F35 capabilities against Russian Surface to Air Defense

[mrbsct]

How good is the F35 against Russian Surface-Air defenses like the S400 and its radars? Russia and China are increasing making better radar to combat stealth.

The Russians mainly use VHF bands, L bands and Multibands I believe. VHF bands like the Vostok E(best VHF radar I believe) can find a 0.001(F35 RCS) around 74 km.

Others are low frequency radars(L-bands) which I believe are lower range due to poor accuracy but are more better for detecting stealth aircraft.

The Russians are also using Multi-bands, Multistatic and Bistatic Radars. How effective are these. I believe multi-band like the Nebo-M is mainly designed to combat the F35.

Also the Russians are making Passive radar which is still at infancy stage.

JDAMs, and Small diameter bombs seem rather useless since the F35 can only fly around 18km high. But long range anti-radiation missiles like the HARMS or JSOW seem rather useful since they can fire 100km+. Plus the JASSM cruise missile which can go up to 1000 km.

[smsgtmac]

It's late, but I am so sick of that chart I want to 'gack', therefore I will just post something old and something new I worked up for just this kind of outbreak. (I think that chart may be posted here more than anyplace else on the web)

Here's the RCS of some common objects:

its-a-bird-its-a-plane-its-a-bug.jpg (57.17 KiB) Viewed 14975 times

Now here's that APA chart with some relevant changes based upon the previous graphic:

Spot the VLO Aircraft on the Chart

Anyone else want to close the loop and either regurgitate the problems with VLF and the kill chain, or perhaps just point to a thread or two?

[mk82]

How good is the F35 against Russian Surface-Air defenses like the S400 and its radars? Russia and China are increasing making better radar to combat stealth.

The Russians mainly use VHF bands, L bands and Multibands I believe. VHF bands like the Vostok E(best VHF radar I believe) can find a 0.001(F35 RCS) around 74 km.

Others are low frequency radars(L-bands) which I believe are lower range due to poor accuracy but are more better for detecting stealth aircraft.

The Russians are also using Multi-bands, Multistatic and Bistatic Radars. How effective are these. I believe multi-band like the Nebo-M is mainly designed to combat the F35.

Also the Russians are making Passive radar which is still at infancy stage.

JDAMs, and Small diameter bombs seem rather useless since the F35 can only fly around 18km high. But long range anti-radiation missiles like the HARMS or JSOW seem rather useful since they can fire 100km+. Plus the JASSM cruise missile which can go up to 1000 km.

In reality, F35s (even allied F35s) will more likely than not be operating with other assets like F22s, MALD, MALD-Js, NGL equipped Growlers, RC 135, AWACS etc to suppress the surface component of such a sophisticated IADS. Obviously good tactics is a must in such a scenario....imagine multiple MALDs and MALD Js flying from multiple directions simultaneously decoying and jamming the SAM batteries and SHORADS whilst stand off jamming from NGJ equipped EA 18Gs has just thickened the electronic fog-> can you say massive confusion for the personnel of the IADS! As the SAM battery commander, do you shoot at all the contacts that you are able to detect (jamming will definitely cut down your ability to detect all contacts)? Some may be decoys but are you going to ignore the contacts and risk your precious Gherkin factory 50 km away being pulverised by GBU 31s etc launched by genuine targets. On the other hand, if all you are destroying with your SAMs are decoys, you have just wasted a lot of your missiles and worse still you are emitting, making yourself a target...the next thing you know SDBs/stand off PGMs are punching through the roof of the SAM battery command centre and turning yourself as well as other personnel into mincemeat in the subsequent explosion...meanwhile the radars and missile launchers are blown to bits. What do you do? What do you do? Good luck if your communication with IADS HQ is compromised or jammed as well.

My basic point is guile not brute strength or just technology will win the day. On another point, in comparison to non VLO previous generation aircraft, F35s will be able to carry out it's missions "downtown" even if the enemy IADS is only partially suppressed.

Ok, hypothetically, if only F35s are involved against a VHF radar equipped IADS, the odds are still on the F35s side with tactics. If your figure (74km against an object with a RCS of 0.001 metres square) for the Vostok E radar is correct, that is unimpressive frankly. A F35 flying at 40000 to 50000 feet at even mildly supersonic speeds can lob a SDB further than 74km!

Bistatic and Multi static radars probably holds the most promise for countering the current generation of stealth. But remember bi static and multi static systems can be jammed or decoyed too. Good luck using a passive radar against a target with good EMCON.

[mk82]

It's late, but I am so sick of that chart I want to 'gack', therefore I will just post something old and something new I worked up for just this kind of outbreak. (I think that chart may be posted here more than anyplace else on the web)

Here's the RCS of some common objects:

its-a-bird-its-a-plane-its-a-bug.jpg

Now here's that APA chart with some relevant changes based upon the previous graphic:

APA-Rus-VHF-band-Radar-Params-2008-Perspective.jpg

Anyone else want to close the loop and either regurgitate the problems with VLF and the kill chain, or perhaps just point to a thread or two?

Awesome charts smsgtmac....such clarity

[charlielima223]

It's late, but I am so sick of that chart I want to 'gack', therefore I will just post something old and something new I worked up for just this kind of outbreak. (I think that chart may be posted here more than anyplace else on the web)

Here's the RCS of some common objects:

its-a-bird-its-a-plane-its-a-bug.jpg

Now here's that APA chart with some relevant changes based upon the previous graphic:

APA-Rus-VHF-band-Radar-Params-2008-Perspective.jpg

Anyone else want to close the loop and either regurgitate the problems with VLF and the kill chain, or perhaps just point to a thread or two?

The beauty of simplicity. Really can't argue with that yet still people try

[lookieloo]

That said, a lot of F-35 detractors underestimate how murderous late-model SAM systems are against "non-stealth" designs. VLO isn't just the luxury of impunity anymore... its the minimum price of admission. We're talking systems that can easily deny entire nations access to their own airspace. Fortunately, these newer systems are also far more costly than their predecessors, making it impractically expensive to pack defenses tightly enough to be effective against VLO aircraft.

[eloise]

How good is the F35 against Russian Surface-Air defenses like the S400 and its radars? Russia and China are increasing making better radar to combat stealth.

according to gen Hostage F-35 was designed to neutralize S-400 and their cousin, so i would say pretty effective

The Russians mainly use VHF bands, L bands and Multibands I believe

No , most SAM , Fighter , AWACs use X , I , J band for acquisition , fire control radar

. VHF bands like the Vostok E(best VHF radar I believe) can find a 0.001(F35 RCS) around 74 km.

depending on jamming and RCS of F-35 in VHF band

Others are low frequency radars(L-bands) which I believe are lower range due to poor accuracy but are more better for detecting stealth aircraft.

longer wavelength are less accurate , with equal size an X band radar will be more accurate than an Lband radar , and a Lband radar will be more accurate than a VHF radar .. and so on
radar operate at low band like L band , VHF band would need extreme size to be even remotely useful
any way : i dont think L band will be effective again Stealth as people hyped it to be
For example here is what the F-117 RCS again different radar band

The Russians are also using Multi-bands, Multistatic and Bistatic Radars. How effective are these. I believe multi-band like the Nebo-M is mainly designed to combat the F35.

Nebo-SVU/M is a VHF radar it isnot a multi band radar , and to be honest , it is quite inaccurate for weapon guide

Also the Russians are making Passive radar which is still at infancy stage.

passive radar is basically just a way for them to call RWR with high accuracy , and as we discussed before :
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=27364&p=291693#p291693
a RWR on ground wont provide firing solution for your SAM because it cant measure range

JDAMs, and Small diameter bombs seem rather useless since the F35 can only fly around 18km high. But long range anti-radiation missiles like the HARMS or JSOW seem rather useful since they can fire 100km+. Plus the JASSM cruise missile which can go up to 1000 km.

SPEAR III can fly > 100 km ( it have engine so high altitude drop are not necessary )
SDB I can fly around 110 km , SDB II have range of 70 km again moving target
JSM can reach around 300 km
JSOW-ER can reach 560 km
HARMS are not very useful because F-35 cant carry it internally

[eloise]

Does anyone find it a bit weird that Russian fighter radar like Irbis-e , N050 seem to have equal range with their massive ground radar ?

[geforcerfx]

Does anyone find it a bit weird that Russian fighter radar like Irbis-e , N050 seem to have equal range with their massive ground radar ?

smaller search area? if not that then yes

[Gums]

Salute!


PLZ STOP QUOTING AN ENTIRE POST!!!!!

GASP!

We have to remember that LO does not mean a "cloaking device". Anything you can do to reduce detection and then tracking range means a lot. I pointed that out on the A-10 thread. Seconds count. Minutes count more. Your IAD has failed if the SDB or JDAM or JSOW is on the way. Unlke older scenarios, the new stuff does not need a laser designator for 90% of the targets.

My understanding of the radar principles is that low freq is good for long range but not good for real accurate range or even azimuth. So the short waves the Brits developed with the magnetron made a real difference in WW2. The Chain Home radar was good, but the LW already had shorter wave radar units that were mobile.

See: http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/deflati ... ar-ii.html

The big deal is a competent, well-trained IAD structure, and I personally saw it in 1972 up north. The Storm showed how ill-prepared those folks were compared to the Vee that had been "practicing" since 1965, heh heh. ' raqi 2 was another example.

Gotta go.

Gums sends...

[disconnectedradical]

The T-50's radar is the N036. There's no such thing as the N050.

[mrbsct]

Why is there different Lockheed and Northrop values? Do they make different F117s?

Also, why are most ground long range radars are VHF? Is it because it lowers target RCS significantly? I thought the lower the frequency, the better RCS detection.

I believe the F117 was shot down by a VHF band radar but operating on low frequencies correct?

[castlebravo]

Where did you get that from? I assume that Northrop means B-2, and Lockheed is F-117. I find it interesting that the Nighthawk is so hard to detect at 2.3 Ghz; that frequency is awfully close to the L-band.

[sferrin]

Where did you get that from? I assume that Northrop means B-2, and Lockheed is F-117. I find it interesting that the Nighthawk is so hard to detect at 2.3 Ghz; that frequency is awfully close to the L-band.

I seem to recall seeing that chart in relation to Have Blue. NG had a design as well as LM but theirs didn't get built.

[castlebravo]

[img]picture[/img]

Where did you get that from? I assume that Northrop means B-2, and Lockheed is F-117. I find it interesting that the Nighthawk is so hard to detect at 2.3 Ghz; that frequency is awfully close to the L-band.

I seem to recall seeing that chart in relation to Have Blue. NG had a design as well as LM but theirs didn't get built.

I assumed B-2 purely due to the 175 Mhz results. If NG's version of the Nighthawk achieved 0.01M^2 vs a 175 Mhz radar, it would fly in the face of everyone who claims VHF defeats VLO on F-117 sized aircraft.