Search found 144 matches: +mission +data +files

Return to advanced search

  • Author
  • Message

Re: F-35 Test Delays Continue, [although] Combat Debut

26 Mar 2020, 19:09

...[quote]F-35 testing at Edwards Air Force Base paused, impact to full-rate production decision unknown
25 Mar 2020 Valerie Insinna....but organizations that can continue verification activities via telework are continuing to do so. Additionally, select lab and ground test activities are ongoing......

JSE is of the last lingering SDD testing requirements with frequent updating of the Mission Data Files. At the conclusion of the JSE testing this summer 2020, all F-35 testing organizations will have completed the Mile Stone C requirement for satisfying the Full Rate Production status after manufacturing 500+ aircraft (prototypes??) and achieving 250,000+ flight man-hours.

The JSE testing facility at Edwards has the size capacity to test "all" USAF aircraft from the B-52, C-5 down to T-38, F-16 aircraft types. Most interesting is the ability to test both the B-21 and B-2 with their most immediate necessity.

It will always be of interest to see how the current on-board a/c defense systems can contend with whichever S-2/3/4/5/600/.... in each aircraft type from the largest to the smallest airframes.
IMHO
Fly Navy
:)

Re: US Navy/Marine F-35B/C vs Bad guy F-35a?

29 Feb 2020, 03:47

steve2267 wrote:
optimist wrote:The f-35 fire control system won't launch a missile at another f-35.

Source?


friend or foe,


weasel1962 wrote:It could happen in red flag exercises where differing F-35s are on opposing sides.

Wouldn't that be a pickle... F-35 refuses to fight another aircraft because it's mission data files identify the aircraft as friendly. Already have had examples where an F-35 does not identify a ground installation as a threat because they cobbled together a ground installation to represent a threat, but did not use actual threat hardware.


That's what I said, isn't it ?
red air would have to have their ID changed in the base, US only level and not identified as a F-35. For a bad operator, the US could overwrite their friend or foe at the base level



weasel1962 wrote:The B has a marginal thrust weight advantage although the A has better sustained energy due to its higher fuel capacity (which interestingly would better simulate what would happen if a B faces a J-20). Otherwise the only critical difference would be pilot capability. The external gun will likely have some impact to B performance for A2A.

It would also be interesting if (or when) the Brits bring their Bs with the meteor. Too bad the Bs can't viff.


I am not following on the B having a marginal thrust weight advantage. Can you elaborate? F135-PW-100 has higher thrust rating than F135-PW-600 (in conventional mode). F-35A has lower empty weight. So?

I disagree with the external gun hindering the Killer Bee. The gunpod has shown better accuracy than the -A in tests, and the pod is rated to the full 7g capability of the aircraft. So whatever the Bee can do without the gun, it can fly with the gun. It also has more bb's than the -A. But the gunpod will add ~1000lb of weight to the Bee, whereas the gunweight is already in included in the -A.

The -A may have an initial rate advantage in a break turn, at a merge, but I am unsure if that will yield much of an angles advantage? I strongly suspect the B will rate with the -A in a turn. The Sea Lightning should have a turn / rate advantage over the -A, though. Low speed maneuvering should be a wash, or advantage Sea Lightning. Am guessing the -A would need to emphasize slightly better acceleration and 9g performance's you
Jun -- slashing type attacks -- and blow through?

I think it comes down to pilot skill, and perhaps unit-level tactics or acumen.

Because of the wing, I think the C we'll put on the better airshow and dog fight

Re: US Navy/Marine F-35B/C vs Bad guy F-35a?

28 Feb 2020, 16:03

optimist wrote:The f-35 fire control system won't launch a missile at another f-35.

Source?
weasel1962 wrote:It could happen in red flag exercises where differing F-35s are on opposing sides.

Wouldn't that be a pickle... F-35 refuses to fight another aircraft because it's mission data files identify the aircraft as friendly. Already have had examples where an F-35 does not identify a ground installation as a threat because they cobbled together a ground installation to represent a threat, but did not use actual threat hardware.

weasel1962 wrote:The B has a marginal thrust weight advantage although the A has better sustained energy due to its higher fuel capacity (which interestingly would better simulate what would happen if a B faces a J-20). Otherwise the only critical difference would be pilot capability. The external gun will likely have some impact to B performance for A2A.

It would also be interesting if (or when) the Brits bring their Bs with the meteor. Too bad the Bs can't viff.


I am not following on the B having a marginal thrust weight advantage. Can you elaborate? F135-PW-100 has higher thrust rating than F135-PW-600 (in conventional mode). F-35A has lower empty weight. So?

I disagree with the external gun hindering the Killer Bee. The gunpod has shown better accuracy than the -A in tests, and the pod is rated to the full 7g capability of the aircraft. So whatever the Bee can do without the gun, it can fly with the gun. It also has more bb's than the -A. But the gunpod will add ~1000lb of weight to the Bee, whereas the gunweight is already in included in the -A.

The -A may have an initial rate advantage in a break turn, at a merge, but I am unsure if that will yield much of an angles advantage? I strongly suspect the B will rate with the -A in a turn. The Sea Lightning should have a turn / rate advantage over the -A, though. Low speed maneuvering should be a wash, or advantage Sea Lightning. Am guessing the -A would need to emphasize slightly better acceleration and 9g performance -- slashing type attacks -- and blow through?

I think it comes down to pilot skill, and perhaps unit-level tactics or acumen.

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

25 Feb 2020, 17:21

Many thanks to 'Gums' for bringing this story to my attention. I found the news page very problematic so the entire story is below for EASY READING. Note the reference to the RECALCITRANT Canadian Government reluctance OR NOT <sigh> .
United Kingdom, Australia open F-35 lab at Eglin AFB
24 Feb 2020 Jim Thompson

"The Australia Canada United Kingdom Reprogramming Laboratory (ACURL), like the United States Reprogramming Laboratory immediately next door, and the nearby Norway Italy Reprogramming Laboratory, will be involved in the ongoing development of “mission data files” for the F-35.

EGLIN AFB — Representatives of the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force held a ribbon-cutting Monday for a laboratory on Eglin Air Force Base that optimizes the performance of their F-35 stealth fighter jets.

The Australia Canada United Kingdom Reprogramming Laboratory (ACURL), like the United States Reprogramming Laboratory immediately next door, and the nearby Norway Italy Reprogramming Laboratory, will be involved in the ongoing development of “mission data files” for the F-35.

Since the partnership was formed, Canada has backed away from purchasing the F-35, but the laboratory will retain that country’s name. According to media reports, and information from Monday’s ribbon-cutting, there are indications Canada may wind up acquiring the F-35, and becoming part of the laboratory.

Briefly, the mission data files assist the F-35′s massive array of optical, electromagnetic and other sensors in identifying threats. That gives pilots the ability “to (execute) the mission with the jet doing a lot of the work,” according Royal Australian Air Force Wing Commander Joseph Bennett, ACURL’s commanding officer for engineering.

Because threats will be evolving during the F-35′s service life, the ACURL, along with the two other reprogramming laboratories, will be long-term fixtures on Eglin AFB as data files are updated. “We’ve got at least a 40-year footprint,” at the base, Bennett said.

The ACURL comprises more than 100 Royal Navy, Royal Australian Air Force, Royal Air Force, Lockheed Martin and other contractor and civilian personnel. Many of those personnel lined the walkways leading to the ACURL on Monday morning as the national anthems of the two nations were played and their flags unfurled in the morning breeze.

Among those on hand for Monday’s ribbon-cutting was Royal Air Force Wing Commander Gerry McCormack, who has overall command of the ACURL. “We’re really keen that we work alongside our Australian colleagues,” he said. That collaboration, with the U.S. reprogramming laboratory also in the mix, “makes us all stronger,” McCormack said."

Source: https://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/20200 ... -eglin-afb
spazsinbad

Re: Singapore F-35 selection

12 Feb 2020, 21:20

Singapore F-35 Buy Moves Closer
11 Feb 2020 Chris Pocock

"...Singapore joined the F-35 program in 2003, paying to become a Security Cooperation Participant. This enabled it to receive detailed program status and classified performance information. But it was not until March last year that Defence Minister Dr. Ng Eng Hen announced that it would purchase four jets “for evaluation,” with an option for eight more. A letter of interest followed, and the purchase moved forward last month when the Pentagon sent the formal notification of the proposed sale to Congress.

The notification confirmed for the first time that the Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) had requested the F-35B Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) version....

...it is entirely possible that the RSAF will have some or all of its F-35 pilots trained for carrier operations. They will most likely undertake flight training at the USMC air station Beaufort, South Carolina, where all prospective F-35B pilots go. They might then practice such operations closer to home because the USMC’s assault ships sometimes visit Singapore.

The notification to Congress estimated the total procurement cost at $2.75 billion. That includes all 12 jets as well as the substantial package required to acquire the sophisticated fifth-generation capability. The sale will include 13 Pratt & Whitney F135 engines; weapons employment capability; the fighter’s command, control, communication, computers, and intelligence/communication, navigation, and identification (C4I/CNI) system; spare and repair parts; support and test equipment; training; the autonomic logistics information system (ALIS); and U.S. government and contractor support services.

Defence Minister Ng said last March that the unit price of an F-35 was similar to that of Singapore’s F-15SG Strike Eagles. And the total cost of ownership, including through-life maintenance, was close to that for the Boeing jet, he added.

One interesting aspect of this sale is the extent to which Singapore might be allowed to modify and support the jets to its own requirements. The U.S. government allowed the RSAF to add an Israeli mission computer and electronic warfare system to its F-16s. It also allowed the RSAF to write its own operational flight programs (OFPs).

The notification states that “electronic warfare systems” are included in the sale, plus access to the “reprogramming center.” As a Security Cooperation Participant already, the RSAF will be aware of some problems that have arisen with the F-35 OFPs, such as a failure to synchronize those in the jets with those in the simulators. There have also been delays in updating the mission data files, a library of enemy threats to the aircraft that feed into the fighter’s advanced sensor recognition and data fusion capability.

Israel has been allowed to add some unique avionics and electronic warfare systems to its F-35s. A source in the U.S. with access to the program told AIN that it was possible that Singapore would be allowed similar privileges."

Source: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ves-closer

Re: Pressure increases on [Canada] to stay or leave F-35 pro

07 Feb 2020, 22:30

Don't know if I will address everything but here we go:

lukfi wrote:Wing span is higher because the wings are mounted on the fatter fuselage + the wing roots where the landing gear retracts to. But is wing area higher as well?


The point is they are different parts. When the only thing these airplanes show is the builder, the name and an ejection seat, that really needs to be a hint.

my position on this, beyond Saab trying to have it both ways is that the Gripen E is a nearly totally different airplane. which is also why its going to go through years of testing. Its almost like Saab is treating it as nearly completely different as well.


Avionics and cockpit have also evolved over time on the F-16. The major difference seems to be that F-16 kept the same basic airframe (or at least the fuselage, landing gear and wings), while SH and Gripen E are redesigned airframes.


correct. also the engines, EW, and Avionics/radar are different.

I see, that might be the source of the confusion. I haven't been able to find that exact definition. It seems most people, when they say "supercruise", mean flying supersonically without the use of afterburners, and that's the definition Saab uses. Whether using AB for a short time to achieve supersonic speed and throttle down to keep it counts is kind of a grey area but I don't see how that's relevant in real world usage (except of course AB costs a lot of fuel - but you'd only be using it to accelerate).


It was a stupid claim to lock onto, but they wanted something to sell the public. people who know, know better. But they're not trying to sell this to people who really know, Norway knew better for example.

You keep crapping on the Gripen E from putting on more weight since the NG prototype. Yes, each extra kilo on a light fighter is bad. But how bad?



like 1000 times bad.

Throughout the years, F-16 has put on some weight too, to the point it needed a "Falcon STAR" overhaul in order to meet the 8000 flight hour life expectancy, and does it automatically make the F-16 a bad airplane?


I didn't chose the Gripen NG's "goal weight." Saab did. Then they busted it. not me.

I'm kind of sick of being the bad guy for believing only one side of saabs contradictions and not both, like the fans do.


Image

I didn't make this,^^ Saab did.

So yes, I'm going to keep wondering why, given their reputation, they blew the weight goal by about 15 percent. :doh:



I like how nonchalantly you chose to ignore that also France and UK are making jet engines.
To be clear, I'm not in any way "begrudging" Canada for getting a share in the F135 engine manufacturing.
Brazil is not getting engine design/manufacturing know-how but they're getting something different. What is more valuable, that really depends on who you ask...

...Certainly both Canada and Brazil have the skills to develop a fighter aircraft on their own but getting involved in the Gripen development is less risky and takes less time to get an operational aircraft. And if you're designing something new, it's always good to be able to look at something that already exists for inspiration.


Ah yes, who needs decades of contracts when you can buy inspiration.

Brazil will not only be assembling Gripen from "other people's already made parts" but it is also participating in its development. That is the main difference.


And Canada participated in F-35 development.

Right, but when the Swedes, who have been designing and building military aircraft since the 1940s, make a new plane and it's a very conservative design based on their previous model, "it's a completely different plane!!!"


Gripen E has a completely new airframe with more carbon fiber with more room for fuel, it's longer, wider, heavier, different engine, new FCS, new Mission system, new EW, AESA-radar, new countermeasures and dispenser systems, new landing gear in new position, improved data link with video, sensor fusion, new decision support system, WAD, IRST, MAVS and additional hard points, new pylons and ejectors, stealthier and faster.

In this interview Marcus Wandt (SAAB test pilot) confirmed this. Reporter asks in Swedish "Gripen E that you stand infront of looks a lot like the present Gripen. What is the difference compared to earlier aircrafts?"

He responds "Yes, it's very similar to earlier Gripen, but I would like to reverse the question, and tell you what are the same? The aerodynamic profile is the same, it's a delta wing with canards, to deal with the negative stability. General flight control principle is the same but it's a new engine, new fuel system, additional pylons, different avionics, different cockpit, different displays, all new sensors, basically everything else is new.."

https://www.svd.se/beskedet-gripen-e-ka ... HazthKWwug

yes, where am I getting my crazy information?

so they kept the same aerodynamics and Canard layout, but everything else is new? Oh Saab. what won't you say?


And you really want to compare the United States Fighter construction history with that of Sweden? really? You want to go down that road?

Let me recap that to see if I understand your point. You are saying that Saab set out to do an upgrade of the Gripen C, and what they got:
  • took more time to develop than anticipated,
  • ended up being more expensive to buy than an F-35 (or rather the F-35 ended up being cheaper),
  • ended up being heavier than originally planned, which has a negative impact on performance and range.
In other words, some of the goals were not met and that does not reflect positively on the plane. But the amount of hate it has been receiving here is completely disproportional to these shortcomings.


Remember how the key Saab selling points were cost, lightweight, and simple growth of a proven design, with big potential for sales?

why Am i the bad guy for noticing Saab broke their own rules? for years and years all over the internet people couldn't wait to tell you how great the NG was going to be, and its finally crunch time and guess what? its fallen short of the years of hype. Its not going to supercruise, or be cheap, or share parts, or have hundreds of sales, or be ready by 2015 or whatever.


Do they mean the Gripen is no longer a decent fighter? When I came to this forum, my naive idea of a good fighter was that it needs to provide the pilot with situational awareness, have good radar/sensors, sensor fusion and networking, carry good missiles, be able to evade or jam enemy radar, have countermeasures (decoys, jammers) against incoming air to air missiles to increase its survivability… but obviously I was wrong. The only thing that matters in a fighter aircraft is how many bombs can it carry and how far :-| (yes that is sarcasm for those who haven't noticed)


I think they took it in the wrong direction, I've explained that a few times I think. and people are gonna notice the strike range as Gripen NG was supposed to improve on multi role capability (strike) and range.

Once again, I'm a bad guy for noticing the dream and the reality don't match up?

What do I know. Maybe Saab should really have kept just upgrading the Gripen C/D without modifying the airframe and focus development efforts on a completely new design. You are of course entitled to an opinion, but it seems based more on feelings than facts. You keep calling me a fanboy but look at yourself @XanderCrews, even though you obviously know a lot, you're still a huge fanboy and Gripen hater.


I don't hate the Gripen, so youre wrong. If saab had kept their mouth shut until the prototype flew or put out more realistic projections, I would not feel nearly the animosity that I do. I think they broke their own rules, I think they lied, I think they took everything that made the Gripen worthy of note and instead threw it aside to make a poor imitation of an F-16 at a ridiculous cost.

Lets take everything that makes the Gripen good, lie about it for about 10 years or so, then throw all that into the dumpster and produce something thats none of what we really said was critical in a fighter.

Saab has a lot to answer for. I wouldn't mind it nearly as much if the propoganda wasn't so ridiculously over the top, and worse yet still around. Saab is still claiming the range numbers it did back in 2007, despite the airplane being massively different now. people are still posting documents from 2012 that have no bearing on reality anymore. Say what you will about F-35 fans I don't catch them still trying to convince people the numbers from 12 years ago are real. I've explained why that is as well.

The Gripen is not even the premier European made fighter-- thats right. its not even the best fighter in Europe, let alone the F-35. the people trying to convince us its on par with the F-35 do the Gripen no Favors and its another contradiction of the narrative. See the way the narrative used to go was the Gripen "punched above its weight" it was the little guy, who although NOT AS GOOD, was a great VALUE. But theres a bunch of people who can't handle it when folks like me point out its issues, and the fact that theyre debuting a gen 4.5 Gen fighter in the early 2020s, a full 2 decades after Super Hornet hit IOC, everyone is getting fifth gen and Europe is looking beyond 5th gen to replace the Typhoon. its a day late and a dollar short.

it can't be both a world beater and "delibrately constrained" to not fall into the F-35 money pit trap. once again dueling narratives.

because Americans didn't come up with it you have to crap on it even more vigorously.


try again.


I don't think the Gripen E is so bad as you make it out to be, though I can see how it can be a tough sell to some countries. If you're Canada or Finland and fly legacy Hornets, the lighter Gripen, even though it's more modern, can be seen as a downgrade due to its limited range and payload. Gripen C/Ds in service are too young to be replaced, and if they can be upgraded to near-like E capabilities (AESA radar, new cockpit, EW and targeting pods), the E may be seen as a "not big enough" upgrade once it is time to replace them.


they made a bastard child. Its too big to play with the little kids, but too little to play with the big kids. if the Gripen E is going to be sold on its cost, it has to cost less.

Stop me if I'm going too fast.

F-35 Rapid Response Team takes repairs on the road

24 Dec 2019, 10:30

F-35 Rapid Response Team takes repairs on the road
23 Dec 2019 Public Affairs Office

"When issues arise with an F-35 Lightning II, a team of highly skilled aircraft maintenance professionals stands ready to rise to the challenge and get the jet back in the fight. Whether the aircraft requires in-service repair or battle damage needs mending, the F-35 Rapid Response Team (RRT) is ready to pack up and go.

“Anything that happens outside the depot – for the Navy, Marines or Air Force – anywhere around the world, they call us and we can deploy these RRT team members at a moment’s notice. We go out to wherever that site may be and perform that repair,” said David Thorpe, F-35 branch head at Fleet Readiness Center East, where the team is headquartered.
The RRT consists of expert, cross-trained artisans who hold journey-level, expert status in at least one trade, and no lower than skilled, worker-level status in others. Having team members with multiple skill sets allows for flexibility when determining which configuration of the team to deploy, Thorpe said.

“The F-35 Rapid Response Team is like a maintenance and repair special operations force,” he explained. “The concept is that we can send fewer people and they can help each other do the work.”

The flexible configuration means the team can pick and choose which artisans to deploy to a mission, based on what the technical requirements will be. Some jobs require more expertise in certain trades than others; for example, a recent RRT mission to Edwards Air Force Base, California, called for a dedicated low observable (LO) coating technician and a painter. Those skills sets aren’t required for every mission, but were necessary in this instance because the repair required high expertise in reapplying the coating.

“Sometimes the team is not just the airframer, sheet metal mechanic and electrician. Sometimes we send the painter, or the LO technician,” Thorpe said. “We also have quality assurance specialists who are ready to go when depot-level quality needs are required to incorporate the repair and sign it off.”

Richard Lee Stiver Jr., an RRT airframes mechanic, agrees that cross-training plays a large role in the team’s success.
“You have to know the airplane,” he said. “I’m airframes, sheet metal, and LO-qualified. We have to have the drive and understanding to do the things we’re tasked to do, and we also have to be able to retain the knowledge from all the trades across the board that we need to know. That plays a huge role in our success as a team: knowing each other’s jobs, and the ability for us to work together.”

The recent mission to Edwards involved a repair in a location that presented accessibility challenges, and therefore also required expertise in low observable coating and paint restoration. The team had to remove a large panel from the aircraft in order to complete the repair – a panel that was not designed for removal under normal maintenance action, Thorpe said.

“A lot had to work in concert to get that aircraft back to a mission-capable status. We’ve got a lot of experience in taking off these big panels and putting them back down, but there are often complications involved in that,” he said of the repair, which involved an aircraft in the F-35 initial testing, operation and evaluation program with Navy Test and Evaluation Squadron 9, Det. Edwards.

“There were a lot of unknowns, because this particular skin removal hadn’t been done previously, but we were able to get the job done without many complications,” Thorpe continued. Engineers supply the team with the appropriate technical data prior to the mission, and that provides a solid jumping-off point; however, work doesn’t always go as planned, especially with first-time repairs.

“We ran into hiccups, just like with anything that’s never been done before, and we worked through them,” he said. “It was pretty difficult, but we wanted to keep our foot on the gas. Our team worked long hours and weekends to produce a quality product, safely and as quickly as possible, to support the warfighter and meet the mission – and we got really good reviews on the finished product.”

The unknowns of each mission are part of what drives the team to work harder, Stiver added. “Not knowing what you’re getting into, and being able to push through it, stand back at the end and say, ‘That was a good time,’ is one of the most rewarding aspects of the job,” he said. “This feels a lot better than going somewhere for 30 days and doing a mundane fix. We thrive on the challenge.”

The team’s performance impressed leadership at the Edwards test detachment, said Lt. David Quant, the unit’s maintenance officer. “Our squadron has worked with numerous contractor and depot-level teams and the F-35 RRT left a very positive and lasting impression. It was obvious to us that the RRT was a group of hand-selected individuals who possessed the right level of experience and motivation,” he said. “The team even went above their scope by assisting our Sailors with regression checks and the installation of panels. It was a true team effort.”

Not only did the RRT get the job done, they managed to do it within their planned time frame – an especially big win for a repair that has never before been completed. And while this aircraft was not a forward-deployed asset – like the majority of the aircraft repaired by the RRT – meeting that repair schedule on a test aircraft is important to help the Navy realize initial operational capability and system demonstration and development dates, Thorpe said.

Without the expertise and hard work of the RRT, the repairs to the aircraft would have taken much longer, Quant added.
“I am confident in the ability of our Sailors; however, this repair evolution did require a very high level of structural repair experience that we did not possess,” he explained. “This job would have taken at least three weeks longer without the assistance and experience from the RRT.”

“Our team goes out and they know it’s not a vacation – there’s a job to be done, and it needs to get done rapidly so we can get that asset back up,” Thorpe explained. “Getting that aircraft back in the air and meeting that flight schedule is important.” “You have to be willing to do everything that comes along with the job, including long hours and weekends, but that’s also part of the enjoyment of the job,” Stiver added. “You’re actually working for the warfighter, and putting them back in the air. That means something to us.”

The RRT has been eager to take on new challenges since its inception in 2017 and, given the proper resources, there’s almost nothing they can’t do, Thorpe said. “These guys crave the challenge and they’re ready and willing for more,” he explained. “With solid engineering instructions, parts availability, and whatever support equipment or tooling we might need – if we throw this team at it, they can do it.”"

191219-N-AC707-1001.jpg


Photo: "The F-35 Rapid Response Team, a highly skilled team of cross-trained aircraft maintenance professionals headquartered at Fleet Readiness Center East, stands ready to deploy at a moment’s notice in support of the F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter. (Photo by Heather Wilburn, Fleet Readiness Center East Public Affairs)" https://www.navair.navy.mil/sites/g/fil ... 7-1001.jpg


Source: https://www.navair.navy.mil/news/F-35-R ... 32019-1330

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).

JSOW Block III (JSOW-C1)
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-154_J ... 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. ...

[JSM] FEATURES
* 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

https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/jsm

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:
http://www.navyrecognition.com/images/s ... berg_2.jpg

http://www.difesaonline.it/sites/defaul ... 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

AGM-88G AARGM-ER
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).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-88_HARM#cite_note-19

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:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... ike-weapon
garrya

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 https://time.com/5611222/rq-4-global-ha ... 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-Interdiction.jpg

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
Suppression.jpg

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
Image

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-35batSignalTravelSim.gif

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.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 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
infrared-percentages.png

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

Image
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.
Image

Re: Eglin AFB begins formal Maintainer Training

10 Aug 2019, 09:49

Eglin's new 53 rd Wing commander praises F-35. 8)
https://www.crestviewbulletin.com/news/ ... 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.”
spazsinbad

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.

http://www.sibat.mod.gov.il/Industries/ ... 015_16.pdf
Dragon029

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" https://aviationweek.com/site-files/avi ... Boeing.jpg


Source: https://aviationweek.com/electronic-war ... e-emitters
spazsinbad

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
EGLIN ACTIVATES F-35 PARTNER SUPPORT COMPLEX
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: http://www.jsf.mil/news/docs/20160512_Complex.pdf (130Kb)
SpudmanWP

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.
Next

Return to advanced search