F-16.net

Newbie Joined: May 07, 2008 Posts: 2 Status: Offline

Until now all compares the F-35 vs others aircrafts but... the F-35 is primary for A2G role right??

So what about the new s-400 and Pantsir-s1 vs F-35?? I believe the main threat for the f-35 for his role is the sam's.

S-400 detection range 400 km for 1m2 (70km vs stealths low band active mode)
Pantsir-s1 active aray radar 30km vs 1m2. for harms,bombs, stealths is 10 km.
Pantsir-s1 passive lock-on with infra-red opticals 15 km vs stealths
Pantsir-s1 can intercept bombs,harms,cruise missiles 4 engagement at same time!! for s-400 protection

All forgot the real threat for the F-35 a2g role: s-400 compo with pantsir-s1
what now ??? Shocked

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

stvs, for every new SAM threat there is developed a new counter. There are new solutions being developed now of course. Stand-off range weapons and new seeker heads are some examples, as are air launched decoys.

Even air launched missiles which are able intercept the Intercept missiles are part of the formula. This is all pretty basic info.

Enthusiast Joined: Sep 30, 2007 Posts: 80 Status: Offline

Its not just S-400 vs F-35, its force A equiped with S-400 vs (probably) US or US aligned air force equiped with F-35. Then its S-400 vs significant EW overmatch, extreemely capable ELINT (Rivet Joint), possibly SBIRS (depending on how capable that asset turns out to be), 250m ranged, LO stand off missiles with passive seekers (JASSM), & then F-35.

What do you think the outcome would be?

Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:

Its not just S-400 vs F-35, its force A equiped with S-400 vs (probably) US or US aligned air force equiped with F-35. Then its S-400 vs significant EW overmatch, extreemely capable ELINT (Rivet Joint), possibly SBIRS (depending on how capable that asset turns out to be), 250m ranged, LO stand off missiles with passive seekers (JASSM), & then F-35.

What do you think the outcome would be?

A shot down F-35. Laughing

This is getting discussed over at the Ares blog: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/de ... cebafbe12d

Enthusiast Joined: Sep 30, 2007 Posts: 52 Status: Offline

Israelis probably has the most realistic view on how F35 will fare in a high-intensity environment. Here is an article on that topic; interesting reading. It points out an one-man cockpit, the "perishability of its stealth," and the limited array of weapon it is projected to carry (i.e. up to Block 3 configuration) as its weak points. ATA/ATG/EW, especially against crazy stuff like the super-SAMs, will be about coordinated attack by various platforms, according to the article. Two Cents

"Never-Ending War" by Fulghum, Wall, & Barrie; AviationWeek & Space Technology, Dec 17, 2007.

(if anyone had electronic access to the full-length article, could you post it here?) Salute

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 09, 2005 Posts: 31 Status: Offline

Two points about the S-400

No real world combat evaluation as of yet.

Isn't this thing supposed to be really huge? making it easier to spot with satellites, recon aircraft, etc.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1011 Status: Offline

Des wrote:

Two points about the S-400

No real world combat evaluation as of yet.

Isn't this thing supposed to be really huge? making it easier to spot with satellites, recon aircraft, etc.

Not to mention JASSM (they'll get it working eventually).

Enthusiast Joined: Sep 30, 2007 Posts: 52 Status: Offline

Two alarming facts about S-300 or its monstrous sibling S-400 Triumf SAM:

1. S300 is already operational in many foreign states; S400 will likely follow suit within 5 years and many foreigners are eager to get their hands on it.

2. They are few SAMs out there that can outrun our AGM88 in a Air Defense vs. Wild Weasel shootout. The crazy stuff is huge but mobile, like our Patriot System.

The three generic ways to deal with SAM are: Jam (ECM) the heck out of it, reply in kind with HARM/ALARM and better yet remain undetectable if possible.

Well, basically, F-35 vs S-300/400 equates to the S-300/400 being unable to protect anywhere near the volume of air space it is designed to protect. The batteries also has a dubious ability to defend themselves against anything more than a casual attack from an F-35 operating air force.

If the radar is capable of detecting 1sq-m class targets at ~400km, it'll be capable of detecting an F-35 class RCS (~0.0014sq-m) target at 50~55km. The rough rule of thumb is that for 10 fold reduction in RCS, range is approximately halved. In addition, the seekers on the missiles themselves will also have a drastically smaller homing basket so when the missiles open their eyes they may need to be say 2.5km from the target instead of say 20km to actually acquire. This is a big problem, especially when SAM-ARM duels sometimes ending with the aircraft dodging below the radar horizon and hence causing the SAM radar to be unable to accurately command guide the weapon way before the seeker goes active. The shot is hence blind in the last phase of the flight and a big homing basket is essential in improving the missile's probability of hitting the target. This is without taking into account an ECM environment that may be detrimental to the radar's function.

It is silly to assume that an attack on an S-400 battery will be done with a single F-35 vs a single S-400 site. It'll probably be a number of aircrafts vs an S-400 site which may also have AAA and short range SAM protection. The SAM battery will likely face one or more spotting F-35s at high altitudes operating way outside the detection threshold of its radar and beyond the effective kinematic range of its missiles. There may be a strike package going in at low level below its radar horizon getting targeting feed from the spotters. These may also have ESM and ECM support, and there may be drones in the air distracting and confusing the enemy.

The big difference between a SAM battery and an aircraft is that the SAM battery is not going anywhere in the time slice of an engagement. The aircrafts can proibe, sting and bug out. In addition, weapons released at speed and altitude have an inherent advantage over weapons fired in a zero-zero state.

I think that a good parallel will be an F-35 or F-22 operating against an AEGIS vessel. The SPY-1 radar is a monstrous 4MW unit with a detection range equal to or exceeding that of the S-400's radar(s). The SM-2ER Blk IV and SM-6ER are 370km range weapons which is kinematically very similar to the large S-400 missiles. The US will have plenty of opportunity to test their stealth platforms and tactics against these floating bastions of long range air defense. They must be pretty comfortable with their odds to be placing such emphasis on VLO technology.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1011 Status: Offline

Beagle79 wrote:

Two alarming facts about S-300 or its monstrous sibling S-400 Triumf SAM:

1. S300 is already operational in many foreign states; S400 will likely follow suit within 5 years and many foreigners are eager to get their hands on it.

2. They are few SAMs out there that can outrun our AGM88 in a Air Defense vs. Wild Weasel shootout. The crazy stuff is huge but mobile, like our Patriot System.

The three generic ways to deal with SAM are: Jam (ECM) the heck out of it, reply in kind with HARM/ALARM and better yet remain undetectable if possible.

They're working on a longer ranged, faster version of HARM. (That ducted rocket thing launched from a remotely piloted F-4 a while back). Also one of JASSMs specific roles is to take down those sites.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1011 Status: Offline

[quote="dwightlooi"]

stvs wrote:

The SM-2ER Blk IV and SM-6ER are 370km range weapons which is kinematically very similar to the large S-400 missiles. The US will have plenty of opportunity to test their stealth platforms and tactics against these floating bastions of long range air defense. They must be pretty comfortable with their odds to be placing such emphasis on VLO technology.

SM-6 (there is no "ER") will far outrange SM-2 Block IV (no "ER" on that one either) as SM-2 Block IV is strictly line-of-sight whereas SM-6 will have CEC ability.

[quote="sferrin"]

dwightlooi wrote:

stvs wrote:

The SM-2ER Blk IV and SM-6ER are 370km range weapons which is kinematically very similar to the large S-400 missiles. The US will have plenty of opportunity to test their stealth platforms and tactics against these floating bastions of long range air defense. They must be pretty comfortable with their odds to be placing such emphasis on VLO technology.

SM-6 (there is no "ER") will far outrange SM-2 Block IV (no "ER" on that one either) as SM-2 Block IV is strictly line-of-sight whereas SM-6 will have CEC ability.

The SM-2 Blk IV is also called the "SM-2 AEGIS ER". The biggest difference between it and previous SM-2ERs was the adoption of the short and fat (21") Mk72 booster in lieu of the traditional Mk70 booster which made the traditional SM-2ER missiles too long for the Mk41 VLS.

The SM-6 may or may not have an MR version without the Mk72 booster stage. In the long run it surely make sense to use the active front end on both 2-stage and single stage versions of the Standard.

As far as range is concerned, the SM-6 and the current SM-2 Blk IV should be identical regardless of the terminal guidance mode differences between the two. The SM-6 will use the same Mk72 booster 1st stage, Mk104 mod(3) dual-thrust 2nd stage motors, airframe, tail control group and finage. The Standard Blk IV cited with a range of 200 nm (370 km) by the USN.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1011 Status: Offline

dwightlooi wrote:

As far as range is concerned, the SM-6 and the current SM-2 Blk IV should be identical regardless of the terminal guidance mode differences between the two. The SM-6 will use the same Mk72 booster 1st stage, Mk104 mod(3) dual-thrust 2nd stage motors, airframe, tail control group and finage. The Standard Blk IV cited with a range of 200 nm (370 km) by the USN.

Which is why I corrected you. SM-2 Block IV is limited by the radar. It has far more kinematic ability than they can use with the Aegis because of line of sight issues. That is the biggest reason FOR developing the SM-6.

Newbie Joined: May 06, 2008 Posts: 2 Status: Offline

Interesting opinions..let me explain further..

I am from Greece and propably Greece will buy s-400 with pantsir-s1 systems for the threat turk f-35 at near future.in aegean threat(iam not war lover anyway)

Ofcourse with the greek new aircraft efa or rafale and or f-35 too.
russians talked with greeks army officials said that s-400-pantsir-s1 compo
is he best sam solution so far and with erieye air-radars and efa rafale can be ideal for the f-35 threat.that is the enviroment who i mean..aegean sea not usa-russia. i said pantsir-s1 can hunt with PASSIVE mode harms bombs and stealths. The aegis is same with s-400 in range and missiles maybe..but the point is one: quality and accuracy in stealth detection rather same range.

Russians prepared the s-400 for the near future-stealth-harms-ecm-decoys enviroment..dont forget s-400 can be detect 9 targets same time.
not alone s-400 but within air-land-naval enviroment.
I saw little underestimated the s-400 here.

F-16.net

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

S-400 and others sam vs F-35