Basement Dweller Butthurt.

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

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2883
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post20 Nov 2019, 13:09

notkent wrote:
hornetfinn wrote: They can definitely use slowly increasing noise jamming at very, very low power levels when they go closer to threat radar. It would be difficult to detect the jamming signals and radar system would start compensating for the increased background noise. Background noise levels fluctuate a lot from natural phenomena and it would be very difficult to tell that kind of jamming from natural sources. When the radar compensates for the background noise levels, it becomes less sensitive as it has to have large enough Signal to Noise ratio to work effectively.


The return signal from the target back to the radar will go up in magnitude as a function of range to the 4th power so the jamming power would have to increase by the same to match it.


Basically yes, but jamming signal needs only go one way which means the jamming power is a function of range to the 2nd power. So when range doubles, 16 times more powerful (ERP) radar is needed for detecting similar target. However only 4 times more powerful jammer is needed to counter that 16 times more powerful radar.

notkent wrote:When radars are setup and calibrated clutter maps and baseline S/N measurements are made.
The ECCM function of the Radar would probably not be fooled by an ever increasing noise floor.


Yes they are and those definitely improve radar detection performance. However there is always some small fluctuations in the background noise, so small increases in noise floor will not be easily detectable and thus very difficult to counter with anything. This is where very low RCS helps as only very low powered signals need to be transmitted. It's much harder to do that with non-VLO aircraft as they will need a lot more jamming power. Another helpful thing is having highly directional jamming systems so large and very sensitive ESM receivers have a lot less powerful signals to work with. Having combination of both is priceless as F-35 can do real stand-in jamming and only jam selected radars with narrow beams. Of course there are limitations as the jamming capability is focused in higher radar frequencies.
Offline

notkent

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: 05 Apr 2019, 18:06

Unread post20 Nov 2019, 15:19

I was looking at it from the point of view of the target flying towards the radar system and the return from the target increasing exponentially as it gets closer. The jamming signal will also have to increase exponentially.

But even without jamming the distance that existing Radars can detect VLO is so small that they are easily avoided.

Being VLO and aware of how to minimize its signature will make it very hard to complete the kill chain against the F-35. Its funny how the detractors try to bring up things like DRFM jammers that actually will work much better against 4th generation aircraft than 5th generation ones.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1336
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post22 Nov 2019, 15:40

steve2267 wrote:The only thing that makes sense is either
  • USA won't sell me F-35 (but then will then sell me Growler?

--OR--

  • To artificially increase the noise floor

Yeah, the enema knows someone is out there because they KNOW there's a sh*t ton of jamming, but because the noise floor is (artificially) raised so high, it makes it so much more easier for VLO aircraft (i.e. F-35) to slip through.

But again... "game changing" and "worm holes"... why spend the $$ on Growler if you can get it all (and more) with the F-35?


Growler can provide wideband jamming for an area as the jamming pods also jam in the rear quadrant. F-35 jams through its APG-81 so is limited to the frontal antenna cone.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4547
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post22 Nov 2019, 16:54

marsavian wrote:Growler can provide wideband jamming for an area as the jamming pods also jam in the rear quadrant. F-35 jams through its APG-81 so is limited to the frontal antenna cone.

I wouldn't put money on the last statement. Even 4th Gen aircraft have self protection jamming that covers all quadrants. The APG-81 is just the largest and most powerful of the antennas available.

Growler can do a much wider frequency range of jamming. That is it's big advantage.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

boogieman

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post26 Nov 2019, 23:28

This individual is... "interesting" (and rather prolific). Claims a lot of things including that he is a former Russian SAM operator, that F35 is a Yak-141 clone, that its RCS is ~0.5m2 and that stealth/VLO is a myth.

https://disqus.com/by/disqus_2KOS8eIsu5/
Offline

juretrn

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 425
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post27 Nov 2019, 00:19

Meh. Block and move on. 22000 comments, all either poo-pooing everything American or boosting Russian. Just another troll brigadeer.
Russia stronk
Offline

boogieman

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post27 Nov 2019, 06:52

:lmao:

To his credit he did make mention of photonic radar, which I found interesting. I always wondered what might come next after the "AESA revolution" was done.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3344
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post27 Nov 2019, 18:45

marsavian wrote:
steve2267 wrote:The only thing that makes sense is either
  • USA won't sell me F-35 (but then will then sell me Growler?

--OR--

  • To artificially increase the noise floor

Yeah, the enema knows someone is out there because they KNOW there's a sh*t ton of jamming, but because the noise floor is (artificially) raised so high, it makes it so much more easier for VLO aircraft (i.e. F-35) to slip through.

But again... "game changing" and "worm holes"... why spend the $$ on Growler if you can get it all (and more) with the F-35?


Growler can provide wideband jamming for an area as the jamming pods also jam in the rear quadrant. F-35 jams through its APG-81 so is limited to the frontal antenna cone.


Jamming from the APG-81 is limited to the frontal hemisphere, but that's not the only jamming capability the F-35 has. The ASQ-239 can protect all quadrants.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2883
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post28 Nov 2019, 07:56

wrightwing wrote:
marsavian wrote:Growler can provide wideband jamming for an area as the jamming pods also jam in the rear quadrant. F-35 jams through its APG-81 so is limited to the frontal antenna cone.


Jamming from the APG-81 is limited to the frontal hemisphere, but that's not the only jamming capability the F-35 has. The ASQ-239 can protect all quadrants.


Pretty sure that Growler can put helluva lot more power than F-35 can outside APG-81 coverage. But naturally a group of F-35s can do jamming to multiple directions simultaneously, so I don't think this is much of an issue. And Growler needs a lot more power as it has to stay way further away from threat radars than F-35.

Of course Growler can jam much wider frequency band, including COMMS jamming. I think it might make sense in the future for Growlers to do support jamming only against lower frequency systems and let F-35s jam the fire control radar frequencies.
Offline

boogieman

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post28 Nov 2019, 08:25

hornetfinn wrote:Pretty sure that Growler can put helluva lot more power than F-35 can outside APG-81 coverage...

...of course Growler can jam much wider frequency band, including COMMS jamming. I think it might make sense in the future for Growlers to do support jamming only against lower frequency systems and let F-35s jam the fire control radar frequencies.

I imagine this discrepancy will grow with the arrival of NGJ - something that can't come soon enough given the proliferation of modern AESA radars in red team countries (both surface and airborne). I've heard whispers about integrating NGJ onto the F35 some day but nothing concrete. Would seem like a no-brainer to me.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23603
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post28 Nov 2019, 08:45

A hint about NGJ on F-35s: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=396537&hilit=Generation+Jammer#p396537
"...On F-35, while it’s still early days, it has been envisaged that NGJ could integrate directly with that aircraft’s onboard systems and not require a specialised aircraft configured for EW...." Source: Australian Aviation Mag'n Jul 2018 No.361

Article PDF: download/file.php?id=27630 Grrrr GROWLER A_A_2018_07 pp6.pdf (0.5Mb)
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

boogieman

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post28 Nov 2019, 09:07

Yep that sounds familiar. The main hurdle I can see is the lack of a backseater in the Lightning. Workload could be an issue trying to run it as a dedicated EW platform...
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2883
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post28 Nov 2019, 09:41

boogieman wrote:Yep that sounds familiar. The main hurdle I can see is the lack of a backseater in the Lightning. Workload could be an issue trying to run it as a dedicated EW platform...


That's where sensor fusion engine, artificial intelligence and machine learning comes to play. Just like in F-14 there was real need to have dedicated radar intercept operator and no need in F-22 or F-35 despite the latter having much more capable radars. I think the same will happen with EW systems as I think computers can operate the systems much better than a human can in modern environments. Human has the role of tactician and supervisor and I think a single pilot can do that. AFAIK, that's how Growler is also being developed and upgraded right now. I mean developing artificial intelligence and automation for the EW system.
Offline

boogieman

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post28 Nov 2019, 10:22

Here's hoping you're right. I think there is a gap in the USAF inventory where the EF111 used to be. Compass Call is fine and all but it can't do the same things as a tactical fast mover. Pairing F35 and NGJ could make for a solid interim capability until a PCA based solution (perhaps) could be fielded.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 23603
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post28 Nov 2019, 10:31

Likely to be found in the WAYback Machina so anyway a long ago post about NGJ designed also for the F-35 from AvWEAK.
U.S. Navy Identifies Network Invasion Tool
07 Jan 2011 David A. Fulghum

"A top U.S. Navy official acknowledges that the service’s Next Generation Jammer (NGJ) — designed for the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, EA-18G Growler and F-35 — will feature a network invasion capability...." [beware brokeback URL]

Source: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... adline=U.S. Navy Identifies Network Invasion Tool
Last edited by spazsinbad on 28 Nov 2019, 10:32, edited 1 time in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: blindpilot and 9 guests