F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2016, 05:06
by garrya
Since many people of general public has wrong perception about F-35 capabilities ( strength - weakness.. etc) because they took their information from terrible source like Picard blog, and most are too lazy to read a whole topic here about F-35, iam making a blog explain generally about aerodynamic and avionics of aircraft (not just F-35) to clear out some common misconception of general public
I just started it a few days ago :
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... press.com/
If you guy dont mind, can you give me some feedback on how to improve it , like what should i includes, does it sound too boring and so on ( at the moment almost everything still in general layout and draft stage so your opinion are very appreciated )

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2016, 07:44
by arrow-nautics
You`ll need help & can count me in but make darned sure you know what you are getting in to here. I mean, what are we talking about here? World peace? Equal rights? Creationism versus evolution? No, something far less impactful & relevant to our lives BUT you might not know it. :doh:

You should get a number of people to give you a hand here I`m sure but just make sure you know what you are getting in to here. Trolls of the most disgusting sort...next stop - basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... press.com/. All in single file now please :(

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2016, 08:21
by blindpilot
If you are going to take on the task, there are a few things to keep in mind.

This topic is overflowing with opinions and experiences in unrelated subjects, and second and third hand anecdotes. I am assuming you do not want this to become "just another of those blogs."

That means you will need to be very disciplined in using actual primary sources with legitimate and applicable experts in that field and area. You will need to have video clips of actual F-35 pilots speaking from the horses mouth about that particular subject that they know about as a working expert.

Sometimes (almost always) some of your sources are excellent choices for one point of discussion but are actually only a secondary source for another subject - example pilot speaking about maintenance, if he has never run a maintenance squadron, etc. He may know a lot of good stuff BUT .. he is a secondary source in that case. Don't use secondary sources! And don't even think about tertiary sources.

To do this will be real work. Most colleges these days don't even require it for post graduate research papers sadly. Example: Don't tell me what a philosopher or historian thinks Plato meant, no matter what that source's credentials (ex: Foremost recognized Plato expert). Quote Plato from "Republic" or "Laws" in Greek, and then footnote the manuscript and the translator to English.

For this objective you must be disciplined or it will be lost in the clutter of other blogs. Anything less is just you educating yourself to a personal goal, and that likely to a marginal level.

Good luck. I'll help where I might be, or be able to point you to, a "primary source."

BP

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2016, 14:57
by garrya
:mrgreen: i will try to be as objective as i can, however, iam wondering if i should include many pilots quote in, because the problem with pilots quotes is sometimes it can be biased ( a Russian pilots will think su-27 is better than F-15, an American pilots will think exactly opposite.. etc)

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2016, 16:46
by eloise
using flight manual data could be a good idea, the blog name seem too long though

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2016, 21:11
by les_paul59
I don't want to be a negative person but in this case I'm going to be. So many of the anti F-35 crowd are so dug into their positions that they can't reason objectively. Some are Sprey loyalists who only believe in lightweight fighters (f-20, f-16, gripen) type jets. The others are sukhoi obsessed, and then there are the f-22 purists who believe nothing else is worthy in the air to air arena.

At the end of the day is it worth the B.S. you will put up with?
The F-35 is so far along now that the public's opinion really doesn't matter

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2016, 22:12
by krorvik
les_paul59 wrote:The F-35 is so far along now that the public's opinion really doesn't matter


Bingo. Starting a blog of this kind is probably not even necessary. The naysayers are getting more and more desperate, and the F-35 is gearing up for full rate production.

I think you'll be working hard for little effect, and probably a lot of swearing at what the internet does best: Drooling idiots.

I love the idealism though :)

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 29 Feb 2016, 22:31
by vanshilar
It's something that I've considered doing, but haven't really put the time into it.

There are already a number of blogs along this vein, comprehensiveinformation.wordpress.com being one of them, elementsofpower.blogspot.com being another one. You should think about what you would bring that would be different. How would you present your information that is different (more compelling, easier to digest, etc.) than what is already out there? What expertise (analysis, modeling, aerodynamic background, etc.) do you bring? What viewpoint are you presenting from? Etc.

One thing you can potentially consider, depending on your background and expertise, is to look at the arguments against the F-35 in detail. (This is something that I wanted to do after I saw how stupid the arguments were once you really examined them.) Take the F-35 vs F-16 "dogfight" for example. You can examine 1) whether or not the test was really about dogfighting (if it were, why does the conclusions section say nothing about dogfighting tactics, i.e. "you should use scissors when the opponent uses paper", and instead just talks about changing the control law parameters? Why does the very first sentence of the test report directly say the purpose of the test was to test the F-35's control laws under high AOA? Is energy maneuverability relevant when the test was with the F-35 under high AOA and thus, losing energy rapidly? etc.) 2) How to look at the different responses properly (for example, the detractors' argument when the JSF responded was "see we're right, they didn't dispute the test pilot", but is that appropriate? After all, the test itself was part of the JSF program, of course they don't dispute the results or what the test pilot did, what they dispute is the detractors claiming it had anything to do with dogfighting), 3) what the test really implies about the F-35's abilities. I think elementsofpower.blogspot.com does this but it's too informal and snarky for my personal taste (i.e. in the same way that the Picard blog is overtly pro-Rafale, EoP is overtly pro-F-35, just with actual facts and data, but presented in a snarky way -- whereas I prefer a more dispassionate "by the facts" approach). But that's a personal preference.

Or you can make up a bunch of unsourced numbers like the Picard blog. I still shake my head that he rates the Rafale as having more stealth features than the Typhoon, Gripen, J-10, and J-20 combined. (He credits the Rafale with 11 stealth features, while the other 4 planes has a combined total of 10 according to him.) This includes giving the Rafale's permanently mounted refueling probe a plus as a stealth feature because it's angled, while ignoring that the refueling probe of other planes like the Typhoon are actually retractable and thus should be stealthier because they are simply retracted and out of sight in normal operation.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2016, 00:18
by garrya
les_paul59 wrote:I don't want to be a negative person but in this case I'm going to be. So many of the anti F-35 crowd are so dug into their positions that they can't reason objectively. Some are Sprey loyalists who only believe in lightweight fighters (f-20, f-16, gripen) type jets. The others are sukhoi obsessed, and then there are the f-22 purists who believe nothing else is worthy in the air to air arena.

At the end of the day is it worth the B.S. you will put up with?

I understand that many people have such strong agenda that they cannot be reason with, however i also believe that many of the general public simply dont have alot of knowledge about aerodynamic or avionics , hence they are easily amused by statement from people like Sprey, Carlo Kopp or Picard, my aim is only to teach enthusiasts about the basic, whether they decided to keep their position or not is up to them

Writing blog is what i love to do, so i dont mind

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2016, 00:29
by garrya
vanshilar wrote:It's something that I've considered doing, but haven't really put the time into it.

There are already a number of blogs along this vein, comprehensiveinformation.wordpress.com being one of them, elementsofpower.blogspot.com being another one. You should think about what you would bring that would be different. How would you present your information that is different (more compelling, easier to digest, etc.) than what is already out there? What expertise (analysis, modeling, aerodynamic background, etc.) do you bring? What viewpoint are you presenting from? Etc.

One thing you can potentially consider, depending on your background and expertise, is to look at the arguments against the F-35 in detail. (This is something that I wanted to do after I saw how stupid the arguments were once you really examined them.) Take the F-35 vs F-16 "dogfight" for example. You can examine 1) whether or not the test was really about dogfighting (if it were, why does the conclusions section say nothing about dogfighting tactics, i.e. "you should use scissors when the opponent uses paper", and instead just talks about changing the control law parameters? Why does the very first sentence of the test report directly say the purpose of the test was to test the F-35's control laws under high AOA? Is energy maneuverability relevant when the test was with the F-35 under high AOA and thus, losing energy rapidly? etc.) 2) How to look at the different responses properly (for example, the detractors' argument when the JSF responded was "see we're right, they didn't dispute the test pilot", but is that appropriate? After all, the test itself was part of the JSF program, of course they don't dispute the results or what the test pilot did, what they dispute is the detractors claiming it had anything to do with dogfighting), 3) what the test really implies about the F-35's abilities. I think elementsofpower.blogspot.com does this but it's too informal and snarky for my personal taste (i.e. in the same way that the Picard blog is overtly pro-Rafale, EoP is overtly pro-F-35, just with actual facts and data, but presented in a snarky way -- whereas I prefer a more dispassionate "by the facts" approach). But that's a personal preference.

Or you can make up a bunch of unsourced numbers like the Picard blog. I still shake my head that he rates the Rafale as having more stealth features than the Typhoon, Gripen, J-10, and J-20 combined. (He credits the Rafale with 11 stealth features, while the other 4 planes has a combined total of 10 according to him.) This includes giving the Rafale's permanently mounted refueling probe a plus as a stealth feature because it's angled, while ignoring that the refueling probe of other planes like the Typhoon are actually retractable and thus should be stealthier because they are simply retracted and out of sight in normal operation.

I agree, i think what i bring is a non biased view point regarding all aircraft, instead of trying to say whether aircraft A is better than aircraft B or not, I will only write about how things work ( how aircraft turn, what limit their turn ability , speed.. etc) From the information i provide reader can come to their own conclusions which aircraft is better
My only problem is that iam not quite good at drawing haha

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2016, 04:06
by charlielima223
vanshilar wrote:. I think elementsofpower.blogspot.com does this but it's too informal and snarky for my personal taste (i.e. in the same way that the Picard blog is overtly pro-Rafale, EoP is overtly pro-F-35, just with actual facts and data, but presented in a snarky way -- whereas I prefer a more dispassionate "by the facts" approach). But that's a personal preference.



for Elementsofpower... the guy might be snarky but when the man makes a 3 or 4 piece article; you can't deny the facts. His is one of the very few blogs that will go in depth to actually explain and back his assertions. This is the polar opposite from Picard as you pointed out. The man pulls crap out of 4th point of contact, mixes it with bovine fecal matter, and then tries to push them as fact with NO REAL supporting articles (if any).

I wish you luck in your blog Garrya. Just remember that it is your blog. Put up what you have to say and support it with FACTS and verifiable articles. Let the trolls say and do what they want, just ignore them... you can't fix stupid. It would be good to see an honest and factual counter argument to the swarm of stupid flying around on the interwebs...

:cheers:

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 01 Mar 2016, 07:26
by geforcerfx
Idk what you can do at this point. Blogs are useful for people seeking the information in the first place, if your going after the general public, then the info has to come to them. Aka trying to use a blog to beat back anti F-35 blogger getting picked up by yahoo news, ABC news, FOX news, you will lose. Those are already sources for the general public that they accept as accurate news sources, they didn't search out that F-35 information it was brought to them. Unless you can get a major news agency to pick up a article from your blog, which isn't likely since it's the opposite of the news they were reporting 3 months ago, then the general public won't pick it up. As far as just getting good information out there that's easy to find I think Dragon's approach has worked best, youtube videos pop up easily in a google search, and we can link people to those videos in comments on bad articles, which helps to avoid copy pasta spam (which gives off the impression of the "paid by Lockheed" crap). The blogs already up like Sgt. Mac's elementsofpower have pretty much covered all the controversies, and I (and others) can pull off them for data, or point people to them. They are already established and have a lot of content up. Realistically this website right here is prob one of the best sources on the net for F-35 news and info. Do a specific F-35 search on any major search engine and one of the hits (usually towards the top of the list too) will be F-16.net forums, this has the links to the blogs in it, lots of experienced and expert opinions thrown in and we talk about just about everything aviation here not just F-35 (and F-16's) so you get comparisons of all the air power flying out there. If you want to go for a blog the doors there but don't expect a ton of the general public to come walking into it, if you want to make the largest impact just counter the crap articles on the web in the comments sections, or invest the time and effort into youtube videos, a information sources that's easiest for the general public to access and digest, keep adding to the forums here and the info gets out the same way.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2016, 21:00
by garrya
geforcerfx wrote:As far as just getting good information out there that's easy to find I think Dragon's approach has worked best, youtube videos pop up easily in a google search, and we can link people to those videos in comments on bad articles, which helps to avoid copy pasta spam (which gives off the impression of the "paid by Lockheed" crap). The blogs already up like Sgt. Mac's elementsofpower have pretty much covered all the controversies, and I (and others) can pull off them for data, or point people to them. They are already established and have a lot of content up.

I am aware of elementspower blog and Dragon's YouTube channel , but AFAIK they seem to focus mostly on the Aerodynamic part of F-35 , my blog will cover the electronic part as well


geforcerfx wrote:Realistically this website right here is prob one of the best sources on the net for F-35 news and info. Do a specific F-35 search on any major search engine and one of the hits (usually towards the top of the list too) will be F-16.net forums, this has the links to the blogs in it, lots of experienced and expert opinions thrown in and we talk about just about everything aviation here not just F-35 (and F-16's) so you get comparisons of all the air power flying out there.

I agree that F-16.net is a very good source of information but I think reading 20-30 pages of discussion can be quite discourage for many people , And while there are alot of information here , they are somewhat cluttered around , and could be hard to find , I think one of the reasons Picard and Carlo kopp's nonsense spreading so quickly is that they all center in one place and easy for reader to find .
Hence the decision to write the blog

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 02 Mar 2016, 21:01
by garrya
Anyway , new post going up today , hope you guy enjoy
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... olocation/

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2016, 04:50
by garrya
finally finished this todays , cheers
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... -benefits/

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2016, 10:07
by hornetfinn
garrya wrote:finally finished this todays , cheers
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... -benefits/


I like your work, looks pretty good. There are some things that might be good to correct or at least comment like this picture

Image

Picture seems consistent with old (over 10 years ago) statements that F-35 has RCS of metal golf ball and F-22 has RCS of metal marble. This was before F-35 had done any RCS testing. Current statements from very official sources indicate that F-35 actually has lower RCS than F-22. B-2 might have the lowest RCS in low frequencies (HF and UHF) due to size and shape of it and because bomber has more room inside to handle long wavelengths with RAS.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2016, 14:19
by krorvik
WIth a reference list - very good!

I enjoyed the read - good work :)

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2016, 17:52
by fabius1453
Nice blog, lots of detail there.

Can I put in a request for a post on the value of situational awareness? This probably goes for Dragon's youtube channel as well.

Situational awareness was the key for me when it came to "getting" the F-35. I have a history background, and grew up reading everything I could on military history, especially the air war in WWI and WWII. When I started really looking into the F-35 program a few years back, a lot of the technical side of things required some major boning up on (with no professional background in this, figuring out some of the terms at first was daunting). But the big conceptual piece that made everything click into place was the power of information gathering, data-links, off-board targeting, and the whole "first-look/first-kill" rationale.

I know most of the veteran posters and professional here know this like the back of their hand; it's self evident for them. It clicked into place for me, because it meshed perfectly with what I'd read growing up (Boelcke's "Dicta" in WW I, how the U.S. beat the Zero in WW II by not playing the Zero's game, the importance of the AIMVAL/ACEVAL exercises, etc). It sold me on the F-35, because everything the "pro-F-35" crowd was saying was backed up by historical experience. It also placed the program delays and overruns in context (next to the teething troubles of all the teen-series fighters, the F-35 delays haven't been all that surprising, or serious).

Continuing to explain the kinematics and electronics by themselves are important, because there's a huge amount of wrong out there. But it seems to me that these arguments will only get so far with the average layman who doesn't have any context with which to judge what actually matters in air combat.

We need a clear, easy to comprehend, counter-narrative that educates the layman about what actual matters in a fight in the air. Something that actually explains how big of a deal sensor fusion and "information is life" thinking really is.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2016, 17:54
by garrya
hornetfinn wrote:I like your work, looks pretty good. There are some things that might be good to correct or at least comment like this picture

Image

Picture seems consistent with old (over 10 years ago) statements that F-35 has RCS of metal golf ball and F-22 has RCS of metal marble. This was before F-35 had done any RCS testing. Current statements from very official sources indicate that F-35 actually has lower RCS than F-22.


fixed , thanks hornet
hornetfinn wrote:B-2 might have the lowest RCS in low frequencies (HF and UHF) due to size and shape of it and because bomber has more room inside to handle long wavelengths with RAS.

I agree , but at the moment i dont have the value of others aircraft at long wavelength so i have to left that part out
krorvik wrote:WIth a reference list - very good!

I enjoyed the read - good work :)

Iam really glad that you do , cheers

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2016, 18:12
by garrya
fabius1453 wrote:Nice blog, lots of detail there.

Can I put in a request for a post on the value of situational awareness? This probably goes for Dragon's youtube channel as well.

Situational awareness was the key for me when it came to "getting" the F-35. I have a history background, and grew up reading everything I could on military history, especially the air war in WWI and WWII. When I started really looking into the F-35 program a few years back, a lot of the technical side of things required some major boning up on (with no professional background in this, figuring out some of the terms at first was daunting). But the big conceptual piece that made everything click into place was the power of information gathering, data-links, off-board targeting, and the whole "first-look/first-kill" rationale.

I know most of the veteran posters and professional here know this like the back of their hand; it's self evident for them. It clicked into place for me, because it meshed perfectly with what I'd read growing up (Boelcke's "Dicta" in WW I, how the U.S. beat the Zero in WW II by not playing the Zero's game, the importance of the AIMVAL/ACEVAL exercises, etc). It sold me on the F-35, because everything the "pro-F-35" crowd was saying was backed up by historical experience. It also placed the program delays and overruns in context (next to the teething troubles of all the teen-series fighters, the F-35 delays haven't been all that surprising, or serious).

Continuing to explain the kinematics and electronics by themselves are important, because there's a huge amount of wrong out there. But it seems to me that these arguments will only get so far with the average layman who doesn't have any context with which to judge what actually matters in air combat.

We need a clear, easy to comprehend, counter-narrative that educates the layman about what actual matters in a fight in the air. Something that actually explains how big of a deal sensor fusion and "information is life" thinking really is.

I will write a post about situation awareness in the future , I didnt write it at the start because without basics knowledge about how RWR , Radar , infrared sensor, stealth work , it really hard to explain to people why some aircraft has more situation awareness than the others and so on , many people still think that anything get within 400 km from s-400 will be shoot down instantly or that a Su-35 can carry a big jammer to compensate for it's signature .

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 07 Mar 2016, 18:31
by garrya
The main problem i get at the moment is iam not quite sure whether i should group some post together or make them separate , for example : iam not sure wherther i should add the post about Infrared reduction in the post about stealth or not , may be it would be better be included in the future post about IRST sensor ?

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 07:27
by garrya
Just finished a new post , hope you guys like it
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... asure-ecm/

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 09:27
by gideonic
garrya wrote:Just finished a new post , hope you guys like it
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... asure-ecm/

A great read yet again. I'm wondering about the formula here though:
Image
ERPs = Effective radiated power of radar
ERPj =Effective radiated power of jammer
G = Antenna gain
RCS = Target radar cross section

Looks very interesting, unfortunately the listed variables are exactly the ones that are deductible. But what are variables F and R? What are the constants 103, 32, 40, 20, etc, where do they come from? Also the logarithms are to the default base of 10 right?

It would probably be easier to look it up ourselves, but Which of the references is the source of this? :D

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 14:38
by eloise
gideonic wrote:Looks very interesting, unfortunately the listed variables are exactly the ones that are deductible. But what are variables F and R? What are the constants 103, 32, 40, 20, etc, where do they come from? Also the logarithms are to the default base of 10 right?

I can answer
R = range
F= frequency
all constant are from radar equation

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 15:06
by garrya
gideonic wrote:Looks very interesting, unfortunately the listed variables are exactly the ones that are deductible. But what are variables F and R? What are the constants 103, 32, 40, 20, etc, where do they come from? Also the logarithms are to the default base of 10 right?

It would probably be easier to look it up ourselves, but Which of the references is the source of this? :D

Eloise have already explained the variable
these numbers come from free space attenuation formula , and yes logarithms are to the default base of 10
reference come from here
Image

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 15:45
by gideonic
Thanks to both of you!

Trying to learn about the basics of radars from different sources. Hard to find good material on the subject. Some manuals like this give basic insight, but most of the layman's books on the subject seem old and expensivce.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2016, 18:09
by garrya
gideonic wrote:Thanks to both of you!

Trying to learn about the basics of radars from different sources. Hard to find good material on the subject. Some manuals like this give basic insight, but most of the layman's books on the subject seem old and expensivce.

You are welcome

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2016, 04:55
by eloise
Out of curiosity , how well your blog doing in term of traffic ? :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2016, 05:11
by garrya
eloise wrote:Out of curiosity , how well your blog doing in term of traffic ? :mrgreen:

stat.png

Not many visitors yet

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2016, 14:03
by jetblast16
AwEsOmE!!! Stay objective garrya. It is a treasure trove of cool information. Thank you.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2016, 20:19
by playloud
I posted the link up on the Best Fighter For Canada Facebook group yesterday. It received a lot of likes.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2016, 20:30
by garrya
jetblast16 wrote:AwEsOmE!!! Stay objective garrya. It is a treasure trove of cool information. Thank you.

thanks , iam glad that you liked it .
on a separate note , seem like someone shared my blog at several place today , the traffic raised dramatically all of suddent ( so whoever did it , thanks alot for that too :mrgreen: )

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2016, 20:33
by garrya
playloud wrote:I posted the link up on the Best Fighter For Canada Facebook group yesterday. It received a lot of likes.

So that was you , haha :D thanks alot

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2016, 01:49
by rpgrynn
playloud wrote:I posted the link up on the Best Fighter For Canada Facebook group yesterday. It received a lot of likes.


Thanks for giving Garrya the exposure! :D

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2016, 03:54
by garrya
My first blog post about radar was terrible , lack of info, lack of references list ..etc so i decided to remake it .Since there are many things to cover , i divided it into 2 part , only just finished part 1 , come have a look if you interested :mrgreen:
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... ermeasure/
I also changed the general theme , so the blog looks a bit better now and it is also easier to find old posts.
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... press.com/

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2016, 09:44
by gideonic
garrya wrote:My first blog post about radar was terrible , lack of info, lack of references list ..etc so i decided to remake it .Since there are many things to cover , i divided it into 2 part , only just finished part 1 , come have a look if you interested :mrgreen:
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... ermeasure/
I also changed the general theme , so the blog looks a bit better now and it is also easier to find old posts.
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... press.com/


Great work, will look into it later with more detail for sure!

One thing to note about the very-first blogpost, is that this section, starting with the following (commas added), needs some editing:
Physics students, when asked how aircraft fly, often quote ...

It seems that some sentences are incomplete after that ...

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2016, 10:33
by garrya
gideonic wrote:
Great work, will look into it later with more detail for sure!

One thing to note about the very-first blogpost, is that this section, starting with the following (commas added), needs some editing:
Physics students, when asked how aircraft fly, often quote ...

It seems that some sentences are incomplete after that ...

Ha ha, yes, that post wasn't finished , i just stopped it because i was lazy and at that point i wasn't sure what to write about, i decided that i will write about aerodynamic after i finished the general part about avionics.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2016, 13:15
by hornetfinn
I like your work very much, thank you! You have made informative but easily understood pages about many important issues. I've struggled to get people to understand many things about stealth and sensors and it's sometimes frustrating as information is pretty fragmented. Now you made good packages of information to use, thank you for that! :D

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2016, 17:09
by luke_sandoz
garrya wrote:
gideonic wrote:
Great work, will look into it later with more detail for sure!

One thing to note about the very-first blogpost, is that this section, starting with the following (commas added), needs some editing:
Physics students, when asked how aircraft fly, often quote ...

It seems that some sentences are incomplete after that ...

Ha ha, yes, that post wasn't finished , i just stopped it because i was lazy and at that point i wasn't sure what to write about, i decided that i will write about aerodynamic after i finished the general part about avionics.



The physics of flight . . . The Liberal Arts version

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 15 Apr 2016, 20:17
by garrya
hornetfinn wrote:I like your work very much, thank you! You have made informative but easily understood pages about many important issues. I've struggled to get people to understand many things about stealth and sensors and it's sometimes frustrating as information is pretty fragmented. Now you made good packages of information to use, thank you for that! :D

:mrgreen: thank you , that was my goal too

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2016, 14:36
by playloud
Post the update at BF4C again. They all like it.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2016, 03:07
by garrya
playloud wrote:Post the update at BF4C again. They all like it.

thanks alot for that , TBH , the blog create better reaction than i expected

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2016, 11:18
by garrya
Very sorry for the delay , so many things to cover , anyway new post is up , enjoy guys 8)
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... s-part-ii/

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2016, 11:49
by gideonic
garrya wrote:Very sorry for the delay , so many things to cover , anyway new post is up , enjoy guys 8)
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... s-part-ii/

Thank you! Looking forward for finding the time to read it :)

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2016, 13:34
by hornetfinn
garrya wrote:Very sorry for the delay , so many things to cover , anyway new post is up , enjoy guys 8)
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... s-part-ii/


Looks great, thank you! Your blog is great collection of information and you have managed to make it extremely easily readable for such complex matters.

Some comments after very quickly glancing through it:

While Parabolic , Gregorian and Cassegrain antennas all have very high gain ( small main beamwidth) relative to aperture size .However , they all share the same disadvantages include: high sidelobes (make radars susceptible to low RCS targets and ground clutter)


You could also mention here that higher side lobe levels make radar also more detectable with ESM systems (more energy towards them to work with) and more susceptible to jamming as jamming signal gets through to receiver more easily (side lobe jamming).

About side lobes: Maybe you should mention that there are side lobes in both transmit and receive conditions. Transmit side lobes means unwanted energy is sent outside the main beam (lobe). This makes the radar more detectable by RWR/ESM systems. In receive condition unwanted energy is received from outside the main lobe. This can be intentional jamming or ground returns which both affect radar performance and ability to pick up targets.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2016, 17:07
by sprstdlyscottsmn
That was really good. It highlighted the differences between PESA and AESA very well (among a great many other things).

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2016, 03:57
by garrya
hornetfinn wrote:
While Parabolic , Gregorian and Cassegrain antennas all have very high gain ( small main beamwidth) relative to aperture size .However , they all share the same disadvantages include: high sidelobes (make radars susceptible to low RCS targets and ground clutter)


You could also mention here that higher side lobe levels make radar also more detectable with ESM systems (more energy towards them to work with) and more susceptible to jamming as jamming signal gets through to receiver more easily (side lobe jamming).

About side lobes: Maybe you should mention that there are side lobes in both transmit and receive conditions. Transmit side lobes means unwanted energy is sent outside the main beam (lobe). This makes the radar more detectable by RWR/ESM systems. In receive condition unwanted energy is received from outside the main lobe. This can be intentional jamming or ground returns which both affect radar performance and ability to pick up targets.

I did talk about sidelobes later in the post , it just really down below haha (arranging stuff reasonably is not one of my strong point , so really sorry about that :oops: )

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2016, 03:59
by garrya
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:That was really good. It highlighted the differences between PESA and AESA very well (among a great many other things).

Thank you, I am really glad to hear that from a knowledgeable guy like you :D

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2016, 04:05
by garrya
gideonic wrote:Thank you! Looking forward for finding the time to read it :)

Do you think the post is too long ? Should i reduce the length next time ? Do you think reader may get bored because it too long ?

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2016, 07:29
by gideonic
garrya wrote:
gideonic wrote:Thank you! Looking forward for finding the time to read it :)

Do you think the post is too long ? Should i reduce the length next time ? Do you think reader may get bored because it too long ?

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. Considering the drove of information, the length looks very good. It's just a bit frustrating, that I need to find an hour or so to actually read through it in detail, but I won't have it for a couple of days :D

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2016, 08:26
by krorvik
That was a great read Garrya. Undertaking a task like this is monumental - and you're doing a great job! Lots of information, neatly organized into natural sections - and lots of learning to do on my part.

Thank you!

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2016, 10:08
by eloise
garrya wrote:Do you think the post is too long ? Should i reduce the length next time ? Do you think reader may get bored because it too long ?

Personally ,i prefer long post. But what important is what do most people like ? ,maybe comparing the traffic of now and when you first started ? if it is increased then you doing good , if it decreased then maybe you can try to divide long posts into smaller one and post more often

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2016, 10:58
by hornetfinn
garrya wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
While Parabolic , Gregorian and Cassegrain antennas all have very high gain ( small main beamwidth) relative to aperture size .However , they all share the same disadvantages include: high sidelobes (make radars susceptible to low RCS targets and ground clutter)


You could also mention here that higher side lobe levels make radar also more detectable with ESM systems (more energy towards them to work with) and more susceptible to jamming as jamming signal gets through to receiver more easily (side lobe jamming).

About side lobes: Maybe you should mention that there are side lobes in both transmit and receive conditions. Transmit side lobes means unwanted energy is sent outside the main beam (lobe). This makes the radar more detectable by RWR/ESM systems. In receive condition unwanted energy is received from outside the main lobe. This can be intentional jamming or ground returns which both affect radar performance and ability to pick up targets.

I did talk about sidelobes later in the post , it just really down below haha (arranging stuff reasonably is not one of my strong point , so really sorry about that :oops: )


Oh, as I said, I skimmed through it very quickly. My bad, you seem to have covered the side lobe issue pretty nicely.

I think your blog is very well done and best collection of relevant information I've seen yet. Great work! :D

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2016, 07:05
by garrya
gideonic wrote:No, I wasn't being sarcastic. Considering the drove of information, the length looks very good. It's just a bit frustrating, that I need to find an hour or so to actually read through it in detail, but I won't have it for a couple of days :D

No worries, i know you wasn't being sarcastic, i just ask if you guys think i should reduce the length of the post and thus making it easier for people to read. The length may be a bit discourage.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2016, 07:07
by garrya
krorvik wrote:That was a great read Garrya. Undertaking a task like this is monumental - and you're doing a great job! Lots of information, neatly organized into natural sections - and lots of learning to do on my part.

Thank you!

hornetfinn wrote:
I think your blog is very well done and best collection of relevant information I've seen yet. Great work! :D

Thanks alot for your kind words guys. These give me alot of motivation

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2016, 07:44
by garrya
Guys , i tweak the display of the site a bit ,replace some picture with Gif image, but iam not sure whether it look better or not , and iam also a bit worried that the site may be too slow to load , so can someone try and give me opinion ? should i keep the new display or should i revert back to the old one ?
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... press.com/

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2016, 08:54
by gideonic
garrya wrote:Guys , i tweak the display of the site a bit ,replace some picture with Gif image, but iam not sure whether it look better or not , and iam also a bit worried that the site may be too slow to load , so can someone try and give me opinion ? should i keep the new display or should i revert back to the old one ?
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... press.com/


Can't say anything for others, but i personally like the new look. Though the gif's DO load WAY too slowly. I suggest you replace them with HTML5 gifv's to reduce the filesize (and loadtimes) by orders of magnitude. The easiest way is to:

1) upload them to imgur
2) Right click -> "Open Video in new Tab" (or copy the link and open manually)
3) Use the new images in in "gifv" format, which is much speedier (you can even deep-link directly to imgur, without downloading these)

I took the liberty of doing that to a few on the site:, hope you don't mind :)
1) http://i.imgur.com/r0E2U7E.gifv
2) http://i.imgur.com/AYWuRh7.gifv
3) http://i.imgur.com/YFmzZnz.gifv

About GIFV you can read more here: http://blog.imgur.com/2014/10/09/introducing-gifv

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2016, 09:42
by garrya
gideonic wrote:. I suggest you replace them with HTML5 gifv's to reduce the filesize (and loadtimes) by orders of magnitude. The easiest way is to:
1) upload them to imgur
2) Right click -> "Open Video in new Tab" (or copy the link and open manually)
3) Use the new images in in "gifv" format, which is much speedier (you can even deep-link directly to imgur, without downloading these)
I took the liberty of doing that to a few on the site:, hope you don't mind :)
1) http://i.imgur.com/r0E2U7E.gifv
2) http://i.imgur.com/AYWuRh7.gifv
3) http://i.imgur.com/YFmzZnz.gifv
About GIFV you can read more here: http://blog.imgur.com/2014/10/09/introducing-gifv

I tried to upload these gifv instead of gif but wordpress dont allow me to use video :roll: :roll: ( they whether i direct link or download these gifv, they all changed to mp4)

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2016, 10:05
by gideonic
garrya wrote:I tried to upload these gifv instead of gif but wordpress dont allow me to use video :roll: :roll: ( they whether i direct link or download these gifv, they all changed to mp4)


Hmm strange, once I open the links in new tab, they change to gifv to me (from mp4), at least in Chrome.
I'm not familiar with wordpress inner workings, but does using the video shortcode help? (it can be done with mp4's)
https://codex.wordpress.org/Video_Shortcode

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2016, 13:08
by sferrin
.gifv blows goats. When you try to download them all it gives you is a link back to the original, not the file itself. At least that's been my experience.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2016, 13:45
by Dragon029
sferrin wrote:.gifv blows goats. When you try to download them all it gives you is a link back to the original, not the file itself. At least that's been my experience.


It depends all on the source website; Imgur has a bad case of not providing proper download links.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2016, 15:57
by garrya
gideonic wrote:
Hmm strange, once I open the links in new tab, they change to gifv to me (from mp4), at least in Chrome.
I'm not familiar with wordpress inner workings, but does using the video shortcode help? (it can be done with mp4's)
https://codex.wordpress.org/Video_Shortcode

:doh: seem like i need a pro plan to be able to upload gifv :doh:

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2016, 16:01
by gideonic
garrya wrote: :doh: seem like i need a pro plan to be able to upload gifv :doh:

Well no worries then :) the gif's aren't that bad after the initial load. They only take a while in the beginning and don't really interrupt the rest of the page loading.

The blog post itself was great btw! finally got the time to look through it.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2016, 16:05
by garrya
gideonic wrote:Well no worries then :) the gif's aren't that bad after the initial load. They only take a while in the beginning and don't really interrupt the rest of the page loading.

The blog post itself was great btw! finally got the time to look through it.

How long did it take (approximately) for you to load the pages? i used a test website and it showed that my blog took over 1 minutes to load :doh:

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2016, 21:10
by gideonic
garrya wrote:
gideonic wrote:Well no worries then :) the gif's aren't that bad after the initial load. They only take a while in the beginning and don't really interrupt the rest of the page loading.

The blog post itself was great btw! finally got the time to look through it.

How long did it take (approximately) for you to load the pages? i used a test website and it showed that my blog took over 1 minutes to load :doh:

When loading the frontpage for the first time, the GIFs are loaded in 5-10 seconds (while the page itself only takes milliseconds), but it stays sluggish for a while longer.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2017, 04:18
by playloud
Hi garrya,
I love your blog. Are you going to be updating it further?

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2017, 11:19
by garrya
playloud wrote:Hi garrya,
I love your blog. Are you going to be updating it further?

Thanks you Play loud, sorry for the delay, i have some side projects that also eat up alot of time.
yes iam going to update the blog further.Iam currently writing a post but i set it private, hopefully it can be finished in around 2 weeks.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 06 May 2017, 18:34
by playloud
garrya wrote:
playloud wrote:Hi garrya,
I love your blog. Are you going to be updating it further?

Thanks you Play loud, sorry for the delay, i have some side projects that also eat up alot of time.
yes iam going to update the blog further.Iam currently writing a post but i set it private, hopefully it can be finished in around 2 weeks.

Sounds great! :-)
Image

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 04 Jul 2017, 07:58
by garrya
New post is up, sorry for delay guys
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... l-systems/

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 09:52
by laos
Great stuff garrya !

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 16:17
by playloud
Yay!

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 18:17
by garrya
Cheer guys, i was worried that people lose interest already haha :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 19:55
by blindpilot
garrya wrote:Cheer guys, i was worried that people lose interest already haha :mrgreen:


Not at all. I think you have met your objective of being a solid reference for primary source material applicable to the discussion. Please keep up the good work. Thanks.

MHO
BP

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 22:15
by garrya
blindpilot wrote:
Not at all. I think you have met your objective of being a solid reference for primary source material applicable to the discussion. Please keep up the good work. Thanks.

MHO
BP

Iam constantly torn between having a long post to cover everything and keep it short enough so reader don't get bored to dead

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 03:47
by sprstdlyscottsmn
garrya wrote:Iam constantly torn between having a long post to cover everything and keep it short enough so reader don't get bored to dead

I know the feeling

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2017, 04:25
by garrya
While looking at the list of referrer to my website, i came by this article. I find it to be quite well written
http://96.0.120.63/aero/forum.php?mod=v ... a=page%3D1

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2017, 23:24
by mrbsct

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2018, 06:14
by garrya
I found this photo recently,
f-117-radar-scattering.png

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2018, 12:13
by botsing
garrya wrote:I found this photo recently,

Very nice and a good way to present the spherical coverage by frequency.

This same image in 3D where you can also see the specific X, Y, Z axis results that you can rotate by mouse would be educational to a high degree too.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2018, 16:36
by steve2267
botsing wrote:
garrya wrote:I found this photo recently,

This same image in 3D where you can also see the specific X, Y, Z axis results that you can rotate by mouse would be educational to a high degree too.


Wouldn't that be the one on the F-35 flat panel cockpit display?

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2018, 00:49
by Dragon029
The F-35s is spherical, but not 3D; it only shows detection probability from one band at a time whereas a 3D object like Botsing would be talking about would have 3D geometry floating in a sphere. It would be educational, but probably not easy to understand or operate at a glance in a cockpit.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2018, 04:08
by eloise
garrya wrote:I found this photo recently,
f-117-radar-scattering.png

Frontal RCS remain very low above 0.4 Ghz, that put an end to "counter stealth" L-band myth

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2018, 12:03
by hornetfinn
eloise wrote:
garrya wrote:I found this photo recently,
f-117-radar-scattering.png

Frontal RCS remain very low above 0.4 Ghz, that put an end to "counter stealth" L-band myth


Very true. Besides if I read this correctly, then there are rather narrow spikes even in lower than UHF frequencies. This would mean those radars would likely only see fairly infrequent detections (radar plots) and maybe rather sporadic tracks. This is because low frequency radars usually need quite a few plots to generate track as otherwise they'd have a lot of false target tracks. AESA technology will help somewhat, but the effect is still there.

Not to claim that low frequencies are useless or not a threat (especially for a manned cruise missile like F-117). However low frequency radars are hardly the silver bullet some people claim or wish for.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2018, 14:59
by michaelemouse
hornetfinn wrote:
eloise wrote:
garrya wrote:I found this photo recently,
f-117-radar-scattering.png

Frontal RCS remain very low above 0.4 Ghz, that put an end to "counter stealth" L-band myth


Very true. Besides if I read this correctly, then there are rather narrow spikes even in lower than UHF frequencies. This would mean those radars would likely only see fairly infrequent detections (radar plots) and maybe rather sporadic tracks. This is because low frequency radars usually need quite a few plots to generate track as otherwise they'd have a lot of false target tracks. AESA technology will help somewhat, but the effect is still there.

Not to claim that low frequencies are useless or not a threat (especially for a manned cruise missile like F-117). However low frequency radars are hardly the silver bullet some people claim or wish for.


Is the relationship between the frequency and the number of plots required for a track linear? I.e.: If you decrease frequency by half, you need about twice as many plots for a track?


From what I understand, while absence of detectability or absence of track are desired, stealth is mainly about decreasing the range or probability of attaining a sufficiently timely and precise targeting solution. I presume the range cell resolution is usually precise enough but the azimuth/elevation cells might be much larger than the effective damage area of a warhead. Even with a precise-enough targeting solution, you need to update it often enough if the target takes evasive maneuvers, otherwise it's like playing an online first-person shooter with a 5FPS framerate. Add to that that a stealth strike aircraft would likely be supported by EW to generate even more false tracks and survivability might be much increased.

How would a system trying to take down an F-117 or similar go about distinguishing between true target tracks, false target tracks from jamming and false target tracks from unintentional noise?

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2018, 15:29
by steve2267
Those are some good questions mouse, to which I do not know the answer. But I thought I'd muddy the waters with some additional tagalong questions...

The interview with the Dutch Air Force F-35 pilot was enlightening -- specifically how the F-35's provided "cover" for the F-16 strike element. The supposition was that the F-35's jammed or otherwise befuddled the eight attacking F-16's. Question: is it possible for the F-35 APG-81 to be programmed to also jam the low and medium frequency bands so that the F-35 could do the same thing to ground based low frequency radars? I was thinking about somehow multiple TR elements being "grouped" into a larger, logical element -- but I do not know enough about electronique doodads to even know if the question makes sense...

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2018, 20:00
by marsavian
BLOG?
Re: F-35 blog?
Post by steve2267 » Tue Aug 07, 2018 2:29 pm

Those are some good questions mouse, to which I do not know the answer. But I thought I'd muddy the waters with some additional tagalong questions...

The interview with the Dutch Air Force F-35 pilot was enlightening -- specifically how the F-35's provided "cover" for the F-16 strike element. The supposition was that the F-35's jammed or otherwise befuddled the eight attacking F-16's. Question: is it possible for the F-35 APG-81 to be programmed to also jam the low and medium frequency bands so that the F-35 could do the same thing to ground based low frequency radars?


No, it can only jam in the frequencies it operates. Specific EW/ECM kit can have lower frequency ranges. However target radars operate in the X-band so as long as one part of the kill chain is broken that is all you need. Supposedly some of these multi-band ground radars have cueing but that still requires the final X-band to effect its focused detecting by itself.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2018, 20:42
by SpudmanWP
Actually... There are several patents that I have seen that an AESA array can jam in other frequencies but it cannot focus the beam as tightly due to element spacing. I am not claiming that the F-35 has this capability, but the patents show that companies have been doing work in this area.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2018, 21:53
by playloud
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4823136

The transmit-receive cells are fully functional at broadband and narrow band radio frequencies. In the narrow band of 9.2 to 10.2 GHz, the active antenna system would operate as a radar system. In the broadband range of 2.0 GHz to 20.0 GHz the active antenna system is fully functional in electronic countermeasures and radio frequency jamming

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2018, 22:14
by steve2267
Am guessing that the lower end -- 2.0GHz -- is still quite a bit above "low frequency" search dars?

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2018, 22:29
by playloud
steve2267 wrote:Am guessing that the lower end -- 2.0GHz -- is still quite a bit above "low frequency" search dars?

Who knows how the technology has advanced. That patent is 30 years old.
radars.jpg

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2018, 23:03
by kimjongnumbaun
playloud wrote:
steve2267 wrote:Am guessing that the lower end -- 2.0GHz -- is still quite a bit above "low frequency" search dars?

Who knows how the technology has advanced. That patent is 30 years old.
radars.jpg


S-band is used for acquisition radars, so still above search radars which operate in L-band.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2018, 09:22
by hornetfinn
michaelemouse wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Very true. Besides if I read this correctly, then there are rather narrow spikes even in lower than UHF frequencies. This would mean those radars would likely only see fairly infrequent detections (radar plots) and maybe rather sporadic tracks. This is because low frequency radars usually need quite a few plots to generate track as otherwise they'd have a lot of false target tracks. AESA technology will help somewhat, but the effect is still there.

Not to claim that low frequencies are useless or not a threat (especially for a manned cruise missile like F-117). However low frequency radars are hardly the silver bullet some people claim or wish for.


Is the relationship between the frequency and the number of plots required for a track linear? I.e.: If you decrease frequency by half, you need about twice as many plots for a track?


No, it's not that linear but lower the frequency and longer the range, then the tracking becomes more difficult because of very large number of detections (plots) generated by clutter (like ground, sea, rain, EW, chaff). Another thing that affects is the low resolution of low band radars. So the errors and uncertainty are far larger in each individual detections and thus higher number of plots are needed for reliable track initiation and confirmation. Usually X-band radars can initiate tracking from only 2-3 consecutive detections (plots). L-band surveillance radars tend to need 5-10 consecutive plots for reliable track initiation. It could be done with lower number of consecutive plots, but then false tracks from clutter become serious problem. Even with higher number of plots, there tend to be false tracks especially in older systems with less capable signal processing and filtering.

michaelemouse wrote:From what I understand, while absence of detectability or absence of track are desired, stealth is mainly about decreasing the range or probability of attaining a sufficiently timely and precise targeting solution. I presume the range cell resolution is usually precise enough but the azimuth/elevation cells might be much larger than the effective damage area of a warhead. Even with a precise-enough targeting solution, you need to update it often enough if the target takes evasive maneuvers, otherwise it's like playing an online first-person shooter with a 5FPS framerate. Add to that that a stealth strike aircraft would likely be supported by EW to generate even more false tracks and survivability might be much increased.

How would a system trying to take down an F-117 or similar go about distinguishing between true target tracks, false target tracks from jamming and false target tracks from unintentional noise?


That's true. The real F-117 shootdown in 1999 shows one good example. P-18 radar operating in VHF frequencies managed to detect F-117 first at about 50-60 km out according to serbian operators and got stable plots from 25 km away. There is no automatic tracker in that version of P-18, so this is basically where they were tracking (by hand) the F-117. As the detection range for 2.5 square meter target is >= 175 km with this radar according to some specs I could find (about their upgrades), it's clear that even F-117 stealth features really are effective even against VHF radars. They may not be as effective as in higher frequencies, but still effective.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2018, 15:16
by marsavian
So the RCS of the F-117 in VHF mode is about 0.03 sq m which is in the ballpark of the general numbers claimed for F-117 with the numbers generally smaller in X-band. The continual Russian claim that US low stealth numbers are grossly exaggerated don't seem to hold up

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 09 Aug 2018, 06:49
by hornetfinn
marsavian wrote:So the RCS of the F-117 in VHF mode is about 0.03 sq m which is in the ballpark of the general numbers claimed for F-117 with the numbers generally smaller in X-band. The continual Russian claim that US low stealth numbers are grossly exaggerated don't seem to hold up


Real world detection ranges vary depending on all kinds of reasons (operating environment, weather, other interferences). AFAIK, the weather then was not great but there also was no EW support in the area. Also those ranges in specs are usually when the radar itself detects the target (first hit) but that's usually somewhat before operator (or computer) realizes that there actually is a target there. That requires at least some fairly consecutive detections. However the difference is not that big and I'd say that that ballpark could well be correct. It might be somewhat bigger (like 0.1 sq m) but that's really difficult to say using only one real world engagement. In any case it's very clear that F-117 stealth features make it much harder to detect even in VHF frequencies. Besides it would not matter much if stealth aircraft were easily seen in VHF frequencies as the enemy would still have very hard time successfully engaging those stealth aircraft with any weapons system.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 05:20
by eloise
Book written by Serbia SAM crews who shot down F-117:
Suddenly on the observation radar, I see the target on azimuth 195, 23 kilometers away. The next circle on the observation radar clearly indicates that the plane is approaching us. I say: "Dani, this is going to us!" Days opened his eyes, looked at the screen, and uninterestedly followed the situation. The reflection approached us. The plane was at 14-15 km, when Dani ordered: "Azimuth 210, search!" As an assistant to the shooting man, I ordered that moment: "Antenna!" The commander of the battery began to point the guiding officer on the azimuth and the meat corner to the target - left, left: stop !, right, up, up: stop! - antenna. He switched on the radiation of the observation radar. That's when the cats and the mouse started playing. Who will be faster and more skilful. The guiding officer, turning three wheels at the same time, tries to find the target. We run for more than ten seconds in an unsuccessful search for the target. Ordering: "Stop Searching - Equivalent!" After a few moments, Dani again orders the new search azimuth 230, and I am the moment of radiation. Adrenaline is in the air. This road manager manages to see the target on his two screens, but in no way can he cover it with a cross-section of horizontal and vertical markers. The dots just shrink - it has to push them out, cover the goal in the cross-section of the two markers. At the moment when the target is in the cross-section of the marker, they can begin to be monitored by manual tracking operators - by plane F1 and F2 on their pointers. Then conditions were created for the guidance officer to monitor the goal by distance, and manual tracking operators to run launched missiles at the target that is in the cross-section of the marker. The goal is to run and maneuver. Again the radiation time is too long and I order: "Stop searching - equivalent!" After a few seconds, we try the same procedure, the third time on the azimuth 240. Very soon, after a few seconds, the guidance officer finds the target and reports that the goal is to maneuver. The dashboards of the guards are shaking, the operators are losing it. The radiation time was long and dark when I wanted to order: "Stop searching - equivalent", the monitor of the monitor, Dragan Matić, cried out, "Give it! Give it, I have it!"



He energically turned his wheel, trying to bring the reflection from the target to the center of the screen. He succeeded. The tracking operators managed to hit the target with a cross - cross-section of two markers and thus provide the conditions for launching the missile. Another tracking operator, Dejan Tiosavljević, reports that the goal is to have a large reflecting surface. That moment, I say to Daniel: "Take care that it's not bait to screw us." My thoughts on war experiences from Iraq passed through my mind when the united forces put up angular reflectors on unmanned aircraft and thereby increased the reflective surface. The Iraqi combat crew thought it was a real plane and began radiating a Nishan radar. At that moment, airborne hunters captured the radar-nišan location and then eliminated the missile from anti-aircraft missiles from the ambush. The guiding officer, Muminović, reports - the station follows the target, the target on arrival, a distance of 13 kilometers. At the same time, operators report - by F1 I follow the target, following F2 I follow the goal. Dani commanded: "Object Destroy, Method T / T Launch!"


According to the book, P-15 (operate in UHF band) detected F-117 from 23 km, SNR-125 (operate in X-band) detected F-117 at distance less than 14 km.
P-15 claimed to have range = 150 km, assumming this is detection range is against target with RCS = 10 m2, this radar will detect target will RCS of -30 dBsm (0.001m2) from 14 km and it will detect target with RCS = -20dBsm (0.01m2) from 26 km, P-15 detect the F-117 from 23 km, therfore in UHF band -20 dBsm > F-117 RCS > -30 dBsm

X-band radar.PNG

SNR-125 can detect target with RCS = 10m2 from 80 nm (148 km), according to radar equation, 10 times reduction in RCS will decrease detection range down to 56%, so a target with RCS = 0.001 m2 will be detected at 7.87 nm (or 14.5 km), F-117 was tracked and detect at distance less than 14 km so F-117 rcs in X-band is less than 0.001m2.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 06:30
by hythelday
eloise wrote:Book written by Serbia SAM crews who shot down F-117:....


What is this book called exactly? The quote you have given seems to be a mediocre translation.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 08:02
by eloise
hythelday wrote:What is this book called exactly? The quote you have given seems to be a mediocre translation.

Here
http://www.lektire.me/prepricano/djordj ... -smena_945
I used google translate so it isn't very good.
There is this one as well
https://www.kurir.rs/vesti/drustvo/3027 ... bio-oboren

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 09:49
by hornetfinn
eloise wrote:Book written by Serbia SAM crews who shot down F-117:
Suddenly on the observation radar, I see the target on azimuth 195, 23 kilometers away. The next circle on the observation radar clearly indicates that the plane is approaching us. I say: "Dani, this is going to us!" Days opened his eyes, looked at the screen, and uninterestedly followed the situation. The reflection approached us. The plane was at 14-15 km, when Dani ordered: "Azimuth 210, search!"


According to the book, P-15 (operate in UHF band) detected F-117 from 23 km, SNR-125 (operate in X-band) detected F-117 at distance less than 14 km.
P-15 claimed to have range = 150 km, assumming this is detection range is against target with RCS = 10 m2, this radar will detect target will RCS of -30 dBsm (0.001m2) from 14 km and it will detect target with RCS = -20dBsm (0.01m2) from 26 km, P-15 detect the F-117 from 23 km, therfore in UHF band -20 dBsm > F-117 RCS > -30 dBsm


There seems to be confusion in terminology here:

When radar system first detects something (gets radar return that crosses threshold values), nobody actually knows there is a target there. It might be just clutter echo or some anomaly in the system. Usually there needs to be at least 2 detections (preferably more, especially in lower frequency surveillance systems) before anybody (operator or computer) has an idea that they have actually detected a target. The radar detection range used in specs and equations is the range where they get the first radar return at some predetermined probability. Many specs published about older Soviet equipment use 50 percent probability which is still useless range in real world as it will generate far too many radar returns and false targets. This is why modern systems usually use 80 to 90 percent probability as that's more realistic value.

Basically there are three different ranges:
1. Radar system detection range. This is where radar receiver gets a target return that crosses detection threshold values. This is pretty theoretical range especially with low probability values as those would overwhelm the receiver and processing system (computer or operator in older radars).

2. Operator/automatic tracker detection range. This is the range where operator or automatic tracker realizes that they have actually detected a target. This is range where tracking process is started to actually track the target.

3. Tracking range where target is being actually tracked with enough information to commence engagement for example.

The 23 km range in that Serbian book seems to be the second range. They needed some more returns to be sure and so actual target tracking was commenced somewhat closer (about 18 km away). The first range could be significantly longer range but it could only be estimated reviewing radar video of that engagement. Maybe that's where the 50-60 km range in some quotes comes from.

It also seems that there is some confusion if it was actually P-18 or P-15 system that first detected the F-117. P-15 has 140 km detection range against 2.5 square meter target (with low 50 percent probability) and uses UHF frequencies. P-18 has somewhat longer detection range (175-250 km depending on mounting) using same criterias and uses lower VHF frequencies. In any case it's very clear that F-117 stealth features give it huge advantage even against low frequency radars. Regular fighter would've been detected at 3-4 times longer ranges for sure given the same circumstances.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 11:36
by eloise
hornetfinn wrote:The 23 km range in that Serbian book seems to be the second range. They needed some more returns to be sure and so actual target tracking was commenced somewhat closer (about 18 km away). The first range could be significantly longer range but it could only be estimated reviewing radar video of that engagement. Maybe that's where the 50-60 km range in some quotes comes from.

It also seems that there is some confusion if it was actually P-18 or P-15 system that first detected the F-117. P-15 has 140 km detection range against 2.5 square meter target (with low 50 percent probability) and uses UHF frequencies. P-18 has somewhat longer detection range (175-250 km depending on mounting) using same criterias and uses lower VHF frequencies. In any case it's very clear that F-117 stealth features give it huge advantage even against low frequency radars. Regular fighter would've been detected at 3-4 times longer ranges for sure given the same circumstances.

Apparently, the author of the book Djordje Anicic is the crew of P-15 radar and they detect F-117 from 23 km
Capture.PNG


whereas zoltan dani is in P-18 cabin??
https://www.kurir.rs/vesti/drustvo/3027 ... bio-oboren

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 12:16
by hornetfinn
Thanks eloise. So it seems like they had both P-15 radar and also P-18 radar. That picture seems to indicate that the P-15 belonged to the battery and the battery also got support or had the P-18 system attached directly. Interesting to read about this from Serbian POV. It seems like they knew very well what they were doing and executed very well with such ancient equipment. They also had a lot of luck in that they didn't have to deal with jamming or HARMs in that engagement and that F-117 flew well into engagement envelope. Even then it was clearly not an easy engagement. This engagement showed that F-117 VLO stealth work very well even in VHF/UHF frequencies. It also showed that ancient equipment can still be very dangerous with very skilled operators. Of course F-117 is very archaic besides the VLO stealth features (not much sensors to speak of, low flight performance).

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2018, 14:23
by michaelemouse
hornetfinn wrote:Basically there are three different ranges:
1. Radar system detection range. This is where radar receiver gets a target return that crosses detection threshold values. This is pretty theoretical range especially with low probability values as those would overwhelm the receiver and processing system (computer or operator in older radars).


Is this % calculated per pulse? If so, wouldn't sending 100s of pulses and using time integration get rid of the false returns pretty quickly? You might need 10 plots to get a track but if each pulse you send out has a 50% of crossing the threshold value and you send 10 000 of them per second, it shouldn't take much time to get a track. Maybe I'm missing something.


hornetfinn wrote:Thanks eloise. So it seems like they had both P-15 radar and also P-18 radar. That picture seems to indicate that the P-15 belonged to the battery and the battery also got support or had the P-18 system attached directly. Interesting to read about this from Serbian POV. It seems like they knew very well what they were doing and executed very well with such ancient equipment.)


I've wondered if they had some significant help. If I'd been Russia or China during the NATO bombing of Yoguslavia, I would have been very interested in exchanging information with the Serbs to know what it's like to face NATO air/naval assets & tactics. The F-117 was shot on March 27th and on May 7th, the Chinese embassy was bombed in what the US said a map/intel failure. I don't know enough to be sure but it might have been the equivalent of "accidentally" dropping a cup of coffee on someone you want to butt out of a conversation.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2018, 04:32
by mk82
hornetfinn wrote:
eloise wrote:Book written by Serbia SAM crews who shot down F-117:
Suddenly on the observation radar, I see the target on azimuth 195, 23 kilometers away. The next circle on the observation radar clearly indicates that the plane is approaching us. I say: "Dani, this is going to us!" Days opened his eyes, looked at the screen, and uninterestedly followed the situation. The reflection approached us. The plane was at 14-15 km, when Dani ordered: "Azimuth 210, search!"


According to the book, P-15 (operate in UHF band) detected F-117 from 23 km, SNR-125 (operate in X-band) detected F-117 at distance less than 14 km.
P-15 claimed to have range = 150 km, assumming this is detection range is against target with RCS = 10 m2, this radar will detect target will RCS of -30 dBsm (0.001m2) from 14 km and it will detect target with RCS = -20dBsm (0.01m2) from 26 km, P-15 detect the F-117 from 23 km, therfore in UHF band -20 dBsm > F-117 RCS > -30 dBsm


There seems to be confusion in terminology here:

When radar system first detects something (gets radar return that crosses threshold values), nobody actually knows there is a target there. It might be just clutter echo or some anomaly in the system. Usually there needs to be at least 2 detections (preferably more, especially in lower frequency surveillance systems) before anybody (operator or computer) has an idea that they have actually detected a target. The radar detection range used in specs and equations is the range where they get the first radar return at some predetermined probability. Many specs published about older Soviet equipment use 50 percent probability which is still useless range in real world as it will generate far too many radar returns and false targets. This is why modern systems usually use 80 to 90 percent probability as that's more realistic value.

Basically there are three different ranges:
1. Radar system detection range. This is where radar receiver gets a target return that crosses detection threshold values. This is pretty theoretical range especially with low probability values as those would overwhelm the receiver and processing system (computer or operator in older radars).

2. Operator/automatic tracker detection range. This is the range where operator or automatic tracker realizes that they have actually detected a target. This is range where tracking process is started to actually track the target.

3. Tracking range where target is being actually tracked with enough information to commence engagement for example.

The 23 km range in that Serbian book seems to be the second range. They needed some more returns to be sure and so actual target tracking was commenced somewhat closer (about 18 km away). The first range could be significantly longer range but it could only be estimated reviewing radar video of that engagement. Maybe that's where the 50-60 km range in some quotes comes from.

It also seems that there is some confusion if it was actually P-18 or P-15 system that first detected the F-117. P-15 has 140 km detection range against 2.5 square meter target (with low 50 percent probability) and uses UHF frequencies. P-18 has somewhat longer detection range (175-250 km depending on mounting) using same criterias and uses lower VHF frequencies. In any case it's very clear that F-117 stealth features give it huge advantage even against low frequency radars. Regular fighter would've been detected at 3-4 times longer ranges for sure given the same circumstances.


Awesome explanation about radar detection and tracking ranges Hornetfinn! I agree with your viewpoint that VLO platforms can be devious adversaries in all radar frequency bands. To the radar operator noticing a very faint “ping”/detection at long range......is that a ghost/false target, clutter or a genuine VLO adversary? Good luck radar operator buddy, better flip a coin!!!!

It confirms my suspicions that VHF radar “anti stealth” fanbois are extreme simpletons!

I have to say (once again :P )........the Serbian SA 3 crew have mad skillz!!! Considering that the SA 3 requires a high degree of manual operation!

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2018, 04:33
by mk82
eloise wrote:Book written by Serbia SAM crews who shot down F-117:
Suddenly on the observation radar, I see the target on azimuth 195, 23 kilometers away. The next circle on the observation radar clearly indicates that the plane is approaching us. I say: "Dani, this is going to us!" Days opened his eyes, looked at the screen, and uninterestedly followed the situation. The reflection approached us. The plane was at 14-15 km, when Dani ordered: "Azimuth 210, search!" As an assistant to the shooting man, I ordered that moment: "Antenna!" The commander of the battery began to point the guiding officer on the azimuth and the meat corner to the target - left, left: stop !, right, up, up: stop! - antenna. He switched on the radiation of the observation radar. That's when the cats and the mouse started playing. Who will be faster and more skilful. The guiding officer, turning three wheels at the same time, tries to find the target. We run for more than ten seconds in an unsuccessful search for the target. Ordering: "Stop Searching - Equivalent!" After a few moments, Dani again orders the new search azimuth 230, and I am the moment of radiation. Adrenaline is in the air. This road manager manages to see the target on his two screens, but in no way can he cover it with a cross-section of horizontal and vertical markers. The dots just shrink - it has to push them out, cover the goal in the cross-section of the two markers. At the moment when the target is in the cross-section of the marker, they can begin to be monitored by manual tracking operators - by plane F1 and F2 on their pointers. Then conditions were created for the guidance officer to monitor the goal by distance, and manual tracking operators to run launched missiles at the target that is in the cross-section of the marker. The goal is to run and maneuver. Again the radiation time is too long and I order: "Stop searching - equivalent!" After a few seconds, we try the same procedure, the third time on the azimuth 240. Very soon, after a few seconds, the guidance officer finds the target and reports that the goal is to maneuver. The dashboards of the guards are shaking, the operators are losing it. The radiation time was long and dark when I wanted to order: "Stop searching - equivalent", the monitor of the monitor, Dragan Matić, cried out, "Give it! Give it, I have it!"



He energically turned his wheel, trying to bring the reflection from the target to the center of the screen. He succeeded. The tracking operators managed to hit the target with a cross - cross-section of two markers and thus provide the conditions for launching the missile. Another tracking operator, Dejan Tiosavljević, reports that the goal is to have a large reflecting surface. That moment, I say to Daniel: "Take care that it's not bait to screw us." My thoughts on war experiences from Iraq passed through my mind when the united forces put up angular reflectors on unmanned aircraft and thereby increased the reflective surface. The Iraqi combat crew thought it was a real plane and began radiating a Nishan radar. At that moment, airborne hunters captured the radar-nišan location and then eliminated the missile from anti-aircraft missiles from the ambush. The guiding officer, Muminović, reports - the station follows the target, the target on arrival, a distance of 13 kilometers. At the same time, operators report - by F1 I follow the target, following F2 I follow the goal. Dani commanded: "Object Destroy, Method T / T Launch!"


According to the book, P-15 (operate in UHF band) detected F-117 from 23 km, SNR-125 (operate in X-band) detected F-117 at distance less than 14 km.
P-15 claimed to have range = 150 km, assumming this is detection range is against target with RCS = 10 m2, this radar will detect target will RCS of -30 dBsm (0.001m2) from 14 km and it will detect target with RCS = -20dBsm (0.01m2) from 26 km, P-15 detect the F-117 from 23 km, therfore in UHF band -20 dBsm > F-117 RCS > -30 dBsm

X-band radar.PNG

SNR-125 can detect target with RCS = 10m2 from 80 nm (148 km), according to radar equation, 10 times reduction in RCS will decrease detection range down to 56%, so a target with RCS = 0.001 m2 will be detected at 7.87 nm (or 14.5 km), F-117 was tracked and detect at distance less than 14 km so F-117 rcs in X-band is less than 0.001m2.


Great find Eloise!

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 04:49
by eloise
Maybe, I have made a mistake
Đorđe Aničić was in the cabin of P-18 (VHF) radar instead of P-15 (UHF)
https://www.in4s.net/obaranje-f-117a-pr ... /?lang=lat
The fact that the F-117A was downgraded from the third attempt is unquestionable. The first and second attempts to find the target in the air by the Nishan radar were unsuccessful. Sitting in the PRG view point toward the P-18 observation radar at one time on the azimuth 195, I notice three targets, 23 kilometers away. The next circle on the observation radar clearly indicates that the plane is approaching us. I follow him in the next round of the distance is 18 km. The operator of the observation radar P-18, Ljubenkovic's guide through the GGS (voice-of-speech) reports that we have a goal. Obviously we are following the same situation in the air.

I say, "Days, this goes to us!" Days opened their eyes, looked at the screen, and ignored the situation. Our approach was approaching us. The plane was at 14-15 km, when Dani ordered:

"Azimut 210, search!"

We run for more than ten seconds in an unsuccessful search for the target.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 09:10
by hornetfinn
michaelemouse wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Basically there are three different ranges:
1. Radar system detection range. This is where radar receiver gets a target return that crosses detection threshold values. This is pretty theoretical range especially with low probability values as those would overwhelm the receiver and processing system (computer or operator in older radars).


Is this % calculated per pulse? If so, wouldn't sending 100s of pulses and using time integration get rid of the false returns pretty quickly? You might need 10 plots to get a track but if each pulse you send out has a 50% of crossing the threshold value and you send 10 000 of them per second, it shouldn't take much time to get a track. Maybe I'm missing something.


No, it's calculated using all those received pulses and radar system using all the tricks like signal processing and integrating those pulses. Basically it's the probability of the radar system detecting certain target at certain range after all is said and done. However that idea is correct in that sending and receiving more pulses and integrating those pulses and using signal processing to find targets from that does improve performance a lot though. Old systems (like P-18) can be improved a lot by upgrading them with digital components and signal processing.

Like this:
http://www.litak-tak.eu/uploads/Brochures/P-18ML.pdf

Modern systems which already do many of these tricks do not get similar boost easily and improvements are more modest.

michaelemouse wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Thanks eloise. So it seems like they had both P-15 radar and also P-18 radar. That picture seems to indicate that the P-15 belonged to the battery and the battery also got support or had the P-18 system attached directly. Interesting to read about this from Serbian POV. It seems like they knew very well what they were doing and executed very well with such ancient equipment.)


I've wondered if they had some significant help. If I'd been Russia or China during the NATO bombing of Yoguslavia, I would have been very interested in exchanging information with the Serbs to know what it's like to face NATO air/naval assets & tactics. The F-117 was shot on March 27th and on May 7th, the Chinese embassy was bombed in what the US said a map/intel failure. I don't know enough to be sure but it might have been the equivalent of "accidentally" dropping a cup of coffee on someone you want to butt out of a conversation.


I doubt they really needed help for that, although they might've had chat with Russian and Chinese experts. They must've known by themselves that F-117 is difficult target and approximately know how it would seem like in radar screen even if they didn't know exactly its RCS plot. They must've known in theory how to engage it and what kind of tactics would help survive SEAD/DEAD efforts. They worked up very solid tactics to do that with their old equipment and had very good discipline to execute that tactics successfully.

From AD perspective F-117 is actually easy. Besides VLO is doesn't have much else to offer. It doesn't have extensive sensor fit or EW system like F-35, so it's flying almost blind and deaf in comparison to most other aircraft. It has flight performance more similar to bombers than fighter aircraft. This means it's mostly flying very stable and predictable flight path. Of course the problem is detecting and tracking it for successful engagement due to VLO stealth. All this means that F-117 itself must fly close to AD systems to allow successful engagement. This can happen if mission planning system doesn't know where the AD systems are during the mission. Serbs had very mobile tactics to survive SEAD/DEAD efforts and this also helped downing the F-117 as the mission planning for F-117 could not predict there was SA-3 battallion with P-18 radar almost directly under the flight path. I think F-117 really showed the power of VLO stealth due to these reasons. Only one being shot down after all it has ever done is really impressive.

Think about modern day versions. F-35 also has great VLO stealth, but it also has insane sensor fit with most advances sensor fusion system, insane networking, insane countermeasures system, very good maneuverability and flight performance.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 09:17
by hornetfinn
mk82 wrote:Awesome explanation about radar detection and tracking ranges Hornetfinn! I agree with your viewpoint that VLO platforms can be devious adversaries in all radar frequency bands. To the radar operator noticing a very faint “ping”/detection at long range......is that a ghost/false target, clutter or a genuine VLO adversary? Good luck radar operator buddy, better flip a coin!!!!

It confirms my suspicions that VHF radar “anti stealth” fanbois are extreme simpletons!

I have to say (once again :P )........the Serbian SA 3 crew have mad skillz!!! Considering that the SA 3 requires a high degree of manual operation!


Thank you! :D I definitely agree with that VHF/UHF radars are not really any kind of silver bullet against VLO stealth. They do have their benefits and can be good to have, but they are not making miracles.

I also have a lot of respect for that Serbian SA-3 battallion and their skills and especially discipline. SA-3 and P-18 are ancient systems, but in skilled hands they can still be a lot of trouble. Just like MIM-23 Hawk.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 12:59
by michaelemouse
hornetfinn wrote: They must've known in theory how to engage it and what kind of tactics would help survive SEAD/DEAD efforts. They worked up very solid tactics to do that with their old equipment and had very good discipline to execute that tactics successfully.


Iraqi air defences had given them a demonstration of what not to do a few years earlier.

Aside from transmitting for 10-20 seconds and doing the AD equivalent of shoot & scoot, how did they counter SEAD/DEAD efforts? What were their tactics?

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 13:24
by hornetfinn
michaelemouse wrote:
hornetfinn wrote: They must've known in theory how to engage it and what kind of tactics would help survive SEAD/DEAD efforts. They worked up very solid tactics to do that with their old equipment and had very good discipline to execute that tactics successfully.


Iraqi air defences had given them a demonstration of what not to do a few years earlier.

Aside from transmitting for 10-20 seconds and doing the AD equivalent of shoot & scoot, how did they counter SEAD/DEAD efforts? What were their tactics?


Those were the main things. They tried to do everything to make their units as elusive as possible and also used old radar systems and other such things as decoys. It's unclear if these had any real effect, but that they tried. I'm sure they used camouflage and terrain masking to enhance survivability of their systems. Low frequency radars like P-18 were used to get some kind of situational awareness and early warning as those are invulnerable to HARMs and are more difficult to locate accurately for bombing.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 20:48
by steve2267
I can't help but thinking that that great Hoover (an American vacuum cleaner) in the sky, otherwise known as an F-35, would suck up all those trons, and fairly quickly triangulate the location of the emitter of said trons, map the area with the APG-81, automagically identify said emitters, and the pilot could dispatch a few SDB's or SDB2's with the wave of his hand between bites of his energy bar and sips of his coffee or other favorite beverage, to make life "interesting" for those manning said tron emitters...

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2018, 22:25
by viper12
steve2267 wrote:those trons


Photons, not electrons. Like in some previous article I read which had to correct the same mistake : https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ce/307291/

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2018, 04:58
by eloise
hornetfinn wrote:Thanks eloise. So it seems like they had both P-15 radar and also P-18 radar. That picture seems to indicate that the P-15 belonged to the battery and the battery also got support or had the P-18 system attached directly. Interesting to read about this from Serbian POV

My bad, after watching the lecture given by Zoltan Danny, now we can safely conclude that they used P-18 radar instead of P-15.

Important parts in the video
_At 8:31 Zoltan Danny explained that he used the lowest frequency setting L-1 at 140 Mhz to see F-117 clearly on radar screen
_ Between 18:32-19:09 Zoltan Danny explained that he received some intel (outsider information) from headquarters, on when to turn on his radar, as he had no target on his radar screen.
_ Between 19:43-20:02 Zoltan Danny said he detected several targets at distance 30 km and some are closer, but they are not inside engagement range.
_ At 20:18, he talked about the exact time when the P-18 acquire a clear track of one F-117 at azimuth 195 (as recorded by Djordje Anicic, this happened at 23 km away)

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2018, 07:17
by hornetfinn
Oh man, that was great find eloise! Very interesting to hear Zoltan Dani telling their side of that war and engagement. Also very interesting to hear about some technical details of F-117! Good thing that there was English translation available... :D

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2018, 10:02
by eloise
hornetfinn wrote:Oh man, that was great find eloise! Very interesting to hear Zoltan Dani telling their side of that war and engagement. Also very interesting to hear about some technical details of F-117! Good thing that there was English translation available... :D

Do you or anyone here happen to know the cruising altitude of F-117 in these missions?, we can accurately estimate its rcs at 140 Mhz through that.
P-18 chart.PNG

P-18 radar.PNG

http://progress.gov.ua/wp-content/uploa ... 6-2017.pdf
http://www.aerotechnica.ua/en/index.php ... &prodid=51

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2018, 10:46
by hornetfinn
I've to say that Zoltan Dani gives pretty damn good explanation about SAM tactics and how to maximize effectiveness and survivability. It's important to notice that F-35 has been also designed to maximize effectiveness and survivability and that F-117 shootdown was definitely one good lesson in that.

Of course USAF knew exactly that F-117 had major shortcomings that could be overcome in next aircraft. They already had developed B-2 and F-22 well before this incident that made them far more survivable and effective. F-35 will take it even further in many ways. This shootdown would not have happened with F-35, F-22 or likely even B-2. F-35 would've known that there was S-125/SA-3 battallion and P-18 radar operational. It would've been able to jam at least the SNR-125 fire control radar to prevent being engaged with missiles. Even if missile was fired, it would've had the flight performace to have a chance of escaping it. Of course every other F-35 and other assets in the area would've instantly known about the threat and their coordinates. I know that SA-3 is old system and also has serious shortcomings. Modern AD systems are far more capable and present serious threat even for stealth aircraft. But I'm sure the combination of VLO stealth, sensors, sensor fusion, EW systems and networking along with modern weapons will have the upper hand in the foreseeable future.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2018, 11:14
by hornetfinn
eloise wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Oh man, that was great find eloise! Very interesting to hear Zoltan Dani telling their side of that war and engagement. Also very interesting to hear about some technical details of F-117! Good thing that there was English translation available... :D

Do you or anyone here happen to know the cruising altitude of F-117 in these missions?, we can accurately estimate its rcs at 140 Mhz through that.


All the sources I could find say that the Zelko's F-117 was flying at about 8 km altitude, so that was not limiting factor. It seems like P-18 could see F-117 at about 23-30 km away which would mean the F-117 had RCS of less than 0.0025 square meters even in the VHF band if my calculations are correct. P-18 is good system for estimating RCS as it's completely analog and manual system. There was also no jamming, so the situation was very pure. It definitely seems like VLO stealth works very well even in VHF band as the detection range is reduced several times compared to regular aircraft. One notable thing what Dani said is that F-117 was really visible only in the lowest frequency setting they had and not so much in others.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2018, 12:45
by hornetfinn
Another interesting thing about what Dani has stated is the odd radar returns from F-117. Since P-18 is analog and manual system without digital signal processing, the operators see the radar returns in very pure form compared to modern systems. I can easily see that effect from using quite analog and manual radar (although high-frequency one) against many kinds of targets. IMO, this also implies that both shaping and RAM/RAS also works pretty well in even VHF frequencies.

All in all, everything seems to point that even F-117 achieved VLO stealth over pretty much the whole frequency range. Lower part of VHF seems to be where Mie scattering is starting to be noticeable and RCS increases. Of course it's still far lower than in regular aircraft by possibly 3 orders of magnitude.

I don't think anybody who matters ever claimed that VLO stealth means invisibility or invincibility. But it sure gives advantages in so many ways. F-117 definitely validated the consept in real life and now F-35 is truly modern incarnation of that consept.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2018, 12:52
by marsavian
The B-21/PCA will just make it harder for VHF systems with their tail-less stealth broadband shapes. If LMT is achieving this type of low RCS with F-117 can anyone really doubt they exceeded this with F-22 and F-35 unless you are a Russian propagandist ? What will become the sheer numbers of F-35 in so many countries and on so many ships is the biggest shift in global air power since the F-14/F-15/F-16/F-18 were introduced in volume in the seventies and eighties. Flanker and Fulcrum helped the Russians to counter that but now they are on the strategic airpower backfoot again.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2018, 14:20
by mk82
hornetfinn wrote:Another interesting thing about what Dani has stated is the odd radar returns from F-117. Since P-18 is analog and manual system without digital signal processing, the operators see the radar returns in very pure form compared to modern systems. I can easily see that effect from using quite analog and manual radar (although high-frequency one) against many kinds of targets. IMO, this also implies that both shaping and RAM/RAS also works pretty well in even VHF frequencies.

All in all, everything seems to point that even F-117 achieved VLO stealth over pretty much the whole frequency range. Lower part of VHF seems to be where Mie scattering is starting to be noticeable and RCS increases. Of course it's still far lower than in regular aircraft by possibly 3 orders of magnitude.

I don't think anybody who matters ever claimed that VLO stealth means invisibility or invincibility. But it sure gives advantages in so many ways. F-117 definitely validated the consept in real life and now F-35 is truly modern incarnation of that consept.


Looks like the idea of UHF/VHF band radar being a silver bullet solution against VLO platforms is total bollocks!!

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2018, 15:38
by mk82
marsavian wrote:The B-21/PCA will just make it harder for VHF systems with their tail-less stealth broadband shapes. If LMT is achieving this type of low RCS with F-117 can anyone really doubt they exceeded this with F-22 and F-35 unless you are a Russian propagandist ? What will become the sheer numbers of F-35 in so many countries and on so many ships is the biggest shift in global air power since the F-14/F-15/F-16/F-18 were introduced in volume in the seventies and eighties. Flanker and Fulcrum helped the Russians to counter that but now they are on the strategic airpower backfoot again.


Indeed! And that gap keeps growing bigger every year. Keep up or sink.......

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2018, 18:16
by garrya
eloise wrote:Do you or anyone here happen to know the cruising altitude of F-117 in these missions?, we can accurately estimate its rcs at 140 Mhz through that.
Image

Zoltán Dani said F-117 was around 6 km altitude and ascend to 8 km when he later got hit.
Rough extrapolate from the table
If radar height = 6.35 meters, P-18 will detect targets with RCS= 2.5 m2, cruising at 6km altitude from 132.5 km, reduce RCS by 10 times and we get 44% detection range reduction => F-117 RCS is smaller than 0.025m2 at frequencies >140 Mhz.
If radar height = 10.35 meters, P-18 will detect targets with RCS= 2.5 m2, cruising at 6km altitude from 180 km, reduce RCS by 10 times and we get 44% detection range reduction => F-117 RCS is smaller than 0.0025m2 at frequencies >140 Mhz.

Re: F-35 blog?

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2018, 09:08
by milosh
eloise wrote:Image
SNR-125 can detect target with RCS = 10m2 from 80 nm (148 km), according to radar equation, 10 times reduction in RCS will decrease detection range down to 56%, so a target with RCS = 0.001 m2 will be detected at 7.87 nm (or 14.5 km), F-117 was tracked and detect at distance less than 14 km so F-117 rcs in X-band is less than 0.001m2.


That is Pechora 2M not old Pechora.