature they will still have significant more IR signature than a helicopter or a piston aircraft, no way they can claim that they are stealth in IR wavelength

    Originally posted by Hotshot View Post
    Also, again the JSF was not meant to be as stealthy as the F-22. My guess is that its frontal RCS is almost the same as the F-22, which is good for the first shot, but from the other angles it is significantly worse ( less facetting of the fuselage in particular, less stealthy nozzles probably ), even though it still qualifies as VLO.
    F-35 was meant to carry less weapon, fly slower, less agile compared to F-22, but i dont think it have much bigger RCS than F-22 unless from directly behind, from most angle the 2 aircraft will have quite similar RCS

    Originally posted by Hotshot View Post
    Irbis-e is a PESA, the CAESAR is an AESA, so that will probably compensate. It can look 90 degrees off center.

    http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-ne...l-e-scan-radar
    i dont think AESA will perform much better than PESA to close the gap of size and power between CAESAR and Ibis-e, and as i explained before even if it does it still have to try to find something that can hide from SAM radar that is 10-20 times bigger and more powerful


    Originally posted by Hotshot View Post
    Depends where. And btw, if the PIRATE can't see the F-35 because of the clouds, the F-35 can't see the typhoons with its EOTS.
    F-35 was mean to detect the typhoon by APG-81 not EOTS


    Originally posted by Hotshot View Post
    Mmh... better be careful there is no other typhoon searching. The typhoons will know that the F-35s will try to do that.
    if you are talking about many vs many situations then i can have another F-35 or EA-18G doing support jamming by NGJ, that thing have significantly more power than MALD-J, APG-81, ALE-70, with the combination of very high power jamming and very low RCS it
    likely that EF-2000 will be totally blind and unable to lock F-35 at all even at 4-5 km


    Originally posted by Hotshot View Post

    It still complicates the interception a lot. The stealth plane cannot fire head on in bvr at long range as it would usually.
    i think the only situation when stealth fighter would want to launch their AAM from very long range is when intercepting something fly high and fast ( eg : Mig-31, Mig-25, SR-71, KH-21... etc) because it would be hard to chased these things and as they fly fast and high they can hardly maneuver thus missiles dont have to maneuver alot

    on the other hand again agile fighter, stealth fighter would prefer to get into best possible position before launching their missiles


    Originally posted by Hotshot View Post
    With side thrusters it wouldn't take much time, maybe even less than one second. Could a DAS like system be used for that I don't know.
    1 seconds is actually alot when you think about it, a mach 4 missiles will close 3km distance in just over 2 seconds
    , DAS wont be effective , because missiles are very fast and small you need the exactly heading, speed, and distant to target to intercept them => you need a radar


    Originally posted by Hotshot View Post
    If you use the APG-81 for jamming, you can carry 1 more meteor or 4 more CUDAs. I would try to see if it is possible to program the meteor to fly around the enemy plane, outside the NEZ of its MSDMs. The meteor would be launched right before the F-35 is detected, say at 50-60km to give as much terminal propulsion to the missile to make a u-turn. As soon as the meteors are launched, I use the APG-81 for jamming, I continue to to fly straight ahead and I launched one CUDA per target. So the enemy has 2 missiles to counter at the same time coming from different directions. Each F-35 would have 2 meteors, 6 CUDAs, and 2 MSDMs ( on 2 internal BRU-61s ). The MSDMs can still save the plane and more than 8 AAMs is probably not needed.
    i prefer MALD-J instead of just APG-81 because of 2 reasons :
    1- it dont required F-35 to turn it's head towards enemy aircraft to be able to jam their radar, that will allow many different tactic, there will still be jamming head on even when F-35 circle and creeping behind enemy
    2- if F-35 was to jam by APG-81, enemy will know there is something in a general direction even though they don't know information such as heading, speed, altitude, distance or number
    3- enemy may throw a few AAM in HOJ mode to shut down the jammer, 3 different jammer source : APG-81, ALE-70, MALD-J working together can easily confused enemy's HOJ missiles and cause them to miss ( turn on-off in turn making missile wasting energy to correct the course
    4- MALD-J also work as a decoy, enemy may think that it is F-35 and try to engage it
    Originally posted by Hotshot View Post

    I am not sure it could carry 38... with 6 BRU-61, that would be 24.

    In that config you lose whole your stealth and anything can shoot at you. and it is still very dangerous, the MSDMs will not have a 100% pk. I think I would still attack in stealth mode flying NOTE with popu up tactics and ARMs or some sort of stand off missile with a terminal seeker. The F-35 needs stealthy cruise missiles that can fit in its bays.
    i explained above in post #9, remember MSDM is even smaller than CUDA space for 1 Aim-120 launcher can be replaced with launcher that carry 3 MSDM => F-35 can carry 14 MSDM internally, externally it have 4 pylon that can carry 2 aim-120 launcher each ( just like F-18E) so it will be able to carry 24 MSDM externally => total of 38 MSDM, the PK wont be 100% but missiles despite have very high speed, actually have very predictable flight path thus PK likely very high
    Btw F-35 do have internal cruise missiles :
    Spear III => range = 114 km, can carry 8 of them internally
    JSM => range = 300-400 km, can carry 2 of them internally
    Last edited by mig-31bm; 21st February 2015, 18:53.

    Comment

    • Hotshot
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jul 2014
      • 1127

      #22
      oh come on, if he was talking about physical size then his sentence would be meaning less, it would be the same as saying
      "oh F-16 is smaller than F-15 but it doesn't mean it superior '' that would make no sense because most of the time people will consider bigger is better not the other way round
      also he was talking about stealth in the previous sentence as well so it would make more sense if he still talking about radar cross section instead of randomly jumping to physical size, the sentence will also have more meaning, can be paraphrase as '' even though F-35 have smaller RCS, it doesn't mean it will be superior to f-22 when we go to war "
      Almost everyone finds it very hard to believe that the F-35 would have a lower RCS than the F-22. That makes absolutely no sense because the JSF was meant to be less capable - and stealthy - than the F-22 to be exportable. Program officials had also disclosed several years ago that the F-22's RCS is equivalent to a metal marble and the F-35's RCS is equivalent to a metal golf ball.

      Stealth for fighter have always mean VLO in radio frequency , i have never heard any aircraft producer use the word "stealth" to describe reduce IR signature
      , even though both F-22 and F-35 have topcoat and special nozzle to reduce IR signature they will still have significant more IR signature than a helicopter or a piston aircraft, no way they can claim that they are stealth in IR wavelength
      BS. It's always been about full spectral stealth. Even the F-117 had special exhausts to lower the RCS.

      i think the only situation when stealth fighter would want to launch their AAM from very long range is when intercepting something fly high and fast ( eg : Mig-31, Mig-25, SR-71, KH-21... etc) because it would be hard to chased these things and as they fly fast and high they can hardly maneuver thus missiles dont have to maneuver alot

      on the other hand again agile fighter, stealth fighter would prefer to get into best possible position before launching their missiles
      Nonsense, the pilots would try to shoot from high altitude and high speed head on to give as much range to their BVR missiles as possible. We are not talking about WVR here.

      1 seconds is actually alot when you think about it, a mach 4 missiles will close 3km distance in just over 2 seconds
      , DAS wont be effective , because missiles are very fast and small you need the exactly heading, speed, and distant to target to intercept them => you need a radar
      I don't think the problem is the second it would take to make a u turn. The problem is that the DAS probably cannot detect the missile when its motor is not turned on. Even if it does detect it it might not have accurate enough targetting information for the MSDM. A radar might indeed be required.

      i prefer MALD-J instead of just APG-81 because of 2 reasons :
      1- it dont required F-35 to turn it's head towards enemy aircraft to be able to jam their radar, that will allow many different tactic, there will still be jamming head on even when F-35 circle and creeping behind enemy
      2- if F-35 was to jam by APG-81, enemy will know there is something in a general direction even though they don't know information such as heading, speed, altitude, distance or number
      3- enemy may throw a few AAM in HOJ mode to shut down the jammer, 3 different jammer source : APG-81, ALE-70, MALD-J working together can easily confused enemy's HOJ missiles and cause them to miss ( turn on-off in turn making missile wasting energy to correct the course
      4- MALD-J also work as a decoy, enemy may think that it is F-35 and try to engage it
      I think the APG-81 will be a lot more powerful as a jammer than the MALD-J, and the MALD-J will be shot down. Also, if you want the MALD-J to jam in the direction of the enemy plane, you need to control the MALD-J from the F-35. This might be quite complicated, and you need to know the exact position of the enemy planes, which means you need to use your long range sensors, possibly the radar so you have to turn towards the target.

      Moreover, if the jamming comes from one direction, maybe the radar will be able to see clearly in another direction. AESA radars can be used directionaly.

      i explained above in post #9, remember MSDM is even smaller than CUDA space for 1 Aim-120 launcher can be replaced with launcher that carry 3 MSDM => F-35 can carry 14 MSDM internally, externally it have 4 pylon that can carry 2 aim-120 launcher each ( just like F-18E) so it will be able to carry 24 MSDM externally => total of 38 MSDM, the PK wont be 100% but missiles despite have very high speed, actually have very predictable flight path thus PK likely very high
      It's hard to say for sure how many it would carry, and it is not what matters. Having no internal AMRAAMs to carry just a few more makes no sense. If you want to carry 30+ missiles or whatever, that means you expect 30+ missiles being launched at you ( many of them not from the front btw ), so you expect a pk of like 97% to be able to survive, which is very unrealistic.

      Btw F-35 do have internal cruise missiles :
      Spear III => range = 114 km, can carry 8 of them internally
      JSM => range = 300-400 km, can carry 2 of them internally
      Thanks I know that.

      But it is not sure anymore that the JSM will be carried internally. US officials have said recently that the only cruise missile that the F-35 was supposed to carry internally won't be carried anymore. So not sure.

      Anyways using stand off missiles with a relatively long range is the way to go.
      Last edited by Hotshot; 21st February 2015, 20:13.

      Comment

      • mig-31bm
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Oct 2013
        • 2110

        #23
        Originally posted by Hotshot View Post
        Almost everyone finds it very hard to believe that the F-35 would have a lower RCS than the F-22. That makes absolutely no sense because the JSF was meant to be less capable - and stealthy - than the F-22 to be exportable. Program officials had also disclosed several years ago that the F-22's RCS is equivalent to a metal marble and the F-35's RCS is equivalent to a metal golf ball.
        F-35 did have lower speed, service ceiling, agility, weapon load compared to F-22, F-35 may also have bigger RCS when view directly from behind
        however from frontal arcs there is little reason to believe F-35 have higher RCS, it a smaller aircraft with similar airframe + much more modern RAM, also while F-35 may be intented to have higher RCS than F-22, it was also said that it excess the RCS requirement ( may be due to modern RAM) thus put it in the league of F-22 now in term of stealth


        Originally posted by Hotshot View Post
        BS. It's always been about full spectral stealth. Even the F-117 had special exhausts to lower the RCS.
        that what iam trying to say, stealth for fighter is always about VLO in radio frequency, while the design may use some method to reduce IR signature, they never claim an aircraft is stealth in IR wavelength

        Originally posted by Hotshot View Post

        Nonsense, the pilots would try to shoot from high altitude and high speed head on to give as much range to their BVR missiles as possible. We are not talking about WVR here.
        depend on situation
        the point of Stealth fighter is either attack first or attack enemy without get attack back but since they dont carry alot of missiles thet would prefer each shot to have high PK ( that why i said stealth fighter would try to get to the most favorable position before launching their missiles there is no point for them to launch missiles immediately after they detect enemy, their very low RCS allow them to do that,)

        Originally posted by Hotshot View Post
        I don't think the problem is the second it would take to make a u turn. The problem is that the DAS probably cannot detect the missile when its motor is not turned on. Even if it does detect it it might not have accurate enough targetting information for the MSDM. A radar might indeed be required.
        DAS sure can detect missiles even when the missile's motor is off because missiles is moving quite fast so create alot of friction, however to accurately intercept many missiles at once you will still need a radar

        Originally posted by Hotshot View Post
        I think the APG-81 will be a lot more powerful as a jammer than the MALD-J, and the MALD-J will be shot down. Also, if you want the MALD-J to jam in the direction of the enemy plane, you need to control the MALD-J from the F-35. This might be quite complicated, and you need to know the exact position of the enemy planes, which means you need to use your long range sensors, possibly the radar so you have to turn towards the target.

        Moreover, if the jamming comes from one direction, maybe the radar will be able to see clearly in another direction. AESA radars can be used directionaly.
        MALD-J is indeed weaker than APG-81 in term of power, however since you are trying to hide a stealth aircraft so powerful jammer is not very necessary ( MALD-J jammer is still many times more powerful than the jammer on FOTD like ALE-55)
        you dont need to know exact location of enemy to do noise jamming just a general direction is enough ( obviously if you know the location more accurate you can focus jamming more = more powerful jamming) , and MALD-J also have data link , AESA can focus it beam on 1 direction but they still receive signal from full FoV of the T/R module so jamming will be effective regarless of where the radar try to focus at
        enemy may try to shot MALD-J down by launching a few missiles in HOJ mode at it, normally if there is only 1 decoy that would be enough, but the decoy is not working alone, you have the APG-81 and ALE-70 on F-35 to do jamming as well ( a common tactic of support jammer aircraft to defeat HOJ missiles since Vietnam war is to turn on and off their jamming in turn, for example if there are 2 jamming aircraft A and B fly at a distance from the other, if the enemy missiles fly at aircraft A then A turn it's jammer off, B turn it's jammer on, missiles will then turn to fly at B, after that B will turn jammer off and A turn jammer on again... etc and so on, after a few time of changing course missiles will run out of fuel)
        since MALD-J have data link the same tactic can be used

        Originally posted by Hotshot View Post
        It's hard to say for sure how many it would carry, and it is not what matters. Having no internal AMRAAMs to carry just a few more makes no sense. If you want to carry 30+ missiles or whatever, that means you expect 30+ missiles being launched at you ( many of them not from the front btw ), so you expect a pk of like 97% to be able to survive, which is very unrealistic.
        the reason why i want to carry more MSDM is because i expected some of them to miss ( even though i still think the PK is likely to be quite high since anti air missiles dont try to out maneuver things that launched at them and also they fly quite predictable path


        Originally posted by Hotshot View Post
        But it is not sure anymore that the JSM will be carried internally. US officials have said recently that the only cruise missile that the F-35 was supposed to carry internally won't be carried anymore. So not sure.
        can you give the link to this? , i have read anything like that any where

        Comment

        • topspeed
          Get on uppah !
          • Jan 2009
          • 2660

          #24
          Wouldn't this allow a really small stealth acs to be constructed with concealed missiles ?
          If it looks good, it will fly good !
          -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


          http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

          Comment

          • mig-31bm
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Oct 2013
            • 2110

            #25
            Originally posted by topspeed View Post
            Wouldn't this allow a really small stealth acs to be constructed with concealed missiles ?
            what you mean? like the X-47?

            Comment

            • topspeed
              Get on uppah !
              • Jan 2009
              • 2660

              #26
              Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
              what you mean? like the X-47?
              Yes Mig-31bm...sorry I did not see your post earlier.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B

              Imagine this with less AAMs and 8 of those LM new missiles ..you might be able to carry some fuel and landing gear here as well.

              I had to check what Mig-31BM was; http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...a/mig-31bm.htm
              Attached Files
              Last edited by topspeed; 25th February 2015, 17:27.
              If it looks good, it will fly good !
              -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


              http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

              Comment

              • mig-31bm
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Oct 2013
                • 2110

                #27
                Originally posted by topspeed View Post
                Yes Mig-31bm...sorry I did not see your post earlier.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_X-47B

                Imagine this with less AAMs and 8 of those LM new missiles ..you might be able to carry some fuel and landing gear here as well.

                I had to check what Mig-31BM was; http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...a/mig-31bm.htm
                look quite similar to F-117

                Comment

                • topspeed
                  Get on uppah !
                  • Jan 2009
                  • 2660

                  #28
                  Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
                  look quite similar to F-117

                  This would be a flying wing.
                  If it looks good, it will fly good !
                  -Bill Lear & Marcel Dassault


                  http://max3fan.blogspot.com/

                  Comment

                  Unconfigured Ad Widget

                  Collapse

                   

                  Working...
                  X