Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Spaz,

Not a new capability. The first recorded use of a Sidewinder in A2G mode was an AIM-9D or G was against a truck being unloaded from a French ship on a Haiphong dock by a frustrated USN pilot back in the 60s. What is important and otherwise unmentioned here is what it means for -any- GPS equipped weapons system.

HARM Block 6 can theoretically strike, not just a radar target gone dark after it is 3D range known imaged by an ESM cued SAR radar. But also as a fast-response shot against -any- surface target which stops long enough to be killed. Including black SUV caravans in Pakistan from across the border.

Similarly, the AMRAAM C7 or D1 with a GPS interface can theoretically become what amounts to being a powered IAM, even if they don't go all the way with the MEM radar to allow it to image surface targets. JDRADM is most likely going to be the successor to HARM for this reason because GBU-39 takes forever to accomplish flyout as a SEAD system. Even as it will likely use PifPaf type jet deflection to also be the HOBS replacement for AIM-9X at all but the closest of ranges (AMRAAM already has a 60` ASE which beats the AIM-9L/M by a considerable degree).

At which point pole rules pointiness and you have to ask: is an SRM worth -anything-? For the F/A-18E/F it clearly is because you cannot tip-mount AMRAAMs. They tried one day and it made the wings sag rather comically. For shooting up go-fast drug boats that consistently outrun our antidrug helos perhaps it is an option. But no more so than a Maverick or a Hellfire, both of which have multirack (BRU-57/LAU-117 and LAU-145 respectively) and are better tailored to the mission than a 200,000 dollar AAM _because the airframe comes with a targeting pod_, by definition rather than convenience.

My biggest worry over this kind of kit is that it is potentially the KOD for stealth. You put a low band (A through F bands) radar out there with enough juice behind it and it _will see_ even VLO airframes. At least well enough to cue sector searches by much closer weapons.

Because the entire shape becomes a resonant dipole that charges up and reemits secondary wave backscatter at low bands to cue sector searches by much closer-in weapons.

At least unless you are like B-2 sized.

Combine this with on-weapon datalinks and potentially multispectral seekers and the shot which leaves a dumb launch box at your feet can be cued by microwave or FO landline from an ATC radar a hundred or more miles across the way. Just like the Tiger mod to the SA-2. Only with vastly more shots in the air at much lower battery costs.

This is where we are headed for with weapons like the HAWK/AMRAAM combined launcher and the VL MICA and Adder. 6-8nm effective slant ranges (with a booster can) = 25,000ft min-floor and right in the area where the F-35 will want to cruise in the target area because it doesn't have the wingloading or thrust trust to do what the F-22 does from twice as far out, twice as fast and twice as high to boost IAM launch ranges.

For the anti-terrorist/druggie mission set, a weapon like LCPK in a seven shot LAU-68 is more than enough to beat back most MANPADS and has the advantage of costing less than a fifth what the AAM does while carrying more passes than what you can typically get out of a 500rd 20mm drum.

LEG

F-16.net Sponsor

Thumper, a reply to your 29 Nov post.

Again, I must ask you the same question I asked Spudman - what is your background? What is your expertise to offer relentless favorable comments on the JSF?

My point is very simple, perhaps too simple as it was obviously missed by you. I won't be as subtle this time.

JSF has some serious issues. USG through an admirable lobbying campaign from LM has put the security of our nation at risk - this is my opinion - by not being forthright about the design issues and alleged capabilities of JSF. Under Nunn-McCurdy the JSF program should have been terminated over three years ago for violating the cost overrun provisions of the aforementioned amendment. As an operator of gen 4+ fighters JSF is the wrong direction. We made a mistake. We are forced to adapt now as the JSF is bought and eventually fielded. On paper it looks great, but it will take years, years we don't have, to bring this aircraft to IOC equivelance of the BLK-50/60 viper and the F-18 E/F. We can still kill the JSF program, purchase 180 more F-22s (taken out to the C-variant) as well as procure like numbers of advanced F-18 and vipers AND save our country billions over the next 30 years. But we didn't and we are stuck with JSF: the PS3 version of the A-7. I still believe with the right Congress and leadership in Defense JSF can be killed - as it should be.

Leg said it best and I must concur, after day 2-3 stealth doesn't matter. But you better bet you a$$ that air superiority is achieved by day 3 otherwise the rest of the plan is toast.

So the point is Thumper, be critical of this program - it just might wake you up. Stop relying on the venerable excuse "well it's just new technology, that is why it is late". Nothing new about the tech inside the jet our outside (save for the STOVL variant).

sceptic wrote:

Nothing new about the tech inside the jet our outside (save for the STOVL variant).

thought the Northrop Grumman AN /AAS-37 and the APG-81 were fairly new systems tbh

leg wrote:

My biggest worry over this kind of kit is that it is potentially the KOD for stealth. You put a low band (A through F bands) radar out there with enough juice behind it and it _will see_ even VLO airframes. At least well enough to cue sector searches by much closer weapons.

It WILL NOT see VLO airframes.

Manufacturer of the best Russian ground based low band radar (Vostok E - but still they have only a demonstrator) is claimed to have range of 190 nm vs F-117 in unjammed environment and 40 nm in jammed environment(seems easy to jam...) with probability of detection 0.9 and one false alarm. F-35 RCS is even lower, so detection ranges should be even lower. And you have to remember that modern battlefield is always jammed...
Vostok E is only 2 dimensional radar. So you could probably detect F-35 25-30 miles out, but you'd only knew it's bearing +/- 1.1 degree and approximate velocity. Vostok E lacks a heightfinding capability.

This is the best ani-stealth radar that might be fielded in foreseeable future. Do you think it makes VLO aircraft obsolete? I don't.

Who let the newbies in <g>?

Good points from LEG and sceptic. However, I'd point out that VLO has no clear definition. This is important because solutions that work against F-35-type LO (and exec, I know of no source that says that F-35 RCS is in a different order from F-117) won't work as well against all-wing LO configurations.

underhill wrote:

(and exec, I know of no source that says that F-35 RCS is in a different order from F-117)

Use google, the source is out there... Wink

F-117 - RCS = 0,02 m2. Even Russian sources say so. For them 'F-117 like target' means 0,02 m2 RCS target.
RCS of F-35 is ~0,0015 m2.

In what aspect? At what wavelength? You really expect accurate numbers on Google?

exec, interesting to me that you did not provide the URL for the stats. Anyhow here is an article that explains RCS stuff for JSF that some may find helpful: http://evangelidis.gr/embry/F35LO-ShortReport-HTML.htm

"The cockpit of a conventional aircraft is one of the largest sources of radar signature. Pilot’s helmet, displays and the seats contribute to this." I wonder if 'airhead' JSF pilots will be selected on basis of reducing RCS?

[Addition] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... design.htm
"According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 m2, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015m2, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22. The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and is comparable to the B-2, which was half that of the older F-117. Other reports claim that the F-35 is said to have an smaller RCS headon than the F-22, but from all other angles the F-35 RCS is greater. By comparison, the RCS of the Mig-29 is about 5m2."

underhill wrote:

In what aspect? At what wavelength? You really expect accurate numbers on Google?

Frontal aspect, probably X-band. And do you really expect to see highly classified all-aspect RCS models anywhere?

The fact is - the best future(forseeable) Russian radar probably can detect F-117 from 40 nm. And then, you still only know approximate bearing and velocity. The same low-band radar can detect F-16 from 72 miles(in jammed environment of course), so if you ask me - F-117's stealth still decreases detection range.

So you can choose:
1. low-band surveilance radar with anti-stealth capabilities - but this radars are highly inaccurate. They are also easy to jam and that makes their ani-stealth capabilities non-existant.
2. Typical X, C, S band radar for detection and missile guidance. They are accurate, small and can guide a missile. But VLO techniques work here just fine.

Okay, just for the sake of argument the Russian Federation has enough intel to deal with the F-117. The F-117 is gone and long forgotten! The F-22 and F-35 are birds of a completely different feather. Even if the Russians had their own stealth technology airframes to train against, they would not know the capabilities of our own aircraft. Sure, they may have a clue about attempting to deal with them, but they would be a long way off from defeating them!

Exec,

exec wrote:

underhill wrote:

(and exec, I know of no source that says that F-35 RCS is in a different order from F-117)

Use google, the source is out there... Wink

F-117 - RCS = 0,02 m2. Even Russian sources say so. For them 'F-117 like target' means 0,02 m2 RCS target.
RCS of F-35 is ~0,0015 m2.

Actually, the F-35 had it's observables rating reduced from VLO to LO as a function of acknowledging that the aircraft's export model would not have the same signature performance as the U.S. and perhaps British versions. Which effectively discounts the principle reason for exporting LO secrets: 'that all our friends and allies may cooperate with us'.

See- 'Yes, the US DoD's intention to downgrade the export model was known since early 2000s, and the downgrade is confirmed by foreign government negotiators in 2009.'
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryfor ... age12.aspx

I have seen quotes which put the F-22 at Golfball and the F-35 at Basketball or Beachball based on the bandwith of the radar used. And if you can put a 3D, stealth defeating, LPAR out there that will run the missiles down the beam until their own seekers can take over, you can kill a target. Such track via missile goes autonomous has been around since PAC-3 at least.

See- 'If a fighter, which produces a tennis ball sized radar return'
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-140909-1.html

And the radar I was considering was actually the 55Zh6-1 Nebo-U.

See- 'The radar’s ability to operate accurately in the metric band'
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archiv ... 25285.html

That said, the way you beat stealth is not by improving the sensorization but by cheaply integrating the loitering bus intercept and kill vehicles to the extent that (air breathing, using target or recce drone technology) the weapon is already out there, along with ten fellow pack hunters, searching for targets as they pass through. Any SAM which must fire from a fixed point, make a high Mach midcourse transition and then have one shot at a kill or a miss-ile terminal event is effectively a 'point defense' system by the very nature of the radar which must have horizon and signature return values sufficient to acquire and track the threat to begin with.
A general surveillance/sector radar and/or range tracking camera that can go up a fast mast off a truck like Giraffe or the Flap Lid can operate from such angles that, based on signature alone, the threat will be seen 'en passant'. It's just a matter of getting the shot out there in time to make use of it.
And whereas an F-22 with it's roughly 80lb/sqft wing loading and a massive 'the faster you go faster' thrust trust in those F119s can somewhat ignore this problem based on sheer aeros performance, doing a split-ess at 60K and and the better part of Mach 2 to completely change the intercept geometry of any lofted missiles. The 100lb/sqft F-35 is going to be a scow, lucky to manage a 35,000ft @ .9M cruise profile because it's wings are tiny and all it's specific excess is dependant on heavy and early afterburner use to energize the 50,000lb airframe performance.
Which is exactly what an optical threat wants to see.
From my own perspective, the F-35 is a largely conventional (i.e. aluminum, with fasteners) airframe with minimal shaping and materials considerations for the role it is designed to fulfill as a JDAM bomber which need approach no closer than 15nm to release non-glide IAMs.
It _has to be_ this cheap and limited if the F-22s rumored '100,000 dollars per flight hour' composite maintenance costs are for-real.
And so it has front quarter X-Band LO to defeat fire control radars but is not optimized for meter wave systems which must look at those v-shaped inlets and the low wingsweep angle with blunt ends and long throw stabs and just love all the corner breaks which can build charge as invalent surface wave eddy currents suitable for recasting off the back face of the feature geometry (as a scatter model).
The question then being whether you have sufficient overhead and sacrificial penetrative targeting to just let your first wave be AGM-158Bs from 600+km out and then back that up with SDB toting F-22s to put down the 1-2 major airfields and SAM systems which conventional SEAD cannot handle.
Because after that, you are down to OBAS and dealing with the enemy on the ground. Which requires a totally different class approach to airframe design.

LEG

I havn't sifted through them and no offense meant but Strategypage, Key Publishing and APA links? I have that horrible feeling your links will let you down badly when it comes to accurate and correct info.
APA is well known for being pretty much utterly full of sht when it comes to the F-35 and its been that way for years now.
Key Publishing constantly has kids posting up BS info masquerading as fact, just read some of the posts there to see for yourself and as for StrategyPage, well, lets just say thats the last place anyone should go for factually correct info on any military subject.

leg wrote:

I have seen quotes which put the F-22 at Golfball and the F-35 at Basketball or Beachball based on the bandwith of the radar used. And if you can put a 3D, stealth defeating, LPAR out there that will run the missiles down the beam until their own seekers can take over, you can kill a target. Such track via missile goes autonomous has been around since PAC-3 at least.

Of course, tiny missile-mounted x-band seekers that will see F-35 from 2-3 km out will do the search, right. You just launch 100 missiles and hope they will find F-35.

leg wrote:

And the radar I was considering was actually the 55Zh6-1 Nebo-U.

...which has even lower range than Vostok E. In jammed environment it should be like 20 nm against F-35. 25?

leg wrote:

See- 'The radar’s ability to operate accurately in the metric band'
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archiv ... 25285.html

Still you can't launch a missile without more accurate radar. And still, this radar's range is insufficient to defeat F-35.

leg wrote:

is dependant on heavy and early afterburner use to energize the 50,000lb airframe performance.
Which is exactly what an optical threat wants to see.

And flying at Mach 2 even without afterburner isn't exactly what an optical sensors want to see? But then still - detection range using optical devices is like 20-30 nm (perfect weather conditions), and you can't fire a missile using this optical detectors.

leg wrote:

From my own perspective, the F-35 is a largely conventional (i.e. aluminum, with fasteners) airframe with minimal shaping and materials considerations for the role it is designed to fulfill as a JDAM bomber which need approach no closer than 15nm to release non-glide IAMs.

1. The F-35's airframe makes heavy use of composite materials
2. It is NOT designed as a bomb truck.
3. SDB has a range of 60 nm (maybe even more) vs low band radars 25-35 nm detection ranges vs F-35(jammed environment).

leg wrote:

It _has to be_ this cheap and limited if the F-22s rumored '100,000 dollars per flight hour' composite maintenance costs are for-real.
And so it has front quarter X-Band LO to defeat fire control radars but is not optimized for meter wave systems which must look at those v-shaped inlets

You should really stop reading APA...

CORRECTING THE RECORD
http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/ceo/record/index.cfm
8 January 2009
In his article of 7 Jan 09 in the Australian Financial Review (AFR), Dr Dennis Jensen MP, Member for Tangney:...
Supports Air Power Australia (APA)’s recent assessment that the JSF is not as stealthy as claimed and can therefore not perform the missions for which it is designed.
In response (DMO):....
APA’s analysis of the JSF’s stealth characteristics is flawed based on a number of incorrect assumptions, simplistic modelling, lack of operational analysis and lack of knowledge of sensitive performance information.

Google stuff that supports F-35? Must be right.

The best open source on Russian SAM systems? Clearly biased.

Australian government attacks critics, says that it knows better but that the facts are classified? Closes the argument.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-35 for Australia