Search found 137 matches: +mission +data +files

Return to advanced search

  • Author
  • Message

Re: F-35C SOON in TOPGUN Today - Panel TAILHOOK 2019

10 Sep 2019, 03:30

Corsair1963 wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:AARGM-ER does have a range in the ballpark of 300km, so it's more important that Super Hornets or Growlers (which will be available in greater quantities and be fairly safe launching them near max range) be prioritised in having them integrated.

Not so sure about that??? As the F-35C's Stealth would allow it to deeply penetrate enemy airspace. Something the Super Hornet and even Growler would have a hard time doing. That is against a serious near-peer threat. (i.e. China and/or Russia) This would give the US and Allies a critical advantage.

F-35C will be able to get in close and quietly launch and support JSOW-C1 (GPS/INS with terminal IR homing).

Raytheon was as of 2005 under contract to develop the JSOW Block III, which adds a Link-16 weapon data link and moving maritime target capability to the AGM-154C. It was scheduled to be produced in 2009. ... ry_variant)

Allied F-35s will have JSM integrated, so it would make sense for USN to move earlier to add JSM (matching new USN NSM, now on LCS) to supplement LRASM and thus add an internal penetrating land-attack cruise missile to F-35C that can find and kill heavy-SAM emitters, before 2028.

... JSM has sophisticated target acquisition capability that uses autonomous target recognition, made possible by an imaging infrared seeker. ...

* Advanced engagement planning system that exploits the geography in the area
* Accurate navigation system for flight close to terrain
* High maneuverability to allow flight planning in close vicinity to land masses
* Discriminating seeker with imaging infrared technology
* Two-way networking data link (compliant with standard military equipment) offering target-update, retargeting and mission-abort capabilities

Plus the radar sensor that's also been added since, which may be ideal for finding and killing the primary detection emitter(s).

Would AARGM-ER have better sensor driven terminal guidance and lethality than an F-35C datalinked to JSOW-C1? Possibly. But would it be better than a JSM fed by a two-way datalink to the F-35C's ESM, SAR and EOTS via the fusion-engine supporting it all the way to a kill from ~40 nm radius direct observation of the target and supporting its very low-level approach with EA as well?

I think Dragon's more-or-less right here, F-35C will have the essential VLO tools to get the job done, until AARGM-ER is on it, and 2 x F-35C can cover and support SH to kill heavy SAMs in the interim (with a couple of VLO missile options already on the SH).

Don't forget these as well: ... berg_2.jpg ... 016f35.jpg

In other words, that 2028 delay may actually be a case of waiting to see if AARGM-ER is even needed when F-35 would be able to carry 6 x JSM, and 6 x AAM simultaneously after 2025. If F-35 can get that close in to support such a missile with the F-35's own sensors and supports, why would you even need AARGM-ER?

Indeed, why not just put JSM on both SH and F-35C before that, and maybe not even bother with AARGM-ER?

And I think this may be happening, for example

The Navy's FY 2016 budget included funding for an extended range AARGM-ER that utilizes the existing guidance system and warhead of the AGM-88E with a solid integrated rocket-ramjet for double the range. Development funding will last to 2020. In September 2016, Orbital ATK unveiled its extended-range AARGM-ER, which incorporates a redesigned control section and 11.5 in (290 mm)-diameter rocket motor for twice the range and internal carriage on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II. The U.S. Navy awarded Orbital ATK an contract for AARGM-ER development in January 2018. The AARGM-ER would serve as the basis for the land-attack Stand In Attack Weapon (SiAW).

Which would mean AARGM-ER loses its primary specialist roll of killing SAMs but re-packages itself as a fast extended-range land-attack missile which also fits inside an F-35A/C.

As per this article: ... ike-weapon

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

14 Aug 2019, 12:11

euromaster wrote:At what point? It is not doing this every few minutes so when does it know a stealthy cruise missile is coming in? Why do you think it will pack up suddenly when it has no idea of any incoming threat to the system and all its connected parts? The 10 minutes or so per launcher is based on the S-400 command either shooting something and being comfortable in the knowledge there is nothing else for the S-400 to target (cannot know this, and the state between active, standby etc happens in minutes as well, indeed, the missile being ready to fire can be minutes depending on level of readiness). An S-400 does not pack down immediately as soon as it tracks a UAV (assuming it does) or sattelite coverage is know, as those things are a given. Assuming the complex has 20 minutes to impact of a stormshadow or Tomahawk, takes 10 minutes to prepare to move, it then has minutes to get out of a potential blast radius. Highly optimistic.

As soon as it tracks an UAV that UAV will be attack or destroyed, just like what happened to the RQ-4 recently.
Also they will change locations all the times even if they detected no threats, the goal is never to stay too long in one location, just like what our enemy did in Yugoslav and Viet Nam Wars.
Besides, no they don't just have only 20 minutes to impact of a Storm shadow or Tomahawk. Typhoon with 2 Storm shadow will be very sluggish and if it get close, it will be destroyed, the pilot will need to launch missiles from 450-500 km away if he don't want to be shot down. That will take at very minimum around 27-30 minutes till impact.
and satellite image will need very significant processing time as well, after satellite took image of the enemy territories, it will take several hours for them to find locations of all SAM site. So actually, they have plenty of time to move

euromaster wrote:Your taking my comment out of context where I pointed out intel will take place. Also, you can, like I said have loitering missiles, you could have these within range of other targets of interest if need be. The areas were discussing that are likely to be covered by S-400's are high value, otherwise you would not want to move your aircraft through these areas to begin with.

So somehow your enemy will just look at your loitering missiles and be like " well they haven't attack us yet so we shouldn't shot them down???.

euromaster wrote:Sorry this shows a lack of understanding. A lot of what you said about satellites is too simple of an explanation. Russia has satellites going over it 24/7, many of them. Their not so easy to follow as your suggesting either to a command level team for a S-400. Their not going to be told every hour when a sattelite is coming and then be forced to move otherwise the answer would be to just have a satellite go over the S-400, force it to move and then attack it during the 20 minute set down/setup phase.

No, you are showing a lack of understanding.
Satellite aren't aircraft, they can't change course. They have constant velocity and altitude as well as the constant orbit.
You have something pass over your country 365 days a year, in several years, you will be able to keep track of all of them.It is that simple, they even have a map of all satellite on earth orbit. Furthermore, as satellite aren't stealthy they can be tracked with radar too, there is nothing secret about satellite, and no you can't just send a satellite over S-400 location so you can attack them while they move. Do you even understand how hard it is to launch a satellite?

euromaster wrote: This is not how the S-400 works. The S-400 command will likely be on standby, this phase will escalate to readiness if the command crew of the command unit "believes" there is an impending attack (from their own intel) or detect something they can determine may fire. This is not possible with submarines firing Tomahawks, so they may detect a tomahawk before the launch vehicle, with a plane, they can detect the launch vehicle. They do not immediately however start packing up upon seeing a threat.

Readiness phase including shoot and scoot. And never stay at one location for too long. Do you think that they are so idiotic that they don't know satellite photos can generate location?

euromaster wrote:Where did "several hours" come from? only if a tomahawk is launched from its max range. Were talking 20-30 minute times at best. And this is only if the S-400 crazily starts the set down as soon as a target is in potential range. This is not standard procedure to set down as soon as an enemy appears on radar.

Several hours come from the processing time of satellite images, do you think satellite just took images of a country which could be millions of square km and you immediately get the location of all SAM site?

euromaster wrote:Well great, if you think mixed intel from satellite, drone and outside ops is not good enough to determine real S-400 locations then perhaps the F-35 is going to go hot emptying its internal bay bombing a blow up decoy which is even more of a disaster, congratulations. :D

Satellite intel as I said before is very easy to counter by simply moving away, which is exactly what they do in several conflicts already.
UAV can be shoot down too, in fact, a very expensive one was shot down recently ... shot-down/
and sending ground special force hundreds of km inside enemy territories to find the location of SAM site is wishful thinking.
On the other hand, F-35 getting closer can assess the target not only with Infrared sensor but also SAR and ESM, needless to say, it will be far better at decoys discrimination compared to satellite images.

euromaster wrote:Special forces ops can be used in a deep strike role and often are as forward recce behind enemy lines, it is their job. You seem to be cherry picking the information while unaware apparently of the countless ways to form intel on a large IADS complex. If not special forces, drones, if not drones, sat, if not sat you have intel that may have been gathered by intelligence services, even publicly Russia likes to jabber about its S-400 placements and how well defended it is, moving a complex is not a quiet operation.

Ground special force won't be used to find SAM location. Because you can't expect them to travel hundreds of miles in unknown direction hopping they will find something on the way while not get eradicated by the enemy ground force. This is especially stupid idea because the threat will be even more significant on ground.
Satellite intel as mentioned earlier, extremely easy to fool when the enemy is competent and don't put their asset at one location all the time.
Don't mistake Russian political move with how they will actually use their assets in real war condition. The current constant announcement of Russian about how they will move their S-300/400 into certain area in Libya ,Syria is meant as a political move to threaten their enemy. Just like how they costantly use Tu-95 to fly near US carrier fleet or border. Just because they do that as a tease now doesn't mean that will happen if the war between the two nation broke out. Or the recent ramming between Russian and US Navy ship, it doesn't mean in real war condition they will be used that way.

euromaster wrote:yes UAV's can be shot down, as can F-35's and stealth aircraft, as you brought up Yugoslav again lets count the one stealth fighter of only a couple of allied fighters actually lost. Your whole scenario of an F-35 bombing a high end is even dubious based on real world outcomes. Also their vastly cheaper than what you lose if a manned, new gen fighter is lost, and when I say cost, I do not just mean in dollars.

Anything can be shoot down, but not equally easy, MQ-9 or RQ-4 is much easier to shot down compared to F-35, just like a person is easier to kill by machine gun than a tank.
How many F-117 has been lost? , a single one, and F-117 has no Radar, no RWR, no ECM, no MWS, no Supersonic..etc. It fly the most dangerous mission, yet only a single one was downed.

euromaster wrote:They were designed to be able to infiltrate the outer edges of a lower end SAM, like Buk. Why you think it was designed against S-400 I have no idea. Like I said I know this is not the case. If this is what you wish to believe/assume then fine. I am not here to convince, only inform.

Cut out your BS, to be able to inform someone, you must know more about the subject at hand than them.
You don't know more than anyone else here, so don't pretend like you do, you are a fanboy of the Typhoon and you came here hoping that if you throw some acronym here and there and mixing it with an authority tone as if you are in the know, people will start to take your words as truth. Not gonna happen, especially considering that you are in the forum with some actual pilot and aerodynamic engineers, you have to try harder than throw out claims.
FYI, when I said F-35 was designed to penetrate air space defended by S-400 and their cousin, it is not my words but the words from General Hostage.
Now before you say that is just a generic claim with no weight, in Denmark evaluation, they also take into account S-300P (SA-10) and S-300PMU-2 (SA-20) in their simulation.
Air Interdiction scenario:

Air Interdiction scenario:

Air Order Of Battle:
- Six SU-30mk. Four aircraft förväntas be airborne. The remaining two aircraft are on "ready state 15" at the Echo Zulu air base. The aircraft are armed with four AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles, four PL-12 active radar missiles, SAP-518 self-protection jammer pods.
- Six MiG-29 SMT. All aircraft can be expected on "ready state 30" to Echo Zulu air base. The aircraft are armed with: Four AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles, Gardenia jammer pod.

Missile Order Of Battle:
Radio-frequency seeking SAMs:
- Unknown number of SA-eighth The SA-8s förväntas be distributed and are unlocated Throughout The adversary territory.
- Three SA-10th 44 Accurate locations are unknown.
- Four SA-11th Accurate locations are unknown.
- Unknown number of SA-15th The SA-15s are expected to be distributed and are unlocated Throughout The adversary territory.
Infrared seeking SAMs:
- Unknown number of SA-14
- Unknown number of SA-18,
- Unknown number of SA-24th
The Infrared seeking SAMs are distributed and are unlocated Throughout The adversary territory

Suppression / Destruction of Enemy Air Defence scenario

Air Order Of Battle:
- Six SU-30mk. Four aircraft kan förväntas be airborne. The remaining two aircraft are on ready state 15 to "Charlie Papa" air base. The aircraft are armed with: Four AA-11 infrared air-to-air missiles, four PL-12 active radar missiles, SAP-518 self-protection jammer pods.

Missile Order Of Battle:
Radio-frequency seeking Surface-to-Air Missiles (SAM):
- One SA-20 GARGOYLE battery in vicinity of "Bravo Hotel" town.
- Eight SA-11 Gadfly beskytte the SA-20th
- Unknown number of SA-22 organic two army units.
Exact positioning of the SAMs are unknown. HOWEVER, the SA-22s can be expected close to the SA-20 site for protection.
Infrared (IR) Seeking SAM:
- Unknown number of SA-14s.
- Unknown number of SA-18s.
- Unknown number of SA-24s.
The Infrared seeking SAMs are expected to be distributed army units and are located Throughout The adversary territory.

Electronic Order Of Battle:
Adversary early warning radars and ground-controlled intercept network are assumed two be intact and Capable of Providing botheration early warning and control two adversary platforms

Needless to say, the survivability of Typhoon is horrendous, no better than F-16 or F-18 in such scenario

Even US themselves obtains some S-300 complex to use in Red flag exercise.
US S-300.jpg

euromaster wrote:So you run the intel again and launch another barrage. You don't just send in F-35 pilots that will get shot down behind enemy lines, be used as a bargaining chip (if they survive) and cause mass humiliation to the entire US air-force.

You don't seem to understand the simple fact that you can't be sure that all long rang SAM are destroyed and you can't be sure that intelligent will give you perfect information of how many SAM are left and where they located. The point with F-35 is that even if you don't have perfect information and there are some long range SAM hidden somewhere, it won't suffer heavy lost like what will happen to Typhoon if it is in defended air space.

euromaster wrote:Right and you can never assume your stealth is going to be efficient at any range, even at long range against the rapidly changing sensor arena, in both software/hardware. Stealth is not a static system, you can say a missile has 100 km range but you cannot say a radar can only detect a stealth target at 100 km with certainty, these are all estimates and change based on like I said, angle, what the stealth target is doing, altitude and the list goes on. Its why the F-35 will never be sent into a heavily clustered IADS such as a Russian one.

Actually, F-35 has spike management software which will classify kind of radar detected by ASQ-239 system, take into account information such as aspect and velocity and let the pilot know exactly at what distance he will be detected by that threat radar.

F-35 cockpit 5.jpg

Furthermore, you are making a false equivalent, it takes years or even decades to develop a new radar system, and even then if you got hold of one, your enemy still can't afford to replace all their radars of that type. On the other hand, it takes 10 minutes for a SAM battery to pack up and move to another location, their plans and route can be changed at any moment.

euromaster wrote:You gave no reasoning. There is no reason for this to occur. It has a longer range/more capable stick and more sophisticated avionics and support. There is no reason to think western intel is going to be so bad it will clear a stand-off cruise missile strike at 400-500 km in a zone (with thousands of square km around the potential target being possible) where it considers a possible exclusion zone is formed by MiG's and SU'.

Longer range??? No, combat radius of Typhoon is far shorter than Su-35, J-15, Mig-31 or F-35
If you are talking about radar detection range then again, CAPTOR-E won't have better range than Irbis-E, Zaslon-M or APG-81. A clean Eurofighter will have RCS advantage over Su-35, Mig-31, J-15 but with 2 storm shadow, that became questionable
If you are talking about missiles kinematic, I can agree that Meteor is better than AIM-120D, R-77. While, RVV-BD should be equal to it. Meteor definitely won't have better kinematic than PL-15 from J-15 or R-37 from Mig-31.

euromaster wrote: here is no reason to think western intel is going to be so bad it will clear a stand-off cruise missile strike at 400-500 km in a zone (with thousands of square km around the potential target being possible) where it considers a possible exclusion zone is formed by MiG's and SU'.

Actually very simple, Typhoon can't take off from a carrier, it can't perform short or vertical take-off and it doesn't have the combat radius to fly thousands of km around a country border to find a location where there is the less force concentrated. Beside with new missile such as PL-15 having 400 km engagement range, it is actually very easy to tag the Typhoon coming from any direction.

euromaster wrote:This scenario shows a lack of understanding of aviation or how such a system would work. Again why would the Typhoon only be aware of such threats as they get into weapon ranges, which are far shorter than its launch weapon AND its AA weapons?

What are the Typhoon main advantages? speed, altitude, and somewhat low RCS.
What of these above retains once Typhoon has 2 Storm Shadow and very likely 2 Fuel tank under its wing? None.
Can Meteor out range R-37 launch from Mig-31? No.
Can Meteor out range P-15 from J-15 ? No.
Can Meteor out range RVV-BD from Su-35? 50/50 chance, but a Typhoon with 2 Storm shadow is a sluggish target compared to Su-35.

euromaster wrote:Could? R-37 is designed more against slower, heavier craft. It can only perform long range intercept at glide speed. Its performance against even a legacy fighter would be questionable, let alone a Typhoon. Also not horrendously, the MiG-31 bests it in altitude and speed but not in any other kinematic comparison, nor in weapons or sensors. If a MiG-31 has somehow managed to reach out to a stand-off launch, then somehow threaten a Typhoon level target something has gone wrong.

AIM-54 and R-33 was designed mainly against slow bomber
Not the newer R-37, RVV-BD and P-15, they can be easily be used against fighter too.
and big missiles doesn't equal unmaneuverable. Thanks to their massive rocket engine, they will be able to climb to a significant altitude where the air is very thin and coasting there, thus in the terminal stage where they dive down to enemy location, they actually have very significant speed. Meteor main advantage is the fact that it doesn't carry oxydizer and that will give more space for fuel, and because it can throttle back, it can conserve the limited fuel it has if the target is at long range instead of wasting all that fuel on initial acceleration. But that doesn't mean it will suddenly match the kinematic of a much bigger missile, launched from much higher altitude, and speed.
About sensor, Typhoon can beat Mig-31 in IRST, but certainly not radar, the size disparity is simply too big.

euromaster wrote:A F-35 in a similar scenario however being more on the level of a legacy bomb boat would have no chance but to eject.

No, because thanks to stealth, F-35 won't be locked by Mig-31 and therefore don't get out poled like Typhoon.

euromaster wrote:A Typhoon does not have to lock on at long range. The F-35's effective range with AIM-120C is well within estimates of high end radar detection of a stealth aircraft and this before jamming, decoy and so on has been considered. Chances are at low altitude an F-35 would struggle finding the Typhoon at its high perch anyway.

If you you mean high end radar detection as in detection range of surface-based radar such as 91N6E or SPY-1 then that a possibility. If you mean high end radar as in any fighter radar then that it is nothing but wishful thinking, but far from reality. It is quite funny given that even Laurie Hilditch, Eurofighter's head of the future requirements capture when boasting about Eurofighter's capability mentioned that Eurofighter require support from AWACS located at very specific angle to the F-35 attack path to deter it.
In an internal simulation series, Eurofighter found that four Typhoons supported by an airborne warning and control system (AWACS) defeated 85% of attacks by eight F-35s carrying an internal load of two joint direct attack munitions (JDAM) and two air-to-air missiles, Penrice says.

According to Laurie Hilditch, Eurofighter's head of the future requirements capture, the F-35's frontal-aspect stealth can be defeated by stationing interceptors and AWACS at a 25º to 30º angle to the F-35's most likely approach path to a target. ... 35-345265/
It is a bit ironic that you would mention jamming, without knowing that the same jammer put on F-35 will be significantly more effective than on Typhoon due to the low RCS characteristics of the fighter.

euromaster wrote:The only thing you said here that "may" be true is the better sensor. It is estimated that China does not have the electronics edge as the west or the software advantage.

P-15 can reach 400 km, it is equipped with both IIR sensor and AESA seeker. There is no doubt that it beat Meteor in both kinematic and sensor metric.

euromaster wrote:Well not necessarily, since its also lower its going to be the target of more SAM's, including camouflaged/pop up threats so don't omit the issues of the F-35. You also moved the goalposts, we were not discussing support jamming. Both sides could have support jamming, were discussing the F-35.

As i already showed you, even Viet Nam era SAM such as S-75 and S-200 can climb far higher than Typhoon service ceiling, flying high no longer a practical proof against SAM in this day and age, unless we talking about MANPADS which F-35 can stay away just as well.
Both side can have support jamming, but because F-35 has lower RCS, the S/N ratio will be lower, hence the burn-through distance will be 10 times shorter for an F-35. Assume they use the same kind of jammer.

euromaster wrote:No, indeed, funny how exaggeration seems to be the answer to a valid point which you then handwaved. Are you aware of the boost in RCS of a bay opening on a stealth aircraft? Its also what cost the Nighthawk its stealth funnily enough. I can tell you the obvious, the bay opening is not as in-significant as you seem to want to imply. It is like someone not too knowledgeable of submarines saying putting the stereo on for a few seconds is no big deal while deep inside a forward destroyer picket.

You know what, if you have the radar scattering chart of F-35 opening its bay then go ahead and post it. I have the scattering chart of F-35 with weapon bay close. Then we can compare. A general claim of RCS boost mean nothing.
Furthermore, opening bomb bay was not what cost the Nighthawk its stealth. It was tracked by a very low frquency VHF radar at very close distance. It was detected at around 24km, so not all that far actually.

euromaster wrote:Cloud cover is such a common counter to IR/IRST tracking as if its a battlefield tool that can be wheeled into place when stealth aircraft need it :D

You must be talking about low end IR/IRST or those that are not installed on current fighters with software packages that came out in the 2010's and so on. If the F-35 has just opened its bay/launched a weapon a whole host of radar/IRST's likely detected a spike in heat and emissions. If the F-35 is low enough to ensure more cloud cover then its likely under 20k feet where yes, even MANPADS and the naked eye may be able to see it, and no stealth aircraft (or any aircraft really) is going to enter a cloud itself in any realistic scenario.

Modern IRST with the newer software packages as I mentioned before can perform far quicker/more accurate wide angle detection at longer ranges. I mean what range do you think the IR systems are going to be at in regards to distance from the S-400 complex exactly? The potential cover aircraft like the SU-35/MiG's could be performing a circuit of denial only tens of kilometers around the Complex radius. Different angles alone may detect the F-35 even before launch with radar, then you have IRST which with overlapping fields of multiple aircraft would be even more likely to detect it, before/after (more so) launch.

You seemed to omit the fact that actually succeeding in destroying a part of a complex will also give your potential area to further shrink the radius of operations required.

You seem to prefer using "modern sensor from 2010", "high end sensor" as the generic answer to everything.
Sorry but "modern" and "high end" sensor still have to follow physics, infrared radiation is significantly absorbed by clouds so regardless of how modern your IRST is, if there is a cloud between you and the target, you won't see them. And IRST(and others optical system) trade between FoV and detection range because zooming-in/zooming out affect how much photons will be hitting the sensor.
And expecting Su-35 or Mig radar to detect F-35, especially with support jamming is similarly to expect a hand gun bullet to penetrate a tank.
You also seem to over-exaggerating the launch signature of JSM, SPEAR, SDB II ..etc, their engines produce far less IR signature than any fighter's engine.

euromaster wrote:No the F-35 being alone/having no missiles is just gravy. The Scenario is simply outlining the fact that the F-35 with limited weapons of a legacy era and its low end air-frame is effectively lost once it narrows its position by actually launching weapons from within the radius of hostile sensor coverage.

Knowing the general direction of something is quite different from able to track or target it
Your scenario is basically the same as, a platoon who just have one of their men killed by a sniper somewhere in the forest and they decided to charge forward because a sniper doesn't have many bullets and maybe he go alone. That exactly what it sounds like.

euromaster wrote:25km for Buk is for a slower target at high altitude coming towards it. Like i said a Buk mk2 (mk3 could do this) will struggle to continue to gain against an evading fighter over 50-60k feet.

Well, no, actually the engagement bubble against fast target target will be bigger because a bigger fraction of the engagement range will be flying by the target itself.
At 60k feet, your fighter will be barely flying and evading at 1-1.5 degrees/seconds, so SAM won't be struggling to gain at all.

euromaster wrote:I understand this is what you believe but my point was there are far more SAM's that can target a 20-30 to at best sub 50 altitude Jet that can target a 65km-70 altitude jet. When you claim the 25 km altitude, you seem to misunderstand the fact that chasing a target at that range for a Buk class missile bleeds its energy dramatically, whereas if the same system targeted the far closer (to its radar and all supporting sensor assets too) 30-40 altitude F-35, its effective range is dramatically higher, as in, 40-60, even 100 km's. The missile bleeds its effective range to target at altitude.

Firstly, Typhoon won't be crusing at 65-70k feet, it has never done that, and it won't ever do that.
On one hand, you use an altitude 20kft lower than F-35 can do as its cruising altitude, one the other hand, you also pump up crusing altitude of Typhoon by 15-20k feet, then you use that as the evidence for "many SAM can reach F-35 than they can reach Typhoon".
New flash, even when you do such disingenuous thing, the majority of SAM, even legacy SAM from Viet Nam era such as S-200 and S-75 can still reach Typhoon with else, and the SAM which can't even reach 60k feet, won't have the kind of radar needed to engage F-35 either.
Furthermore, air at high altitude is thinner so chasing target there won't bleed much energy.

euromaster wrote:I never misunderstood this. By 60k feet the missile is going to be bleeding energy at an alarming rate as well. Again, far beyond if it was reaching out to a 30k-40k ft target. At this altitude the Typhoon could afford to launch weapons far earlier than the F-35 as well. Especially if using glide munitions and supercruise. You realize it takes less energy/fuel to gain speed at high altitude even on low thrust right? This is basic physics. Drag goes down dramatically in thin air, jet stream etc

It take more energy to climb to higher altitude, it doesn't more energy flying at high altitude because air thinner meaning the drag is lower.
However, when I said your plane will be struggle to fly at 60k feet, it is not because the drag is higher. It is because as the air is thinner, you will need to fly much faster, just to generate enough lift needed for level flight, and because the air is very thin, you don't have excess lifts to maneuver, so any maneuver heavier than 1.5 G and your plane will start to lose altitude, you have little excess for sustain turn.
It takes less fuel to fly at high altitude but you will accelerate slower despite thinner air, because your thrust will reduce significantly.
For example: F-15 acceleration chart
F-15 acceleration.jpg

euromaster wrote:You just making a contradictory statement to mine does not actually affect my initial statement. I stand by my point that climbing is used to escape a SAM. This is literally the only course of kinematic action you can take in order to defeat a SAM. If the aircraft is already at high altitude, like say a Typhoon may be, then it does not need to climb, just turn tail and run, meanwhile the SAM is climbing, which takes a huge amount of energy. At this stage, sure, the thin air at high altitude may not be as much an issue on its fuel but its already burned a large amount of its fuel reaching 60-70k ft to begin with at that stage a Bukmk 2 is at the very limit of its capability, as in by that point it should have already hit the target. The fact your discussing the rocket at high altitude contending with the energy of an aircraft already at altitude implies some lack of knowledge I would say.

Climbing has never been used as a method to dodge SAM. Except maybe for MANPADS, you can go as any pilots what happen if you see a SAM coming your way and decided to climb. The actual course of action that they follow are beaming or diving down.
It is quite clear that in the contest of altitude and high speed, SAM has won decisively, no one produce or make any aircraft like YF-12, TSR-2, Avro Arrow, XB-71, SR-71 anymore.
Your suggestion that Typhoon doesn't have to climb and just need turn tail and run is rather laughable. How long do you think a missile such as BUK-ME2, S-75 or S-200 need to climb to 60k feet? how long do you think an aircraft with barely 0.5 G excess to maneuver will take to turn 180 degrees? Let me tell you, the SAM will be at Typhoon location before it can even make 1/5 the circle.

euromaster wrote:Again your making a straw-man of my argument again, I already asked you to dispense with the logical fallacy. I never said anything about "high-G" or the levels your stating. And yes, a Typhoon can climb/fly at a ceiling of 70k feet if it is required to do so, which in this ridiculous scenario of Jets, be it F-35/Typhoon finding themselves trying to get within the missile ranges of a very high end IADS it will no doubt be doing.

To fill in the holes in your knowledge and information since you seem to be lost a little in my scenario. If a Buk2 level of weapon is trying to hit a 65-70k ft target, by the point the missile has climbed to only 60k feet its already bled so much energy, I have already said this. At this point, how do you think a rocket that is reaching the end of its energy is going to make a terminal strike? it never will against a high end fighter like the Typhoon, the Typhoon will have an easy time at this stage. Indeed, any turn will be aggressive in that context in regards to a Bukmk2 missile. It will be literally on the verge of dying just trying to chase a Typhoon a few kilometers.

At 40k ft? The F-35 is not so lucky. And due to its lower performance, struggling to maintain supersonic it will be run down quite easily.

No, Typhoon has never demonstrated the ability to fly at 70k feet, even at 60k feet is already quite pushing it since we can clearly see Typhoon pilot have no pressure suit, which should tell us quite clearly what altitude they actually fly at.
You didn't said high G, but you said Typhoon has agility over SR-71 and Mig-31 at high altitude. It won't, period.
A missile that can climb to 82k feet won't be struggling at 60k feet, especially considering that a Typhoon at that altitude will be making 0.5-1 degree/second turn whereas a SAM will have a constant course adjustment while it climbs as well.

euromaster wrote:No the first missile will be burned down through ECM. So far from the launch vehicle and at the very edge of its performance envelope where its PK is already plummeting fast ECM would likely be able to defeat most missiles at that point of their performance from a Bukmk2. If the second missile seems to be gaining Typhoon has two decoys. If that fails, flares etc. Again, at this rate it will likely just out-run. The pilot could do a slight turn as I said before and the missile will struggle to follow.

Its why SAM's outside of the higher end ones are not the asset of choice against a high altitude jet. You will use an interceptor or another high end air-frame.

Flares don't work against missiles such as Buk, S-75, S-200, so you better hope your ECM can deceive them, otherwise there will be a death pilot.
Because missiles make constant course adjustment from low altitude while it was climbing, it won't be struggling to follow a Typhoon which can barely maintain 1.5G at 60k feet

euromaster wrote:Your straw-mans are getting out of hand. The fact you seem to omit the advantages of climb against a SAM, or altitude and the fact you seem to be discussing a rocket at the edge of its capability envelope is going to challenge a high altitude, high end air-frame while its gasping for energy proves that clearly you the pot calling the kettle black. I suggest you dissuade yourself from attacking the poster and instead try and learn from my information, don't just keep discrediting when obviously, we both know your far from omniscient in terms of aviation.

I will thank you not to suggest/ask anything concerning classified information. I did not suggest anything, and I will not do so. I am pointing out constant attempts to make claims on something you have no idea on to try and discredit my information is fallacious at best and just bad form.

It is not strawman to point out the fact that no aircraft will be agile at high altitude or that aircraft don't have the acceleration required to out climb a SAM, it is stating facts. While I am not omniscient in aviation, I know when someone pretends to know something that they don't.

euromaster wrote:A great many benefits including the avoidance of sams. Hence why a lot of high altitude aircraft were developed for that very purpose. There are a long list of advantages, which the F-35 does not enjoy.

Avoidance of MANPADS and Flak, sure. Against medium/long range SAM, No.

euromaster wrote:Most of your statement was a verbose way of saying older radar designs struggled with ground clutter. Radar has come a long way during the 2000's, current software radar (and IRST as previously mentioned) has had so many updates, bringing up ground clutter again suggests to me your basing your information on older sources from the early 2000's or 90's. Also if your rear is to the chasing aircraft, good luck against IRST :)

You like to bring up the generic term of "modern" and "current software" alot, yet, not things of substance about how your so called "modern radar" suddenly impervious to side lobes and clutter. Rhetorical question, they don't. Modern systems still have to follow physics sadly.

euromaster wrote:Indeed, but the mission of a conventional aircraft is not to get close to SAM's, it will as I have said exhaustively launch a stand-off weapon

Which Frankly won't always work, because your enemy won't always be idiotic to let their SAM site location exposed by satellite.

euromaster wrote:Always with the clouds, a common counter to IRST. Again, Clouds are not a US tool, not unless you have developed a weather control device I am unaware of. Clouds are useful at low altitudes, a place where no jet aircraft wants to be outside of the sole purpose of avoiding IRST. Doing so sacrifices energy in droves for weapons, makes it less likely to detect higher altitude targets and further makes the platform more vulnerable to ground based defenses (or just being seen by eye if low enough).

Clouds aren't US tool, but just like ground clutters, they are there and can be taken advantage of. Also, not all cloud are at low altitude

euromaster wrote: Considering almost all modern weapons seem to have mid-course guidance, 2 way data link and LOAL you don't need a lock at max range, only detection. This is, again why I wonder if some of this information is not from the early 2000's/late 90's where needing a lock at max range was required to have any accuracy with a weapon system.

This again is why I wonder if you have no idea what you talking about. Locking aka knowing the distance to target, their speed and heading because unlike video game. In real life, missiles don't fly at target current location, they fly toward target predicted location instead of flying a direct path, this is especially important when what you need to intercept is an aircraft instead of a slow-moving ship
Air to air missiles also follow a curved ballistic arc so that they can conserve energy by cruising in thinner atmosphere of high altitude.
All of these aren't possible without locking target.
For your information, LOAL aka Lock on after launch referring to the fact that sensor on the missile (mostly infrared) not having to lock on the target before they leave the rail. This is possible because recent infrared guided missile have automatic target recognition ability, but LOAL doesn't mean the aircraft's radar/eo system don't have to lock on target before launching their missiles.
Firing missiles without lock only work at very short range.

euromaster wrote:I have already informed you on how small of an impact engine signature has on IRST outside of the rear hemisphere where it is so hot the difference will be negligible until the someone develops a fully cold state engine.

and I have shown you that you are wrong

3 stream engine also help cool the back fuselage
aircraft engine pic.jpg

euromaster wrote:See this is just bias, apparently the F-35 can detect all the SAMs, including pop up threats (which by their very nature have not been previously detected). Yet previously all intel for stand-off attack just sees blow up decoys?

This is not bias when enemy detection bubble is smaller, there is higher chance that the pop up threat is detected by F-35 first before it can detect F-35
Considering that burn through against F-35 is at least 10 times shorter than Eurofighter, this is basically the different between 40 km and 400 km, it is a lot more likely for a pop up SAM to be able to lock and attack Eurofighter, and it is also a lot more likely for F-35's EOTS and APG-81 to find a SAM site only 40 km away than for Eurofighter's sensor to find a SAM site 400 km away.

Re: Eglin AFB begins formal Maintainer Training

10 Aug 2019, 09:49

Eglin's new 53 rd Wing commander praises F-35. 8) ... ng-mission
Eglin’s new 53rd Wing commander talks about testing mission
By Jim Thompson Posted Jul 29, 2019
With regard to a specific weapons system, there has been a lot of reporting about the new F-35 fighter jet, in terms of challenges facing that program such as spare parts issues. Is the F-35 a problematic aircraft in terms of operational testing?

“I would say that it’s not been difficult to operationally test the F-35. One of the neat things is that the F-35 is kind of like the iPhone. It’s a piece of hardware, but what makes it amazing are the apps, or that software, that goes into it. Because it’s a very software-centric aircraft, as we discover things, we’re able to produce new mission data files that update the software, and we can evolve it very quickly.

Any new, very expensive, weapons system program is always going to be controversial. The F-35 has had a lot of controversy about it ... but I will tell you that having integrated with, and flown alongside F-35s, and having lots of friends that flew F-15s with me who have transitioned to the F-35, that it is a vastly capable aircraft.”

Re: Towed Decoys

10 Jun 2019, 09:45

Dragon029 wrote:
taog wrote:
wrightwing wrote:The F-35 has chaff, flares, and towed decoys. There is no debate on this.

So where is the room for chaff ? Integrated and shared the room with IRCM ? Or it shared the same space with the towed decoy ?

It'll share the same space as the flares (in a separate bucket, etc). At present it sounds like chaff hasn't been actively implemented (with stealth, AESA jamming and ALE-70 decoys / jammers it'd be slightly redundant), but in public F-35 simulator demonstrations cockpit displays have shown both flares and chaff available to the pilot.

I suspect that integration would be quite minimal; countermeasure programs would be set by pilots (with any default configurations likely coming from mission data files rather than Block 3F, etc operating system software) and flight testing might not strictly be required if their deployment method is considered to be sufficiently similar to that of existing flares. The only real question would be whether the software would recognise / can be programmed by the pilot to consider a bucket of chaff to different than flares.

Yep. I made a big error in haste. The CHAFF & FLARES are in a mixed container: [I'll add a 26 page PDF about stuff]

RIGHT NOW & recently was a busy time for me so I still cannot see the images posted by 'taog' (but I can see them by following the URLs) that was not helpful for the conversation. Anyway this is the chaff/flare bucket DRAGON refers.

OK NOW I see the three 'taog' images - they have just appeared because I looked at them separately so now they are in my internet explorer 11 cache but I STILL do not see them in EDGE or Firefox (because I have not looked at them separately there). This gets tiresome to explain. Some websites do not allow 'hot linking' so images do not appear for others to view. ... 015_16.pdf

Re: Towed Decoys

10 Jun 2019, 08:28

taog wrote:
wrightwing wrote:The F-35 has chaff, flares, and towed decoys. There is no debate on this.

So where is the room for chaff ? Integrated and shared the room with IRCM ? Or it shared the same space with the towed decoy ?

It'll share the same space as the flares (in a separate bucket, etc). At present it sounds like chaff hasn't been actively implemented (with stealth, AESA jamming and ALE-70 decoys / jammers it'd be slightly redundant), but in public F-35 simulator demonstrations cockpit displays have shown both flares and chaff available to the pilot.

I suspect that integration would be quite minimal; countermeasure programs would be set by pilots (with any default configurations likely coming from mission data files rather than Block 3F, etc operating system software) and flight testing might not strictly be required if their deployment method is considered to be sufficiently similar to that of existing flares. The only real question would be whether the software would recognise / can be programmed by the pilot to consider a bucket of chaff to different than flares.

Re: Australian lawmakers confident in F-35's future

27 May 2019, 16:12

U.S. Navy To Adapt EA-18G To Future Of Agile Emitters [LOTS of words NOT excerpted below so best - you know]
21 May 2019 Steve Trimble
» Waveform-hopping radars drive EA-18G upgrades
» Requirements emerge for low-band receiver and machine-learning
» Navy plan does not include new aircraft production

"...the EA-18G could soon face adversary radars that have capabilities far beyond anything experienced by the EA-6B in its four-decade career. The threat is posed by a new breed of radars that can sense the presence of the EA-18G’s jammers and adapt. By shifting to different waveforms and signal-processing techniques, it may be possible to mitigate the transmission interference caused by the EA-18G’s jammers. In keeping with the cat-and-mouse game of electronic combat, the latest countermeasure swiftly inspires a response.... [then stuff about 'DASH X']

...In the final appropriations bill for fiscal 2019, lawmakers slipped in an extra $95.3 million for the EA-18G, with the directive to transition a small but critical science and technology program launched by the Office of Naval Research five years earlier into operational service. This “Cognitive Electronic Warfare capability” would be identified in the Navy’s latest budget justification documents released in March as the official “start to EA-18G [Block] II modernization.”

“It is about adaptive and distributed processing, with big computers to process and react to the threats,” Tebo says. “All of this is accomplished through software-defined radios that are enabled through a flexible and adaptable hardware architecture. That not only gives the Navy step-function capability now, it allows us to continue to evolve the capability.”

The full details of the EA-18G Block II configuration are still being defined.... But the broad outlines of the upgrades are already clear: improved sensors feeding data to new processors that are running software with machine-learning algorithms to produce adaptive techniques for the previously announced Next-Generation Jammers now in development. Underlying the upgrades specifically for the EA-18G are a host of improvements that are in development for the F/A-18E/F Block III. These include new 10 X 19-in. large area displays in cockpit stations as well as conformal fuel tanks.... [then a lot of stuff with acronyms galore - best read it all with sauce]

...Instead of the original plan to buy 90 aircraft to support the Navy’s carrier air wings alone, the Navy bought 160 to also support the land-based airborne electronic-attack mission abandoned by the Air Force.

So far, the Navy has no interest in buying any more aircraft, Tebo says. The EA-18G Block II strategy calls for retrofitting either a portion or all of the 160 aircraft that will be delivered by July. Of course, Boeing is open to selling more EA-18Gs to the Navy if the opportunity arises. “The design [of the upgrade package] is not precluding new production,” Tebo says.

As one of the Navy’s youngest fleets—the average service life remaining on 156 aircraft delivered through March 2019 was 5,886 flight hours, according to the Navy—the EA-18G is unlikely to require the service-life extension program mandated for the F/A-18E/F fleet, although an assessment is still ongoing, Tebo adds.

But it is also not clear how long the EA-18G will fit into the Navy’s fleet. An influential study released earlier this year by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Studies called for replacing the EA-18G in the carrier air wing within 20 years. “Its reliance on stand-off effects from outside the range of enemy air defenses is likely unsustainable in the face of improving passive sensors and the increasing range of surface-to-air missiles,” the CSBA report concluded. The think tank recommended transferring the EA-18G’s mission system to a future UCAV."

Graphic: "Boeing’s concept image of the EA-18G Block II pictures new conformal fuel tanks inherited from the F/A-18E/F Block III development program, but the Navy’s requirements also include a new dedicated receiver and Next-Generation Jammer pods. Credit: Boeing" ... Boeing.jpg

Source: ... e-emitters

Re: The Turkey problem

14 May 2019, 01:32

Israel makes a black box for their API and I believe their ADIRs will be manufactured especially for it (not first examples).
Two page ADIR PDF with article excerpt here: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=29374&p=360880&hilit=Adir+interface#p360880

F-35i ADIR Israel Flight International 24-30 Jan 2017 pp2 .pdf (1.55Mb) download/file.php?id=24124

ALSO ADIR interface: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=30787&p=321972&hilit=Adir+interface#p321972

Original post below is here: search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keywords=mission+data+files&fid%5B%5D=65&ch=-1
12 May 2016 JPO PR

"EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFNS) -- The 53rd Wing activated on May 11 the F-35 Partner Support Complex, a U.S.-owned facility here that handles F-35 Lightning II testing. Robert Kraus assumed the new position as the complex’s director, making it the first civilian-led unit in the wing. Kraus, a retired lieutenant colonel, served as the 68th Electronic Warfare Squadron commander and 53rd Electronic Warfare Group deputy commander at Eglin Air Force Base prior to this new position.

The F-35 PSC is charged with providing mission data, intelligence support, lab facilities and training to the eight partner countries purchasing the fifth-generation aircraft.

"The growth of the PSC will relieve that pressure, as well as ensure our coalition partners are ready to participate in any future operations," Kraus said. The partner countries include: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Turkey. These countries provided critical design input and funding during the early stages of the F-35 program, which differs from foreign military sales customers. "The PSC will directly support the partners, who currently have no indigenous capability to create mission data for the F-35," Kraus said.

The complex will interact with mission data programmers and data analysts from the partner nations. According to Kraus, one of the key projects for the unit is to support the partners in the creation of two separate hardware in the loop testing facilities -- only one currently exists. The F-35 PSC started as a small team within the 513th Electronic Warfare Squadron at Eglin AFB, which provides F-35 mission data files to the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. The team staffs 24 civilian employees and contractors, with plans to grow to about 100 personnel. The new unit will report to the 53rd EWG.

While the mission of the complex has been ongoing for nearly five years, Kraus sees the formalization of the unit as a step forward. "The formal activation of the unit will give me a greater ability to support the partners in their efforts," he said. "(I can now) elevate the partner support functions to an equal level with U.S. squadrons, as opposed to a subordinate role."

Plans are in the works for two separate buildings to hold the new unit and partner nation personnel. This includes the Australia/Canada/United Kingdom Reprogramming Laboratory [ACURL] building and the Norway/Italy Reprogramming Laboratory building. Additional support will be provided to Denmark, the Netherlands and Turkey."

Source: (130Kb)

Re: The Turkey problem

13 May 2019, 23:50

That particular issue is not related to the "code" of the F-35. That information is stored in the "Threat Libraries" (ie Mission Data Files) that Turkey and all other Partners will maintain at US based MDF Reprogramming sites.

The other main reason to have the codes is to integrate you own weapons. The F-35 handles this by adding UAI to the Block 4 Upgrade. Even Turkey accepted this and is integrating the SOM-J via the UAI interface. Future versions of UAI and other APIs like it, will allow for pods (EW, RECCE, etc) to be integrated with little effort.

The only other API that is applicable at this time but is rarely reported on (unsurprising) is the API that allows Parters to run an "app" on the F-35's computer without having to need to know the codes. Israel is the first with this and will add their C4 app without changing any hardware on the F-35.

Re: F-35 program updates

04 Apr 2019, 03:04

Vago had a program update interview with Winter:

Major take-aways:

1. ALIS 3.0 reduced false alarms in the fleet by "up to" 70%, but there's still issues that need working through.
2. Mission Data Files and Full Mission Simulators have been updated.
3. >390 F-35s have been delivered worldwide to 18 bases and 2 ships.
4. Approx "70%" of all partner and FMS services have delcared IOC (3 US services, UK, Italy, Japan, Israel [I might be missing one or two others]).
5. 131 jets planned to be delivered in CY19, 167 planned for delivery in CY21.
6. F-35 flight operations (as per sustainment plans) are now expected to run until 2077, not 2070.
7. Winter has some concern about cost performance matching volume ramp, but isn't concerned about ramp rate being diminished, etc, especially with new FMS customers coming aboard.
8. CPFH in CY18 for an F-35A was $44K/hr, F-35B was $51K/hr, F-35C was $59K/hr (full ownership CPFH).
9. Winter believes they are on track for an F-35A (full ownership) CPFH to reach $25K/hr by 2025.
10. CPFH reduction will be driven by depot component repair times going from 190-200 days (today) to 45 days by 2025; increased reliability of later-lot F-35s; and also reduced manpower requirements due to airframe and ALIS improvements.
11. Lot 12 is being negotitated, Lot 13 will follow on its heels, Lot 14 negotiations are expected to begin in FY20 (but before the end of CY19 according to Winter).
12. Winter himself has not been involved in any USAF / USN 6th gen acquisition planning discussions, but says he has JPO engineers and ops analysts involved, and thinks F-35 DNA in the form of tech and business lessons learned will be folded into those programs.

Re: VMFA-121 Green Knights 2017

01 Apr 2019, 13:44

Good to see them flying around the SCS, showing its presence and sucking up regional ELINT and SIGINT to fine tune its mission data files.

Re: F-35A vs KF-X

27 Feb 2019, 01:07

I can't say that I've followed this thread super closely... but... what is your issue?

If Korea want's to spend Korean money on a Korean fighter jet...great! Just don't expect to come up with an aircraft that rivals the F-35. And don't expect America to give, or even to sell, Korea F-35 technology. America spent a small fortune developing that technology. It's her national treasure, in a manner of speaking.

Perhaps people here dismissed the KF-X program because the initial images seemed to suggest Korea was trying to create a knock-off clone of the F-35, as the aircraft outer mold lines were compared side by side.

You have already stated that the KF-X is targeting $80M each. Almost invariably, costs grow. So that $80M each is almost sure to increase. So Korea will be potentially getting an aircraft with perhaps the performance of a Gripen, maybe a Rafale, for the cost which is higher than an F-35A, without the benefits of full sensor fusion, mission data files, phenomenal situational awareness, EW capabilities second to none, and super small VLO numbers. But if that is how Korea wants to spend her money... then by all means, have at it.

Just don't expect F-35 performance out of it. (I mean, it is theoretically possible, but the F-35 has been under development for going on 20 years, so I don't see a nation duplicating that level of industrial effort in a short time span, EVEN IF studies have been ongoing for a while now.)

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

31 Jan 2019, 00:59

In answer to my own evaluation objectives, it was obvious the Rafale has earned its omnirole definition, even though I barely scratched the surface of its sensor and weapon capabilities. The aircraft has an incredible level of performance befitting a fourth-generation type, and despite flying a highly complex and demanding evaluation sortie, I felt completely at home in the aircraft and retained full situational awareness. If it could keep me safe, it would also do the same for young first-tourist pilots coping with tactical operations.

The classic definitions of aircraft combat roles really do not do justice to this aircraft; the Rafale is Europe's force-multiplying "war-fighter" par excellence. It is simply the best and most complete combat aircraft that I have ever flown. Its operational deployments speak for themselves. If I had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, I would, without question, choose the Rafale. ... le-334383/

Rarely (not witnessed at any time during our evaluations) would the pilot ever be unaware of the environment within the 360º “bubble” surrounding the aircraft.

The heart of this data fusion is the MDPU - Processing Unit Data Modules that com-prises 19 LRUs (flight-line replaceable units), each providing a processing capacity up to 50 times greater than the previous generation of fighters. Translation: The pilot has a reduced workload, which enables him to act like a real tactical decision maker, rather than a mere sensor operator.

The key point of this data fusion is to overcome the limitations of any one particular sensor. For example, if it relies on waveforms, frequency, or infrared imaging, and the angle, distance, altitude, weather conditions or even a malfunction pose a limita-tion; other components supplement the formation of the big picture, situationally. The MDPU collects consolidated data from different sources based on various technologies, complementing, organizing and providing information through symbolism refined, reliable and unified.

Among other sensors, the combination of AESA radar with FSO - Front Sector Optronics, embedded in the nose, at the factory - developed by Thales and Sagem for the Rafale - made me feel very comfortable, especially for attesting that the rules of engagement could be easily followed, in terms of friend or foe clear ID. I was al-ways confident in identifying targets to be attacked in the air, on the ground or at sea, thanks to the automatic search and tracking integrated multi-sensor suite. Besides enabling us to execute the mission accurately, Rafale also gave us the ability to document, record, and evaluate, as a Recon.
During our assessments, we performed BVR and WVR engagements with the Mirage 2000 C RDI (analyzed in more detail in Part 3 of this test), where we had the opportunity to confirm the combination of the sensibility of SPECTRA EW with the all-aspect launching and target acquisition of MICA IR. This allowed us to designate the target from any source (EM / IR / Laser Threat Detection - Electromagnetic Threat Detection / Infrared / Laser), when the security bubble around the Rafale was invad-ed, and to execute the missile launch “over the shoulder.” Over the shoulder means that a MICA can be fired at a target located at position six o’clock (behind the aircraft) without changing flight direction. ... fference-/

Among all the three NFA candidates, the Rafale was the aircraft which demonstrated the best effectiveness and suitability in the accomplishment of all types of Air-to-Air missions, Recce and Strike missions. In addition, the Rafale made the best impression to the pilots. The strong points of the Rafale was the quality of its sensors such as the PESA radar, the Frontal Optronics and the EW suite SPECTRA. The good data fusion of all its sensors allowed to provide to the pilot a very good Situational Awareness.
(Since then, the PESA radar has been replaced by a much improved AESA; the frontal Optronics has been strongly improved, SPECTRA has been improved and enhanced, and the sensor fusion has been improved further).

Of course all this does not make the Rafale a 5. gen fighter -- however it does mean that it is a very good 4.5 fighter, and sneaking up on the Rafale will be much harder than sneaking up on a Mirage 2000, Gripen C, or a F-16 block 50/52...

The J-20 is very far from having the capabilities of a true 5. gen fighter like the F-35. It is not only the IAF that is making such statements...

Re: GAO Report on F-35 FoM (ie Block 4 and forward)

26 Dec 2018, 07:23

marauder2048 wrote:JSM has a warhead only slightly larger than SDB I and less signature reduction than JASSM.

Battlefield obscurants + dynamic threat laydowns are going to require some form of rerouting,
loitering and aimpoint refinement. Along with the moving/relocatable targets you mentioned.

Your information is incorrect.

JSM is firstly an anti-ship missile, LAM is secondary (which JSM Brochure text makes clear) and according to its developer JSM has a "500 lb class" warhead (by which they presumably refer to the effects).

Most GBU-39 SDB versions contain just 16.8 kg of explosives with one high energy version that has 62.1 kg of explosive (widely reported to approximate a 500lb GBU in energy). While JSM has a 120 kg warhead that contains 100 kg of explosive (an entire SDB weighs only 129 kg, btw) but with a light-weight but strong titanium tamper to maximize blast pressure before rupture/frag. Checkout the scale of the explosion within the JSM brochure if you doubt its energy level and effects.

Thus the JSM warhead actually has about 6 times the explosive power of a typical GBU-39 SDB

i.e. 100 kg / 16.8 kg = 5.95 times more explosives in the JSM warhead.

As you'd expect from an effective anti-ship missile with secondary land target attack capabilities (Same as NSM in that respect, but reportedly the JSM has a larger frag warhead than the NSM does).

“… Key JSM Missile Attributes Range >300 nm high, high, low profile >100 nm low, low, low profile Avionics 2-way datalink Thermal management system for F-35 internal bay conditions Propulsion Throttle modulates to achieve desired TOT > 1:1 thrust to wt in end-game Airframe Carrier suitable reqmt Lugs stow after launch Seeker Seeker stablized on horizon Dimensions Length 157 in Weight 887 lbs Fits inside F-35A/C weapons bay CVN recoverable load 13 March 2014 Page 1 …” ... ar-14.html

From Klonsberg itself though:


The JSM warhead effect is given by three main elements; warhead size, warhead fuze and target hitpoint. The JSM has selectable aim point in the target and has proven to hit the target very precisely. This capability enables selection of controlled destruction effect, ranging from maximum damage to controlled/minimum damage. Terminal accuracy has been demonstrated to less than 2 feet (distance between aim point and actual hit point).

The JSM has a 500lbs class warhead with a gross weight of 120 kg and explosive weight of 100 kg (TNT equivalent). The warhead is a combined blast (primary effect) and fragmentation (secondary effect) warhead with insensitive High Explosive (HE) charge). The warhead casing is made of titanium alloy with a steel-grid for fragmentation effect.

The picture below shows the warhead effect from a test fring against a Norwegian frigate. The fuze is programmable with customdesigned fuze programs down-loaded prior to launch.

The warhead is insensitive munition Certified.

Targeting Selectivity
The JSM features sophisticated target acquisition with Autonomous Target Recognition (ATR) facilitated by an imaging infrared seeker. Advanced recognition algorithms provide capability to identify targets to ship class and prevent attack of white/neutral shipping. There is a 100% confidence in separation of “white” and “red” shipping.

The JSM mission planning system incorporates a national database with a library of potential targets. A sub-set of the target library is down-loaded to the JSM prior to launch.

For each target class in the database there will be a set of recognition characteristics, a default aim point position together with a corresponding warhead fuze profle, and default missile end-game tactics.

Prior to launch, the operator may inspect and modify the end-game tactics and aim point.

Kongsberg will provide customers with a software application package and training for target library development.

Platform integration
JSM fts into the internal weapons bay of the F-35 A and C versions. JSM can also be carried on external stations on F-35, F-16, F/A-18 and F-15.

Air system Integration
JSM accommodates modern standards for integration to fast jets. The datalink design provides for interoperability with current and future network concepts. JSM being based on a fire and forget concept is robust against variations in data link connectivity.

The JSM is designed for a long operational life. An extensive blT test is easily performed at user level. The ILS concept is based on a minimum of maintenance and maximum use of standard equipment.

JSM Key Characteristics
Length : 4.00 m (157 in)
Height : 0.52 m (20.4 in)
Width : 0.48 m (18.9 in) (stowed)
Mass : 416kg (917 lbs)
Speed : High Subsonic
Agility : High

Inertial Navigation, aided by GPS and TERCOM.
Imaging Infra-Red Target Seeker” ... kemissile/ ... duced.ashx

I've seen nothing that suggests it will have lesser low-observable optimization than JASSM. That would seem to be a conjecture, and most probably incorrect, given the missile is firstly design optimized to deploy from a stealth-fighter and specifically to evade being shot down by layered missile and CIWS.

Re: Air Force Develops Threat Data Base for F-35

10 Dec 2018, 11:35

"War in the 21st century runs on data, a lot of it in the case of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The Mission Data Files that inform F-35 deployments and missions can take up to 18 months to compile, bringing in info on everything from enemy radar and anti-aircraft missiles to waveforms and cyber weapons. Now the Pentagon has hired a California company to shrink that compilation time to just one month, using artificial intelligence." ... er/153338/

Re: F-35 versus DEW equipped jumbo jet

07 Dec 2018, 09:56

nathan77 wrote:While the acquisition radar is mid-plane, do you know if it's a sweeping or fixed radar?

I don’t know for sure, but let assume it is an AESA on a steering platform similar to what available on E-3
nathan77 wrote:Without atmospheric conditions which can help disburse laser (i.e. cloud), I would still attack from a low altitude (make the sensors work to pick me out from the ground clutter). And I would still attack from the stern - with the laser at the top and closer to the front it still has to adjust as it can't shoot through its fuselage

What if the jumbo jet crusing at low altitude and flying in a circle pattern?
element1loop wrote:TOD?

If the F-35 pilot chooses the time to attack they can use the mission data files to have the autopilot keep the F-35 within the disk of the sun as it approaches the heavy, then pop the cockpit, flight-crew and flight controls with an AIM-9X-3, then fly away from the target, still inside the disk of the sun.

Guaranteed loss of target aircraft.

I don’t think the sun affect modern IRST the same way it affect first generation IR missile

Return to advanced search