S-400 and F-35

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24087
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 00:40

That post looks like something Carlo Kopp would write for APA Air Power Australia who used to write for magazines but was stopped because of the unreadable prose about zazzy ZaZlons with obscure inscrutable detail in odd English prose.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

boogieman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 03:25

Speaking of which, Carlo Kopp is one of the few individuals to publish a graph plotting the max detection range of modern Russian engagement/FCR radars against target RCS. AFAIK, one of the limitations of the S400 is that it ultimately needs to lock on to a given target with the 92N6/2E Grave Stone radar to guide a missile to that target. Here is said graph:

Image

Important to remember that Grave Stone operates squarely in the X-band, for which the F35's signature reduction features are optimized. The RCS value is key here but even if we take an absolute worst-case frontal RCS for the F35 of 0.01m, that still gives the Grave Stone a paltry max detection range of around 40nm. Now bear in mind that this is the max range at which the Grave Stone could detect the F35, so it may be even less before the S400 system could actually achieve a viable missile lock. Next, factor in the effect of the F35's defensive ECM via Barracuda and this range likely diminishes even further(!).

If all the above is accurate then several flights of F35s using a mix of GBU53 and MALD-J ought to be able to overwhelm a given S400 site rather handily. Yet another own-goal by Mr Kopp... :doh:
Offline

boogieman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 05:20

Not to go too far into OT-land, but he has also published a similar graph for Russian fighter and missile radars:

Image

Now - rather confusingly - his graph predicts a superior detection range of ~50nm against the very same 0.01sqm target using the Su35's Irbis-E FCR. Now colour me shocked here, but this does not gel at all well with the fact that the Grave Stone is a much larger, more powerful and complex radar than the Irbis-E. Is it possible that Mr Kopp is talking out of his backside here? :roll: lol

It is also amusing to note the vanishingly small detection range of active radar missile seekerheads against VLO targets. He generally neglects to mention this in his "analysis" but it is equally as pertinent to an R27/77 derivative as it is to, say, a 40N6 or 48N6 from the S400.
Last edited by boogieman on 27 Mar 2020, 05:31, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1195
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 05:24

Before you use a source, it's always good to google them first
Google : carlo kopp "idiot"
Aussie fanboy
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 586
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 05:31

ricnunes wrote:
Gums wrote:Salute!

I am absolutely terrified about this uber-capable SAM system.

I may even turn in my papers if directed to attack any target within a hundred miles ( 300 + km for the folks using those values) of one of those SAM sites.


LoL :mrgreen:


Gums wrote:=========================
Good friggin grief! Last post above looks like an advertisement for folks to buy the system. That's O.K., but what about support equipment, maintenance numbers, actual combat employment results?

And who are the buyers afraid of?


Looking at that post above and the number of posts by that poster (2 so far), I would say that there's a good chance of that guy being a 'Troll' or who knows, perhaps one of Putin's "keyboard commandos"?

Anyway, my first reaction to that post was: WTF??


topwar.ru is russia stronk garbage.
Offline

boogieman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 05:33

optimist wrote:Before you use a source, it's always good to google them first
Google : carlo kopp "idiot"

Oh I'm well aware of who he is. Just entertaining myself on a long but uneventful day at work ;-)
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3738
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 14:43

I don't think there's any question the S-400 is a very capable and dangerous weapon. But it also isn't this steel umbrella people are making it out to be. It IS a rather dramatic improvement over previous SAM threats such as the SA-2, SA-3 and SA-5/6... and that's what I think people need to acknowledge.

We defeated those past systems with a mix of tactics, jamming, wild weasel/SEAD missions and... stealth. What the F-35 brings to the fight for the first time is.... it can do all of them :)
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 868
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 15:45

hythelday wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
Gums wrote:Salute!

I am absolutely terrified about this uber-capable SAM system.

I may even turn in my papers if directed to attack any target within a hundred miles ( 300 + km for the folks using those values) of one of those SAM sites.


LoL :mrgreen:


Gums wrote:=========================
Good friggin grief! Last post above looks like an advertisement for folks to buy the system. That's O.K., but what about support equipment, maintenance numbers, actual combat employment results?

And who are the buyers afraid of?


Looking at that post above and the number of posts by that poster (2 so far), I would say that there's a good chance of that guy being a 'Troll' or who knows, perhaps one of Putin's "keyboard commandos"?

Anyway, my first reaction to that post was: WTF??


topwar.ru is russia stronk garbage.


Topwar.ru is blacklisted by Wikipedia for being Russian propaganda. :mrgreen:
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2540
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 16:13

boogieman wrote:The RCS value is key here but even if we take an absolute worst-case frontal RCS for the F35 of 0.01m, that still gives the Grave Stone a paltry max detection range of around 40nm.


I agree with most of what you said but bear in mind that the absolute worst-case frontal RCS for the F-35 (against X-Band) would be 0.001 square meters and not 0.01 like you said.
This and assuming that chart has a somehow good accuracy gives the Grave Stone a maximum detection range against the F-35 of 25nm or less (almost half the value that you mentioned).

However and due to two well known USAF generals the frontal RCS for the F-35 is most likely lower than that (0.001 square meters).


boogieman wrote:Now - rather confusingly - his graph predicts a superior detection range of ~50nm against the very same 0.01sqm target using the Su35's Irbis-E FCR. Now colour me shocked here, but this does not gel at all well with the fact that the Grave Stone is a much larger, more powerful and complex radar than the Irbis-E. Is it possible that Mr Kopp is talking out of his backside here? :roll: lol


In case Carlo "idiot" Kopp isn't getting his stuff wrong (again!) then it's quite possible that he's using the range of the Irbis-E radar in "focus mode".
According to some sources it seems that the Irbis-E radar in "focus mode" has a maximum detection range of 400 km against a 3 square meter target or 90 km (around 48 nautical miles) against a 0.01 square meter target.
However the downside of this "focus mode" is that the radar Field Of View is very narrow which basically makes it useless for searching targets if you don't know where the target is generally located at (something extremely hard against a F-35, by the way).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2336
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 20:16

Salute!

Sure glad we're not giving away all our SEAD and Weasel tactics and intell here, huh?

If that uber SAM can guide close enuf to kill me within the last 50 msec time of flight on my maneuvering jet that has a RCS of a golfball, I'm quitting. All is lost.

Gums sends...

P.S. Reminds me of all the neat weapons my favorite wingman and I developed while sitting on Sandy alert. We couldn't get them approved and produced back in the days of the Fulda Gap scenario and the neat and fearsome Soviet boats with their new missiles and defenses. Scary times, I gotta tellya.

The idea was to close the "PACT" airfields with environmentally friendly munitions. Except for the pigeon PGM.

- The glue bomb, and later foam bomb, were to use all the napalm cannisters that our government manufactured and then promised napalm would not be used again. I personally liked nape when hurting people back in my day. Looked great on film, and generally stopped mass assaults on our grunt encampments.
Our idea in the early 80's idea was to fill the old nape cannisters with epoxy glue components, then drop them in pairs on the enemy airfields. The enema planes would not be able to get to the runway much less takeoff. If able, target the shelters so the doors would not open.

- The foam bomb would also use all those old nape cannisters and the mix used for foam insulation compounds you can buy at Ace Hardware. Drop a ripple of those suckers on the runway and taxiways. How long would it take to chip away giant, 20 foot high, 50 foot wide mountains of foam!!!!! Gotta love it.
Just imagine? Low collateral damage, if any.

Jez some thots as I isolate down here and try to avoid human contact and not have "intimate contact" with fruit bats
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1921
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 20:38

LOL Gums talk about innovation and being ahead of time! :D
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2336
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 23:25

Salute!

And then the S-400 pigeon ARM/PGM

More details at 11 o'clock news....

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline

boogieman

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 140
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 23:37

ricnunes wrote:
boogieman wrote:The RCS value is key here but even if we take an absolute worst-case frontal RCS for the F35 of 0.01m, that still gives the Grave Stone a paltry max detection range of around 40nm.


I agree with most of what you said but bear in mind that the absolute worst-case frontal RCS for the F-35 (against X-Band) would be 0.001 square meters and not 0.01 like you said.
This and assuming that chart has a somehow good accuracy gives the Grave Stone a maximum detection range against the F-35 of 25nm or less (almost half the value that you mentioned).

However and due to two well known USAF generals the frontal RCS for the F-35 is most likely lower than that (0.001 square meters).


boogieman wrote:Now - rather confusingly - his graph predicts a superior detection range of ~50nm against the very same 0.01sqm target using the Su35's Irbis-E FCR. Now colour me shocked here, but this does not gel at all well with the fact that the Grave Stone is a much larger, more powerful and complex radar than the Irbis-E. Is it possible that Mr Kopp is talking out of his backside here? :roll: lol


In case Carlo "idiot" Kopp isn't getting his stuff wrong (again!) then it's quite possible that he's using the range of the Irbis-E radar in "focus mode".
According to some sources it seems that the Irbis-E radar in "focus mode" has a maximum detection range of 400 km against a 3 square meter target or 90 km (around 48 nautical miles) against a 0.01 square meter target.
However the downside of this "focus mode" is that the radar Field Of View is very narrow which basically makes it useless for searching targets if you don't know where the target is generally located at (something extremely hard against a F-35, by the way).


Agreed, I was deliberately being overly generous to the S400 wrt F35 RCS to illustrate just how dramatic the effect of VLO is. I suppose S400 could also focus its radar energy into a smaller volume of airspace when cued by something like Nebo-M or Protivnik GE, but I don't know how dramatic the effect would be.

The main issue I can see is that the F35s weapons may very well have a greater frontal RCS than the F35 itself. This would make it necessary to swamp the S400 with munitions (GBU53 + MALD-J) to ensure the Grave Stone FCR and point defence systems (Pantsir/Tor) are destroyed. This would effectively neutralise the site and allow the other components to be picked off more easily.
Offline

outlaw162

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1423
  • Joined: 28 Feb 2008, 02:33

Unread post27 Mar 2020, 23:55

Jez some thots as I isolate down here and try to avoid human contact and not have "intimate contact" with fruit bats


You know there are some advantages to this situation. The checkout lines at the BX are the shortest I've ever seen. :D
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24087
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post28 Mar 2020, 00:19

:devil: Yeah BUTT one may have to use one's sinister hand in lieu of non-existent LOO PAPER! :doh: & WATCH OUT FOR... :shock: THIS DISCARD turning into THAT BLOB (the eggplant that ate Chicago). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfZ1ZHDAq08
Attachments
VirusIntoBLOBfishED.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests