S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2019, 11:50
by usnimitz
S-400 missiles can hit targets 400 miles away. No fighter jets can fire missiles 400 miles away.

Stealth is the only sophisticated feature that will save F-35 jets from Russian S-400 missiles. Many countries are buying S-400s when many countries are buying F-35 stealth jets. 8)

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2019, 15:07
by madrat
It can hit high altitude targets at 400 miles. Otherwise it would have to fly ballistic trajectories to reach a low altitude target at that range, and without the high speed/energy state of its normal flight profile. It is probably good for 600 miles if you are just throwing rocks.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2019, 21:57
by SpudmanWP
4th Gen can get a lot closer than the S-400's max range by using a combination of ESM, standoff munitions, and launching from below the sensor horizon of the S-400.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2019, 22:10
by juretrn
Hasn't the S-400 vs F-35 topic been done to death already? Do we really need another thread?

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2019, 22:29
by spazsinbad
<sarcasm on> YEP. Just like we need another 'dogfight is not dead fred' thread because we like to talk endlessly about it.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 00:00
by ricnunes
usnimitz wrote:S-400 missiles can hit targets 400 miles away. No fighter jets can fire missiles 400 miles away.


Actually the longest range S-400 missile, the 40N6E has a maximum range of 400 kilometers, not miles (there's quite a bit diference between kilometers, land miles and nautical miles).

usnimitz wrote:Stealth is the only sophisticated feature that will save F-35 jets from Russian S-400 missiles. Many countries are buying S-400s when many countries are buying F-35 stealth jets. 8)


However even with the above said, yes I fully agree that systems like the S-400 will be a major threat non-stealth 4th gen fighter aircraft and such fighter aircraft will have a very hard time to survive against such advanced systems.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 00:09
by ricnunes
SpudmanWP wrote:4th Gen can get a lot closer than the S-400's max range by using a combination of ESM, standoff munitions, and launching from below the sensor horizon of the S-400.


On the other hand a combination of using other radar systems connected with data-link to the S-400 system and Active-Radar Guided missiles (40N6E) could foil such tactic above and deny the capability for a 4th gen fighter aircraft to get that much closer than the S-400 maximum range - or at least deny the capability to get close enough to shoot against the S-400 before being shot at by the S-400.

IMO it is undeniable that the S-400 poses and will pose a major threat to non-stealth 4th gen fighter aircraft but then again this is a thing that as others pointed out, was already "discussed to the death".

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 06:10
by SpudmanWP
A proper ingress would involve attacking (ESM and kinetic) each radar threat as it becomes a threat. This is why sending an entire package necessary to attack a deep target (ie the S-400 itself) requires multiple waves tasked with clearing a pathway to the target.

This is the reason and main advantage of a 5th gen force like the F-35. Using it's shared sensor network it can accurately map out the threats long before they become a threat. Once it knows where the threats are, a 5th gen force can wind it's way past the initial threat layers in order to attack targets deeper in enemy territory.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 08:54
by usnimitz
ricnunes wrote:However even with the above said, yes I fully agree that systems like the S-400 will be a major threat non-stealth 4th gen fighter aircraft and such fighter aircraft will have a very hard time to survive against such advanced systems.


I think with S-400 getting sold worldwide like hot cakes, It is game over for fighter jets. I saw the video of 15 to 20 S-400 missiles fired in 5 to 10 minutes. It was thunder and lightning when no rain clouds for miles and miles. :D

Only stealth fighter jets like F-35 can take a full scale war to 2 to 4 months.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 09:08
by SpudmanWP
All the missiles, their fire rate, and range will do them no good if they cannot track a target.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 10:20
by hornetfinn
ricnunes wrote:
usnimitz wrote:S-400 missiles can hit targets 400 miles away. No fighter jets can fire missiles 400 miles away.


Actually the longest range S-400 missile, the 40N6E has a maximum range of 400 kilometers, not miles (there's quite a bit diference between kilometers, land miles and nautical miles).


That's true and we have to remember that max range applies to basically non-maneuverable targets flying straight and level towards the S-400 system. Engaging maneuverable targets cuts down the range a lot in every single SAM system. For example SAMP/T has max range of 120 km against large non-maneuverable aircraft like tankers and cargo aircraft. However against fighters the range is said to be about 30-50 km depending on situation. S-400 will also have shorter range against maneuverable fighter aircraft than the max range.

Besides, most S-400 systems will have only couple of those huge 40N6E missiles and most of the missiles have range below 250 km.

Of course S-400 is really dangerous system for any fighter jet flying inside their reach. VLO fighters with great SA will be quite safe but others have to use long range weapons, a lot of support and/or very dangerous low level flight paths. All these make things more difficult and slow down the air campaign. F-35 really changes things as it will be very difficult for S-400 to detect, track and engage successfully before being targeted itself.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 13:32
by knowan
Neither the 40N6 nor 48N6 missiles are intended for engaging manoeuvrable fighter sized targets; that's the job of the much smaller 9M96 missile, which has a claimed maximum range of just 120 km.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 16 Dec 2019, 21:06
by notkent
Never trust the posted ranges of SAM systems its like the fuel economy sticker on new cars - its possible but very hard to achieve.

Combining the F-35 with 4th gen planes allows the F-35 to clear a path and guide the 4th generation planes around the threats.

There is also cyber attacks that may degrade the SAM system effectiveness and decoys that may make operators second guess wasting an expensive missile on an expendable decoy.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 02:17
by boogieman
knowan wrote:Neither the 40N6 nor 48N6 missiles are intended for engaging manoeuvrable fighter sized targets; that's the job of the much smaller 9M96 missile, which has a claimed maximum range of just 120 km.


I think you'd still have to be extremely careful in a 4/4.5 gen aircraft when faced with these missiles, but yes the larger issue is probably the fact that - when used in conjunction with EW systems like Krasukha - they could be used to force the likes of Sentry, Compass Call and JSTARS too far away from the FEBA to be effective.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 07:51
by hornetfinn
boogieman wrote:
knowan wrote:Neither the 40N6 nor 48N6 missiles are intended for engaging manoeuvrable fighter sized targets; that's the job of the much smaller 9M96 missile, which has a claimed maximum range of just 120 km.


I think you'd still have to be extremely careful in a 4/4.5 gen aircraft when faced with these missiles, but yes the larger issue is probably the fact that - when used in conjunction with EW systems like Krasukha - they could be used to force the likes of Sentry, Compass Call and JSTARS too far away from the FEBA to be effective.


Definitely they are very dangerous. Patriot missile accidentally shooting down F/A-18 and Tornado in 2003 and killing the crew members shows just how deadly these modern missile systems are. They are far more deadly than older SAM systems like SA-2 and SA-3 and even those have shot down modern 4th gen fighters like F-15 and F-16.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 10:05
by boogieman
usnimitz wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
boogieman wrote:Definitely they are very dangerous. Patriot missile accidentally shooting down F/A-18 and Tornado in 2003 and killing the crew members shows just how deadly these modern missile systems are. They are far more deadly than older SAM systems like SA-2 and SA-3 and even those have shot down modern 4th gen fighters like F-15 and F-16.


Thanks for the help. I knew Fighter jets are mosquitoes for S-400. :wink:


Don't be silly. The relationship between SAM systems and tactical aircraft is a constant game of rock-paper-scissors. S300/400/500 are no different in this regard.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 10:15
by Corsair1963
Even the most advanced Air Defense Networks over the years. Have always been "breached"....

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 11:57
by botsing
usnimitz wrote:Thanks for the help. I knew Fighter jets are mosquitoes for S-400. :wink:

Thanks for the help. I knew you were a troll. :wink:

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 13:01
by hornetfinn
Corsair1963 wrote:Even the most advanced Air Defense Networks over the years. Have always been "breached"....


If air supremacy is achieved, then it's usually just a matter of time and hard work to breach the IADS. Having both viable and effective fighter and support aircraft and ground based air defences working together makes things much more difficult. I'd say the best such total system currently in existence is in the US Navy. Combined and networked force of Super Hornet, Growler, E-2D, SM-2/3/6, ESSM and RAM missiles (and a lot of them) working under NIFC-CA and having extremely capable shipborne radars and other sensors. Add F-35B/C to the mix and it gets much better still. Also not forgetting the new AN/TPS-80 radars and EW systems the ships. Breaching that would be very difficult for anybody IMO.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 13:15
by boogieman
hornetfinn wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Even the most advanced Air Defense Networks over the years. Have always been "breached"....


If air supremacy is achieved, then it's usually just a matter of time and hard work to breach the IADS. Having both viable and effective fighter and support aircraft and ground based air defences working together makes things much more difficult. I'd say the best such total system currently in existence is in the US Navy. Combined and networked force of Super Hornet, Growler, E-2D, SM-2/3/6, ESSM and RAM missiles (and a lot of them) working under NIFC-CA and having extremely capable shipborne radars and other sensors. Add F-35B/C to the mix and it gets much better still. Also not forgetting the new AN/TPS-80 radars and EW systems the ships. Breaching that would be very difficult for anybody IMO.


Agree 100% To their credit though I would expect the Russian IADS in Russia and the Chinese IADS in China to be way up there too. We can get bogged down in the minutia of which systems are better than one another but the sheer density of IADS coverage that exists in parts of both those countries is pretty crazy.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 13:48
by ricnunes
hornetfinn wrote:That's true and we have to remember that max range applies to basically non-maneuverable targets flying straight and level towards the S-400 system. Engaging maneuverable targets cuts down the range a lot in every single SAM system. For example SAMP/T has max range of 120 km against large non-maneuverable aircraft like tankers and cargo aircraft. However against fighters the range is said to be about 30-50 km depending on situation. S-400 will also have shorter range against maneuverable fighter aircraft than the max range.



Note that regarding the 400km I was mainly replying to the OP (usnimitz) since he said 400 miles instead of 400km (which is the actual top range) or resuming his figure put the range of the S-400's longest range missile at a higher range than reality.
But of course that you're totally right when saying that the 40N6E missile's range of 400km is only useful against non-maneuvering straight-flying targets. However this prompts me to the following question:
- Since the 40N6E is active-radar guided wouldn't this give the S-400 system/missile a better chance to surprise an enemy aircraft like a fighter aircraft and thus catching the fighter aircraft in a non-maneuvering straight-flying flight path (since there's a chance that the targeted aircraft would only learn about the incoming missile in the very late stages of the missile's flight/path when the missile's active radar starts emitting)?


hornetfinn wrote:Besides, most S-400 systems will have only couple of those huge 40N6E missiles and most of the missiles have range below 250 km.

Of course S-400 is really dangerous system for any fighter jet flying inside their reach. VLO fighters with great SA will be quite safe but others have to use long range weapons, a lot of support and/or very dangerous low level flight paths. All these make things more difficult and slow down the air campaign. F-35 really changes things as it will be very difficult for S-400 to detect, track and engage successfully before being targeted itself.


Yes, that's also true indeed. But notice that long range weapons that could theoretically allow a 4th gen fighter aircraft to shoot against S-400 systems - basically we're talking about cruise missiles - aren't suitable to engage such targets (by the time they reach and/or if the S-400 moves away they will miss) and are way too expensive to be used against such targets.


hornetfinn wrote:If air supremacy is achieved, then it's usually just a matter of time and hard work to breach the IADS. Having both viable and effective fighter and support aircraft and ground based air defences working together makes things much more difficult. I'd say the best such total system currently in existence is in the US Navy.


I fully agree.
Whoever get's the air superiority will end up winning the war (at least the aerial part of it but most likely the entire conventional war as well).

May I also add that there's another thing that makes the US Navy IADS system so deadly:
- These systems, even the heaviest and most powerful ones are entirely based on moving platforms (ships) even when shooting long range SAM missiles while their land based longer-ranged counterparts must be static when searching, tracking and shooting.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 13:51
by madrat
Why wouldn't modern MAWS or EOTS pick up a missile coming from 400km away? It has to be awfully warm by then.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 13:58
by ricnunes
SpudmanWP wrote:A proper ingress would involve attacking (ESM and kinetic) each radar threat as it becomes a threat. This is why sending an entire package necessary to attack a deep target (ie the S-400 itself) requires multiple waves tasked with clearing a pathway to the target.

This is the reason and main advantage of a 5th gen force like the F-35. Using it's shared sensor network it can accurately map out the threats long before they become a threat. Once it knows where the threats are, a 5th gen force can wind it's way past the initial threat layers in order to attack targets deeper in enemy territory.



Yes, true indeed.
Such tactics can indeed improve the chances of 4th gen fighter aircraft against these modern Air Defense Systems such as the S-400 but may I point out (and adding to what you said above) that these tactics won't probably save the 4th gen fighter aircraft fleet from some considerable loses, this as opposed to 5th gen fighter aircraft like the F-35.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 17:51
by wrightwing
ricnunes wrote:

- Since the 40N6E is active-radar guided wouldn't this give the S-400 system/missile a better chance to surprise an enemy aircraft like a fighter aircraft and thus catching the fighter aircraft in a non-maneuvering straight-flying flight path (since there's a chance that the targeted aircraft would only learn about the incoming missile in the very late stages of the missile's flight/path when the missile's active radar starts emitting)?


The S-400 guidance radar would be a tip off to a fighter, long before the missile went active.



Yes, that's also true indeed. But notice that long range weapons that could theoretically allow a 4th gen fighter aircraft to shoot against S-400 systems - basically we're talking about cruise missiles - aren't suitable to engage such targets (by the time they reach and/or if the S-400 moves away they will miss) and are way too expensive to be used against such targets.


There are non-cruise missile options currently available (i.e. JSOW, AARGM), and new weapons that will be available soon (i.e. AARGM-ER, JSM, JSOW-ER, as well as AGM-183, HAWC, etc...), that would allow 4th generation jets to engage S-400s from relative safety. As for weapons being way too expensive to target S-400s, I doubt that would be a consideration. There would be few priorities that are higher, than taking out S-400 sites. I suspect JASSM variants would also be widely used, as hunter aircraft/platforms located targets, for killer aircraft carrying long range weapons.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 18:30
by notkent
ricnunes wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Yes, that's also true indeed. But notice that long range weapons that could theoretically allow a 4th gen fighter aircraft to shoot against S-400 systems - basically we're talking about cruise missiles - aren't suitable to engage such targets (by the time they reach and/or if the S-400 moves away they will miss) and are way too expensive to be used against such targets.


SAM systems are very expensive and definitely worth the cost of a few cruise missiles. Just firing the missiles may make the system shut down.

"The S-400 guidance radar would be a tip off to a fighter, long before the missile went active. "

Today's systems can fake guidance and even spoof sending track updates even when no missile is in the air.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 20:06
by milosh
wrightwing wrote:The S-400 guidance radar would be a tip off to a fighter, long before the missile went active.


LPI + TVM + ARH. In most cases fighter will know missile is closing by MAWS not RWR. RWR would only detect it when missile go active, MAWS would detect it from longer range.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 17 Dec 2019, 21:45
by ricnunes
wrightwing wrote:The S-400 guidance radar would be a tip off to a fighter, long before the missile went active.


Well no, because the S-400 radar would be emitting in the exact same way as doing a (simple) search and therefore there would be no way (or would be extremely hard) for a counter-radar surveillance system such as a RWR to detect an incoming missile active-guided missile, this before it gets active.
It would be like an aircraft that was shot at with an AMRAAM to know that the AMRAAM is incoming before it becomes active, this based on radar/radio waves (RWR) alone which again and also, it's not possible.

The only way for an aircraft to detect an incoming active-guided missile before it gets active would be like madrat and milosh mentioned by using a MAWS (and even the effectiveness of most MAWS in such situations would be questionable).


wrightwing wrote:There are non-cruise missile options currently available (i.e. JSOW, AARGM), and new weapons that will be available soon (i.e. AARGM-ER, JSM, JSOW-ER, as well as AGM-183, HAWC, etc...), that would allow 4th generation jets to engage S-400s from relative safety.


I beg to differ.
The AARGM and JSOW have a reported maximum range of 60+ nauticals miles and 70 nautical miles respectively which puts 4th gen fighter aircraft equipped with these weapons well within the range of S-400 systems and their wide array of missiles.
Weapons such as the AARGM-ER or JSOW-ER could indeed improve things but 4th gen aircraft with these improved/extended-ranged weapons would probably still be dangerously close or still within range of S-400 systems, specially when armed with longer ranged missiles. As such I disagree that 4th gen fighter aircraft with such weapons would be "safe" from modern Air Defense Systems such as the S-400, although granted such aircraft with such weapons would indeed be able to destroy some/many of these systems (but not without considerable loses).

Moreover, due to the fact that 4th gen fighter aircraft are detectable from very long ranges by a wide array of radar systems, it would be much easier to devise "ambush" tactics against 4th gen fighter aircraft using systems like the S-400 such as for example:
- Having S-400 systems scattered and hidden around while having EW and other radars to pick up and track the incoming 4th gen fighter aircraft and the S-400 would only "light up" and engage when the 4th gen fighter aircraft would be well within range.
Such tactic above would be very hard to use against 5th gen stealth aircraft since the enemy cannot detect and thus track these aircraft at long ranges and thus limiting if not completely defeat such tactic.

Lets' face it - there's a reason why 5th gen stealth fighter aircraft like the F-35 are and will be the future. One of the reasons is that the survivability of 4th gen fighter aircraft against the newest Air Defense System is questionable at best (this, even with better weapons).


wrightwing wrote:As for weapons being way too expensive to target S-400s, I doubt that would be a consideration. There would be few priorities that are higher, than taking out S-400 sites. I suspect JASSM variants would also be widely used, as hunter aircraft/platforms located targets, for killer aircraft carrying long range weapons.


notkent wrote:SAM systems are very expensive and definitely worth the cost of a few cruise missiles. Just firing the missiles may make the system shut down.


The problem is not only the price/cost of such weapons "per se".
Another problem is like I previous mentioned, that such long range cruise missiles have a very low chance to be able to get, hit and destroy such Air Defense Systems, specially against a smart enemy that keeps them "on the move". So you not only have a very expensive weapon (employed against an expensive system, granted) but this one with a quite low probability of hitting/killing the enemy air-defense systems.

Another problem is that very expensive weapons such as cruise missiles are usually available in rather low and/or very limited numbers and as such there could only be enough of such weapons to be used against the most strategical (and thus more important) target such as Factories, HQ/Command&Control Centers, Airbases, certain bridges, etc... and not much of those weapons could be left for going after Air-Defense Systems such as the S-400 (and quite ineffectively so).

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2019, 10:26
by hornetfinn
ricnunes wrote:
wrightwing wrote:The S-400 guidance radar would be a tip off to a fighter, long before the missile went active.


Well no, because the S-400 radar would be emitting in the exact same way as doing a (simple) search and therefore there would be no way (or would be extremely hard) for a counter-radar surveillance system such as a RWR to detect an incoming missile active-guided missile, this before it gets active.
It would be like an aircraft that was shot at with an AMRAAM to know that the AMRAAM is incoming before it becomes active, this based on radar/radio waves (RWR) alone which again and also, it's not possible.

The only way for an aircraft to detect an incoming active-guided missile before it gets active would be like madrat and milosh mentioned by using a MAWS (and even the effectiveness of most MAWS in such situations would be questionable).


I totally agree. I'd say that with S-400 or Patriot system the threat aircraft would likely know the direction and possibly approximate area where the SAM radar is. It would depend on missile guidance method if the emissions change during the engagement with spesific search and illumination modes. With SARH/TVM guidance the target aircraft would see change in emissions and would likely know when under attack. But the problem is that happens only during terminal phase of the engagement. Pretty much all modern long range SAMs have mid-course updates using data links and INS/GPS guidance in the missile to not tip off the targets before terminal phase. With ARH guidance it's basically the same problem. The guidance radar is using the same kind of emissions to search and track targets and only warning is when the ARH head of the missile activates.

MAWS that use UV would be nearly useless against such a long range missile. They have so short range and rely on missile being very hot (rocket motor still burning). Radar MAWS (like in EF Typhoon) likely would detect the missile at some point, but those have rather short range (small radars with wide FoV/FoR and high frequencies used). IR MAWS like in Dassault Rafale, F-22 and F-35 would likely be able to detect and track the launch and missile flight.

Having VLO stealth and great SA and EW capabilties makes 5th gen aircraft so much survivable against such a threat and much more capable of achieving their mission objectives. Besides modern day missiles are very deadly even if detected and tracked by the pilot. They have so much better maneuverability, speed and accuracy than older missiles that avoiding them is far more difficult. While EW systems help even 4th gen fighters, having VLO signature is going to help immensely.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2019, 11:10
by boogieman
hornetfinn wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
wrightwing wrote:The S-400 guidance radar would be a tip off to a fighter, long before the missile went active.


Well no, because the S-400 radar would be emitting in the exact same way as doing a (simple) search and therefore there would be no way (or would be extremely hard) for a counter-radar surveillance system such as a RWR to detect an incoming missile active-guided missile, this before it gets active.
It would be like an aircraft that was shot at with an AMRAAM to know that the AMRAAM is incoming before it becomes active, this based on radar/radio waves (RWR) alone which again and also, it's not possible.

The only way for an aircraft to detect an incoming active-guided missile before it gets active would be like madrat and milosh mentioned by using a MAWS (and even the effectiveness of most MAWS in such situations would be questionable).


I totally agree. I'd say that with S-400 or Patriot system the threat aircraft would likely know the direction and possibly approximate area where the SAM radar is. It would depend on missile guidance method if the emissions change during the engagement with spesific search and illumination modes. With SARH/TVM guidance the target aircraft would see change in emissions and would likely know when under attack. But the problem is that happens only during terminal phase of the engagement. Pretty much all modern long range SAMs have mid-course updates using data links and INS/GPS guidance in the missile to not tip off the targets before terminal phase. With ARH guidance it's basically the same problem. The guidance radar is using the same kind of emissions to search and track targets and only warning is when the ARH head of the missile activates.

MAWS that use UV would be nearly useless against such a long range missile. They have so short range and rely on missile being very hot (rocket motor still burning). Radar MAWS (like in EF Typhoon) likely would detect the missile at some point, but those have rather short range (small radars with wide FoV/FoR and high frequencies used). IR MAWS like in Dassault Rafale, F-22 and F-35 would likely be able to detect and track the launch and missile flight.

Having VLO stealth and great SA and EW capabilties makes 5th gen aircraft so much survivable against such a threat and much more capable of achieving their mission objectives. Besides modern day missiles are very deadly even if detected and tracked by the pilot. They have so much better maneuverability, speed and accuracy than older missiles that avoiding them is far more difficult. While EW systems help even 4th gen fighters, having VLO signature is going to help immensely.


Exactly. We also have to remember that taking out a modern theatre level GBAD asset like S400 is a system of systems event. It would involve a host of platforms ranging from dedicated ISR and EW aircraft to tankers, airborne decoys, UAS, the tactical aircraft themselves and their weapons. You might even see strategic air involved in some cases.

I think this is crucial to remember because in a Day 1 peer level scenario the S400 would be embedded in its own system of systems which would include red air, ISR, EW and SHORAD assets. A tough nut to crack to be sure, but I dare say not an impossible one.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2019, 14:41
by notkent
ricnunes wrote:
wrightwing wrote:The S-400 guidance radar would be a tip off to a fighter, long before the missile went active.


Well no, because the S-400 radar would be emitting in the exact same way as doing a (simple) search and therefore there would be no way (or would be extremely hard) for a counter-radar surveillance system such as a RWR to detect an incoming missile active-guided missile, this before it gets active.
It would be like an aircraft that was shot at with an AMRAAM to know that the AMRAAM is incoming before it becomes active, this based on radar/radio waves (RWR) alone which again and also, it's not possible.

The waveforms used for Search are different than those used for tracking and providing guidance to a missile. A simple search will not give the resolution required for calculating an intercept. Also searches are not performed as often as pulses are sent to a target under track.

notkent wrote:SAM systems are very expensive and definitely worth the cost of a few cruise missiles. Just firing the missiles may make the system shut down.


The problem is not only the price/cost of such weapons "per se".
Another problem is like I previous mentioned, that such long range cruise missiles have a very low chance to be able to get, hit and destroy such Air Defense Systems, specially against a smart enemy that keeps them "on the move". So you not only have a very expensive weapon (employed against an expensive system, granted) but this one with a quite low probability of hitting/killing the enemy air-defense systems.

The US has thousands of cruise missiles and has shown a willingness to fire as many are needed. Once the SAM systems are degraded then the more numerous guided weapons can be used. A SAM is useless when it is moving and making it shut down and move is a mission kill and leaves your airbases and other high value target undefended.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2019, 17:08
by ricnunes
notkent wrote:The waveforms used for Search are different than those used for tracking and providing guidance to a missile. A simple search will not give the resolution required for calculating an intercept. Also searches are not performed as often as pulses are sent to a target under track.


Please, read hornetfinn's last post.
He's a very knowledgeable person about the subject at hand (SAMs, Radars/Electronics, etc...) and for me he's definitely one of the references here in this forum.
If you read his last post you'll know that more precise waveforms used for tracking are only used on the final stages of the missile's flight, this either by the missile's radar itself in ARH case or by the land based S-400 radar in the SARH/TVM cases.
For most of the missile's flight path (inicial launch and most of the flight) the search mode is more then enough to provide the missile a "waypoint" which gets it close enough to the target (before more precise waveforms are to be used).

So in many/most cases the alert of an incoming ARH missile will likely come "too late".




notkent wrote:The US has thousands of cruise missiles and has shown a willingness to fire as many are needed. Once the SAM systems are degraded then the more numerous guided weapons can be used. A SAM is useless when it is moving and making it shut down and move is a mission kill and leaves your airbases and other high value target undefended.


And an enemy can have hundreds of strategical targets such as again Factories, HQ/Command&Control Centers, Airbases, certain bridges, etc..., targets of which are more important/strategical than S-400 sites and each of these strategical targets will require dozens of such cruise missiles/weapons in order to be destroyed, so hundreds times dozens gives us thousands.
Sure that using Cruise missiles against an ill equipped enemy such as Libya which not only had few Air-Defense Systems, but these were all outdated and for the most part fixed (not very mobile) then the usage of cruise missile is effective. But not so much against a more powerful and better equipped enemy with systems that have a very good/excellent degree of mobility such as the S-400.
So even the US may not have enough cruise missiles to go after SAM sites (or all of them) with systems such as the S-400, this without putting in jeopardy the usage of such weapons against many of the most strategical targets. Such situation gets even worse when we look into the perspective of any other nation.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2019, 17:15
by ricnunes
hornetfinn wrote:With SARH/TVM guidance the target aircraft would see change in emissions and would likely know when under attack. But the problem is that happens only during terminal phase of the engagement. Pretty much all modern long range SAMs have mid-course updates using data links and INS/GPS guidance in the missile to not tip off the targets before terminal phase. With ARH guidance it's basically the same problem. The guidance radar is using the same kind of emissions to search and track targets and only warning is when the ARH head of the missile activates.


Actually I didn't know that TVM would alert an enemy RWR at all.
Regarding TVM, I though it never alerted a RWR since the missile would use the waves emitted by the search radar and bounced back from the target to guide itself towards the target (during the later stages of the missile's flight), this combined of course with data link and INS/GPS guidance.
From what I read the TVM while very good "on paper", it should be quite/very vulnerable to ECM (potentially more so compared to other guidance modes).
I guess I was wrong, thanks for the heads up hornetfinn :thumb:

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2019, 18:51
by sprstdlyscottsmn
This TVM term is new, or forgotten, to me. Can I get a quick refresher?

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2019, 19:41
by wrightwing
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:This TVM term is new, or forgotten, to me. Can I get a quick refresher?

Track via missile

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2019, 19:57
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Interesting. So a combo of SARH and Command Guidance principles using a two-way datalink is what I gather from Wiki. Thanks wrightwing.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 18 Dec 2019, 23:56
by usnimitz
S-400 missiles travel at speed of Mach 14 or 17000/kmph. S-400 have tracking range of 600 km and they will hit targets 400 km away. 8)

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2019, 00:11
by usnimitz
I saw the video where a Pakistan's JF-17 came flying leveled to the ground and then it went straight up like a rocket and disappeared in the skies. That must be Mach 1.4 speed when the JF-17 jet went straight up.

I think this manoeuvre of fighter jets will save them from any missile. But a missile travelling at Mach 10 is a stealth missile. It cannot be seen by any fighter jet pilots. :D

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2019, 01:01
by steve2267
Wow... 10 Mach.... 14 Mach... the aerodynamic heating must be immense, not to mention some pretty high Q values.

That's some impressive engineering right there...

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2019, 01:39
by boogieman
usnimitz wrote:I saw the video where a Pakistan's JF-17 came flying leveled to the ground and then it went straight up like a rocket and disappeared in the skies. That must be Mach 1.4 speed when the JF-17 jet went straight up.

I think this manoeuvre of fighter jets will save them from any missile. But a missile travelling at Mach 10 is a stealth missile. It cannot be seen by any fighter jet pilots. :D


That's not all - with Russian quantum photonic radars and plasma stealth, truly nothing will be able to touch the VVS. Soon the PAK-DA will be upon us raining down unstoppable hypersonic fury, and Russian S500 batteries will be downing USAF jets as they take off in the continental USA.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 19 Dec 2019, 05:42
by knowan
usnimitz wrote:S-400 missiles travel at speed of Mach 14 or 17000/kmph.


Mach 14 is the maximum target velocity, not the maximum missile velocity.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... echnology/
It has a maximum altitude of 185 km (115 mi) and maximum target velocity of 4,800 m/s (11,000 mph; Mach 14). The missile’s average flight speed is 1,190 m/s (2,662 mph).


Notably, the intercept range for ballistic missile targets is only 15 km: https://missilethreat.csis.org/russian- ... for-s-400/
Reports indicate the missile’s destruction range is up to 380 km for aerodynamic targets and up to 15 km for ballistic weapons at an altitude ranging from 10 m to 35 km.


That's significantly shorter than the 40 km Sprint ABM, which achieved a velocity of Mach 10.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 06:30
by usnimitz
knowan wrote:
usnimitz wrote:Mach 14 is the maximum target velocity, not the maximum missile velocity.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... echnology/


All big missiles travel at Mach 7 or Mach 8. 8) I was surprised when I read Mach 14

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 10:51
by hornetfinn
ricnunes wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:With SARH/TVM guidance the target aircraft would see change in emissions and would likely know when under attack. But the problem is that happens only during terminal phase of the engagement. Pretty much all modern long range SAMs have mid-course updates using data links and INS/GPS guidance in the missile to not tip off the targets before terminal phase. With ARH guidance it's basically the same problem. The guidance radar is using the same kind of emissions to search and track targets and only warning is when the ARH head of the missile activates.


Actually I didn't know that TVM would alert an enemy RWR at all.
Regarding TVM, I though it never alerted a RWR since the missile would use the waves emitted by the search radar and bounced back from the target to guide itself towards the target (during the later stages of the missile's flight), this combined of course with data link and INS/GPS guidance.
From what I read the TVM while very good "on paper", it should be quite/very vulnerable to ECM (potentially more so compared to other guidance modes).
I guess I was wrong, thanks for the heads up hornetfinn :thumb:


Thanks ricnunes, this is very interesting discussion.

TVM uses the continuous (or close to continous) transmissions emitted by the engagement radar. Search radars do not work for TVM or SARH as they require continunous or nearly continuous target illumination in the terminal phase. Of course Patriot for example uses a single radar for both search and engagement purposes but on a fixed sector (something like 120 degree sector). Naturally there is usually several batteries with their own radars for wider coverage and mutual support. Also Patriot is getting 360 degree radar coverage with the GaN AESA antenna.

Actually TVM is actually less susceptible to ECM than either SARH or command guidance alone. This is because the ship or ground unit knows what the missile seeker sees and has a lot more computing power than what could be fitted to missile seeker. Basically the seeker just receives the radar signals and sends them back to launching unit. There is not much processing done in the missile itself, but on the launcher which can also do some sensor fusion between engagement radar and missile seeker. In SARH everything is done by the missile seeker alone and in command guidance by the launch unit alone. Of course TVM requires data link between the missile and launcher to work or the missile can't do anything.Modern directional and secure data links are very difficult to jam because they use directional high gain antennas with very low sidelobes. So the jammer would need to be close to line-of-sight between missile and launcing unit engagement radar to have effect on the data link.

Of course nowadays enough computing power can be fitted inside missile seekers which is why ARH is becoming the norm in latest missiles like Patriot PAC-3, Aster missiles or 9M96 variants. I could see also the option of using ARH seeker and TVM, although it would require pretty advanced sensor fusion to work well.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 11:34
by boogieman
hornetfinn wrote:Of course nowadays enough computing power can be fitted inside missile seekers which is why ARH is becoming the norm in latest missiles like Patriot PAC-3, Aster missiles or 9M96 variants. I could see also the option of using ARH seeker and TVM, although it would require pretty advanced sensor fusion to work well


I think ARH also lends itself to cooperative engagement as well. One of the drawbacks I see with Patriot at the moment is that its long range missile - the PAC2 GEM-T - lacks an active seeker. This means it is pretty heavily tied to the battery it originates from in a given engagement and AFAIK cannot be guided to impact using target information from a third party. Replace the GEM-T with a weapon more like SM6 and suddenly you could be using target data coming from virtually any source via IBCS. This would, in my view, make the Patriot much more relevant on the modern battlefield.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 13:21
by hornetfinn
I think active radar guidance would be a nice improvement over TVM, especially against air breathing targets. Against ballistic missiles TVM might have some advantages still, although many current low altitude ABM missiles have active radar seekers. SM-6 missile (or likely a derivative because of differing environment) would be a good way to go. Launchers would likely need to be upgraded because of somewhat larger missile. But it's still close enough IMO, that it should work. It would have enormous reach against all targets while PAC-3 and PAC-3 MSE would work fine against shorter range targets. I'd probably add something like the SkyCepto, AMRAAM or possibly AMRAAM-ER (ESSM body) because of their lower cost.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 16:04
by ricnunes
@hornetfinn,

Thanks for the heads up and explanation.
From what I get, TVM (BTW, sorry sprstdlyscottsmn for not replying straight away, only now I was able to visit the forum) and SARH are very similar in basic principles with the diference that processing and therefore "decision making" such as maneuvering (and detonation as well, I gather) is done solely on the missile in the case of SARH (and therefore no Data-link is required) while in the TVM case this is done by the launcher/station (in which Data-link is a must - here the missile works as a sort of a "relay station").

For example the radar must be emitting in the same way independently if it's guiding a SARH or a TVM missile.
As such, now I get why incoming TVM missiles will/should also appear on RWRs (at least in the missile's final stage of its flight).

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 16:15
by sprstdlyscottsmn
ricnunes wrote:...
From what I get, TVM (BTW, sorry sprstdlyscottsmn for not replying straight away, only now I was able to visit the forum) ...

Hey, no worries. wrightwing was able to sort me out. The forum is a group effort to elevate the knowledge and understanding of all its members.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 16:47
by ricnunes
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
ricnunes wrote:...
From what I get, TVM (BTW, sorry sprstdlyscottsmn for not replying straight away, only now I was able to visit the forum) ...

Hey, no worries. wrightwing was able to sort me out. The forum is a group effort to elevate the knowledge and understanding of all its members.


Yes, indeed.
I never tired myself of saying this, but this forum (F-16.net) is in my humble opinion that best place by far over the entire web for anyone (who doesn't have a "top secret" clearance) who wants to learn as much as possible about military aviation.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 16:53
by eloise
Secret project forum is very good too

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 20 Dec 2019, 17:47
by ricnunes
Actually, I didn't know about that site.
Unfortunately and currently I don't have much of a free time left to visit 2 or more forums on a regular basis but someday I'll pay a visit to that forum. Thanks for the heads up.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Dec 2019, 19:03
by eloise
ricnunes wrote:Actually, I didn't know about that site.
Unfortunately and currently I don't have much of a free time left to visit 2 or more forums on a regular basis but someday I'll pay a visit to that forum. Thanks for the heads up.

Another head up, wewuzkangz is active there as Panzerfeist1. So you get to read very entertainning topic such as: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/thread ... ies.32791/
:mrgreen: read his comments about area and decimal :devil:
I thought he was trolling at first, so I was very irritated. But after a while it is clear that he genuinely believe in his words :doh:

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2019, 00:42
by ricnunes
eloise wrote:Another head up, wewuzkangz is active there as Panzerfeist1. So you get to read very entertainning topic such as: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/thread ... ies.32791/
:mrgreen: read his comments about area and decimal :devil:
I thought he was trolling at first, so I was very irritated. But after a while it is clear that he genuinely believe in his words :doh:


That's perhaps one of biggest issues that I have with other forums/sites.
Currently I don't have much of a time or patience to deal/debate with such let's say, "peculiarly challenged individuals"...

Hence why I enjoy this forum a lot since many/most of such "peculiarly challenged individuais" are usually shown the "exit door" quite quickly which helps reducing the "clutter" around these subjects which works perfectly for me at this stage of my life.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2019, 13:38
by notkent
TVM gives the SAM system an additional receiver that is offset from the main array.
This allows for correlation and triangulation allowing for better resolution than with the main array only especially if the target if it is attempting to jam the radar.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2019, 06:37
by knowan
eloise wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Actually, I didn't know about that site.
Unfortunately and currently I don't have much of a free time left to visit 2 or more forums on a regular basis but someday I'll pay a visit to that forum. Thanks for the heads up.

Another head up, wewuzkangz is active there as Panzerfeist1. So you get to read very entertainning topic such as: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/thread ... ies.32791/
:mrgreen: read his comments about area and decimal :devil:
I thought he was trolling at first, so I was very irritated. But after a while it is clear that he genuinely believe in his words :doh:


He's had more accounts banned off these forums, and it looks like his Quora account got nuked too. Can't fix stupid.


ricnunes wrote:That's perhaps one of biggest issues that I have with other forums/sites.
Currently I don't have much of a time or patience to deal/debate with such let's say, "peculiarly challenged individuals"...

Hence why I enjoy this forum a lot since many/most of such "peculiarly challenged individuais" are usually shown the "exit door" quite quickly which helps reducing the "clutter" around these subjects which works perfectly for me at this stage of my life.


Same reason I prefer these forums. It has a distinct lack of tolerance for moronic nationalistic fanboys.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2019, 18:44
by lbk000
Let's try not to get carried away by hubris here. This forum has its own share of those who form thoughts more around vanity than lucidity, as there is a distinct "F-35 can't not be the best in every criteria" kneejerk to be found from some regular posters.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2019, 22:11
by juretrn
knowan wrote:He's had more accounts banned off these forums, and it looks like his Quora account got nuked too. Can't fix stupid.

This, ahem, special individual retains a Quora account (unfortunately).
Linking so you can mute his stupidity. https://www.quora.com/profile/Jeff-Jaworski-1

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2019, 22:21
by squirrelshoes
Any opinions on how MALD/MALD-J would impact ingress of contested airspace? There haven't been any large scale attacks against a near peer IADS since they started being delivered in usable quantities, but they have since acquired a shit-ton of them.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2019, 01:02
by steve2267
squirrelshoes wrote:Any opinions on how MALD/MALD-J would impact ingress of contested airspace? There haven't been any large scale attacks against a near peer IADS since they started being delivered in usable quantities, but they have since acquired a shit-ton of them.


I was reviewing the "Favorite Quotes" thread yesterday. I came across the quote by a Lightning driver about how 4th gen pilots would "chase ghosts" -- every little radar hit, or anything to suggest a possible contact on a "stealth" airplane drove them batty... sometimes causing them to do dumb (i.e. tactically unsound) things... of which he could then take advantage.

If you program MALD / MALD-J's to be a "little sneaky" (i.e. not obvious)... you might suitably exercise a near peer IADS into doing things that will make it (relatively) easy for the F-35 to slip by (or kill them).

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2019, 02:33
by knowan
juretrn wrote:This, ahem, special individual retains a Quora account (unfortunately).
Linking so you can mute his stupidity. https://www.quora.com/profile/Jeff-Jaworski-1


Looks to be a fresh account after his previous one got nuked. Stupid never learns.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2020, 10:21
by zero-one

your opinions?

Disclaimer: Binkov seems like he's Russian (by the accent) but he's not one of your typical Biased content creators. I think it's pretty well researched and neutral. He did specify that he doubts the claims of the S-400 to have 90km detection range for VLO and that actual useful targeting range may be much lower.

your thoughts.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2020, 11:00
by hornetfinn
I agree that it was well made and fairly neutral video. S-400 along with other SAM systems are definitely very dangerous systems against non-VLO aircraft. Like said million times here that 4th gen fighters can fight against them, but it won't definitely be easy at all. Even much older SAM systems like SA-2, SA-3 and SA-6 have proven to be dangerous and these new systems are far more capable.

5th gen fighters are very difficult for the SAM systems due to taking away huge portion of their SA and also having better SA about the threat situation. Another problem is that stealth will lower the hit probability of the missile even if the SAM system can detect and track the VLO target. Especially in combination of countermeasures in such cases.

I think it's difficult to tell if S-400 is the best SAM system in the world. Different systems have different design priorities and it depends on situation which system is the best. In that video it was well said that minimum Patriot battery takes 5 C-5 flights to deliver while S-400 took 72 An-124 flights for full battery. A full Patriot battery most likely takes only a dozen C-5 flights which makes it very suitable for global operations like US does. S-400 does have impressive range and coverage, so it's probably pretty good if logistics is not a problem. SAMP/T is also much lighter and shorter ranged system than S-400 but has nice 360 degree coverage. I think it's very good all-around SAM system for most use cases.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2020, 17:33
by ricnunes
Yes, I also agree that the video was well made and fairly objective and neutral.

IMO and if I had to point out some criticism to the video, this would be the lack of perspective on the stealth/F-35 aircraft side such as the ability to avoid being detected and being shoot at and to shoot first against the S-400. But and on the other hand and specially after watching the later half of the video, I realized that the objective of the video was basically to compare the S-400 with other SAM systems namely the Patriot, the SAMP/T and to a somehow lesser degree, the HQ-9 and not so much to compared the S-400 against a stealth aircraft like the F-35.
(Here the Video Thumbnail was a bit misleading)

From watching the video and some previous knowledge that I had about the system (S-400), I would say that its "best feature" which probably makes it one of the best/deadliest SAM system currently in existence today is that it's a "modular system" or "modularity".
I also found interesting that the author mentioned in the video that the S-400 "modularity" feature does comes with a price/cost, which is being more expensive and "less mobile" in terms of strategical deployment (i.e. to be transported by aircraft from one place to another).

I also echo hornetfinn's words that it won't be easy for a 4th gen fighter aircraft to battle S-400 systems. It will be even and much harder against non-stealth 4th gen fighter aircraft, if the S-400 systems come with many/most "bells and whistles"/"modules"/"extras".

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2020, 19:50
by notam123
Another problem is that stealth will lower the hit probability of the missile even if the SAM system can detect and track the VLO target. Especially in combination of countermeasures in such cases.


Agree on the previous part, not so much on the latter one. distance to target is so short when a missile will use its own guidance that stealth is not really a big issue there as far as the missile was lauched with an appropriate solution (radar equation, distance is extremely important.)

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2020, 23:29
by Fox1
I think the Taiwanese Sky Bow III would make a good "big missile" replacement for the PAC-2.

Image

Image

It is an active missile using modern western guidance. It is also reportedly much cheaper to buy and maintain than the old Patriot system, perhaps costing only 1/6th of what Patriot's operating costs are. It supposedly has a max range of around 124 miles and it equally well suited for use against ballistic missiles or aircraft.

I think a missile with that sort of capability, the ability to launch in a vertical fashion and the new 360 degree radar system being developed for Patriot would make for a much more robust overall system. I would have loved to see MEADS survive as our new mid-range system while Patriot returned to being a dedicated long range system with a new "big" missile and improved radar and launcher.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2020, 18:08
by notkent
Raytheon was chosen to build the replacement for the Patriot SAM, LTAMDS.

Incumbent Raytheon will build the U.S. Army’s new missile defense radar to replace the Patriot air and missile defense system’s current radar as part of the service’s future Integrated Air and Missile Defense System.

The company has taken its years of experience refining gallium nitride, or GaN, technology at its Massachusetts-based foundry to help design a new radar system that will provide the Army 360-degree threat detection capability in a configuration that includes one large array in the front and two smaller arrays in the back.

https://www.defensenews.com/breaking-ne ... nse-radar/


It will support current Pac 2 and Pac 3 missiles while adding a new lower cost interceptor that was jointly developed with Israel.

Have not heard anything new about MEADS since LM announced that they had submitted a proposal to Germany in 2015.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2020, 05:00
by gc
Sounds like the F-35A practiced some S-400 hunting over Syria. Can’t get this training anywhere else!

“ During another mission, two F-35As flying together sensed an advanced surface-to-air missile in the distance, geolocated it, and took a radar map of it for targetable coordinates, Abba said. While the F-35s didn’t bomb the SAM, the jets offered feedback to intelligence and command-and-control personnel, he said.”

https://www.airforcemag.com/deployed-f- ... cs-system/

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2020, 13:35
by charlielima223
gc wrote:Sounds like the F-35A practiced some S-400 hunting over Syria. Can’t get this training anywhere else!

“ During another mission, two F-35As flying together sensed an advanced surface-to-air missile in the distance, geolocated it, and took a radar map of it for targetable coordinates, Abba said. While the F-35s didn’t bomb the SAM, the jets offered feedback to intelligence and command-and-control personnel, he said.”

https://www.airforcemag.com/deployed-f- ... cs-system/


Its funny when Russian fanboys/trolls claim that the S-300/400 can detect the F-35 and F-22. Yet when pressed as to how their usual response comes out reading like this after awhile...
Image

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 10 Mar 2020, 13:36
by hornetfinn
notam123 wrote:
Another problem is that stealth will lower the hit probability of the missile even if the SAM system can detect and track the VLO target. Especially in combination of countermeasures in such cases.


Agree on the previous part, not so much on the latter one. distance to target is so short when a missile will use its own guidance that stealth is not really a big issue there as far as the missile was lauched with an appropriate solution (radar equation, distance is extremely important.)


In radar equation distance is extremely important, but so are radar transmit power and target RCS. Say if the seeker can lock on to normal target 10 km away, it might lock on to VLO target say 3 km away. Basically the missile seeker will have a lot less time to search for the target and lock on to it. It will be very close to target when that happens and thus has very little time and space to maneuver. To achieve similar hit probability, the missile would need much more precise and timely targeting data from the launcher all to way. But with similar targeting system, missile hit probability will be lower against VLO targets than regular targets.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2020, 21:24
by doge
Did the F-35 reverse a speculation 4 years ago? 8)
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... lving-role
Middle East SAM Discovery Highlights F-35’S Evolving Role
Steve Trimble March 09, 2020
As a series of Block 4 upgrades are set to elevate the Lockheed Martin F-35’s profile for the counter air-defense mission, a top program official shared an operational anecdote highlighting the aircraft’s latent capability against surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems.

Twelve F-35As deployed last year to the Middle East to support operations against the Islamic State group (ISIS), logging 150 weapons employed during about 7,300 hr. flown on 1,300 combat sorties, said Brig. Gen. David Abba, director of the Air Force’s F-35 integration office, speaking at the Mitchell Institute March 9. “The numbers were pretty remarkable,” Abba said.
Although ISIS forces posed little threat to the F-35A, the deployment provided opportunities for the stealthy fighter to demonstrate capabilities against a more sophisticated opponent.
Abba described an operational scenario that involved a mobile SAM system. The U.S. intelligence community normally tracks the locations of such systems as closely as possible, but in this case the mobile SAM had not been seen “in a while,” he said.

Meanwhile, two F-35As were en route to perform an unrelated mission when an indication of the missing, mobile SAM appeared on their cockpit displays, Abba said. The inference was that the F-35’s onboard sensors, such as the BAE Systems ASQ-239 electronic-warfare suite, detected and identified the threat. The pilots used the data to cue the radar-mapping mode of the F-35’s Northrop Grumman APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar to establish “targetable” coordinates for the SAM.

“We didn’t end up employing ordnance against that [threat], but it was fed back into the [command-and-control] structures in the intelligence community,” Abba explained.
Although the F-35 is not primarily an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft, Abba described this latent F-35 capability as “drive-by ISR.”
But the anecdote highlights the F-35’s evolving role within the U.S. military for the suppression or destruction of enemy air defenses (SEAD/DEAD) mission.
“Make no bones about it, this aircraft is the preeminent SEAD/DEAD platform,” Abba said, “and that’s what we need to optimize it for.”

The description of the F-35 as the “preeminent” platform for the SEAD/DEAD mission is striking. Only four years ago, the Air Force’s written testimony to Congress described the F-35A as possessing only a “limited” SEAD/DEAD role. The aircraft also lacks certain features such as a stand-off jamming system and an anti-radiation missile, which are the tools of the trade for other aircraft performing the SEAD/DEAD mission, such as the Boeing EA-18G.

But the F-35’s potential as a counter air-defense system is growing. The Air Force last year launched development of the Stand-In Attack Weapon to give the F-35 a long-range anti-radiation missile, which is adapted from the Navy’s Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range. The Block 4 modernization program also would add the MBDA Spear missile, which includes an electronic-warfare capability.

More recently, the F-35 also has demonstrated an ability to act as a stand-in sensor for long-range, surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2020, 21:43
by XanderCrews
doge wrote:Did the F-35 reverse a speculation 4 years ago? 8)
https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... lving-role
Middle East SAM Discovery Highlights F-35’S Evolving Role
Steve Trimble March 09, 2020
As a series of Block 4 upgrades are set to elevate the Lockheed Martin F-35’s profile for the counter air-defense mission, a top program official shared an operational anecdote highlighting the aircraft’s latent capability against surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems.

Twelve F-35As deployed last year to the Middle East to support operations against the Islamic State group (ISIS), logging 150 weapons employed during about 7,300 hr. flown on 1,300 combat sorties, said Brig. Gen. David Abba, director of the Air Force’s F-35 integration office, speaking at the Mitchell Institute March 9. “The numbers were pretty remarkable,” Abba said.
Although ISIS forces posed little threat to the F-35A, the deployment provided opportunities for the stealthy fighter to demonstrate capabilities against a more sophisticated opponent.
Abba described an operational scenario that involved a mobile SAM system. The U.S. intelligence community normally tracks the locations of such systems as closely as possible, but in this case the mobile SAM had not been seen “in a while,” he said.

Meanwhile, two F-35As were en route to perform an unrelated mission when an indication of the missing, mobile SAM appeared on their cockpit displays, Abba said. The inference was that the F-35’s onboard sensors, such as the BAE Systems ASQ-239 electronic-warfare suite, detected and identified the threat. The pilots used the data to cue the radar-mapping mode of the F-35’s Northrop Grumman APG-81 active electronically scanned array radar to establish “targetable” coordinates for the SAM.

“We didn’t end up employing ordnance against that [threat], but it was fed back into the [command-and-control] structures in the intelligence community,” Abba explained.
Although the F-35 is not primarily an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft, Abba described this latent F-35 capability as “drive-by ISR.”
But the anecdote highlights the F-35’s evolving role within the U.S. military for the suppression or destruction of enemy air defenses (SEAD/DEAD) mission.
“Make no bones about it, this aircraft is the preeminent SEAD/DEAD platform,” Abba said, “and that’s what we need to optimize it for.”

The description of the F-35 as the “preeminent” platform for the SEAD/DEAD mission is striking. Only four years ago, the Air Force’s written testimony to Congress described the F-35A as possessing only a “limited” SEAD/DEAD role. The aircraft also lacks certain features such as a stand-off jamming system and an anti-radiation missile, which are the tools of the trade for other aircraft performing the SEAD/DEAD mission, such as the Boeing EA-18G.

But the F-35’s potential as a counter air-defense system is growing. The Air Force last year launched development of the Stand-In Attack Weapon to give the F-35 a long-range anti-radiation missile, which is adapted from the Navy’s Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range. The Block 4 modernization program also would add the MBDA Spear missile, which includes an electronic-warfare capability.

More recently, the F-35 also has demonstrated an ability to act as a stand-in sensor for long-range, surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles.



I thought all this stuff was settled over Kosovo in 1999 when a lowly B-2 blew up a SAM with a boring old bomb.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2020, 22:02
by quicksilver
“...a top program official shared an operational anecdote highlighting the aircraft’s latent capability against surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems.” (My emphasis added)

“The inference was that the F-35’s onboard sensors, such as the BAE Systems ASQ-239 electronic-warfare suite, detected and identified the threat.“

Latent capability?? Inferred that the ASQ-239 did what it was designed to do (in part)?? One has to wonder where Mr Trimble has been for the last decade.

For those who might have missed it —

https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities/ ... nicwarfare

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2020, 00:48
by spazsinbad
AvWeak is notorious is it not for dissing the F-35 with faint praise and weasel word reporting - they didn't use FINALLY...!

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2020, 00:29
by boogieman
charlielima223 wrote:Its funny when Russian fanboys/trolls claim that the S-300/400 can detect the F-35 and F-22. Yet when pressed as to how their usual response comes out reading like this after awhile...
Image

A lot of them simply assert that stealth/VLO doesn't exist, to which I generally respond "...in Russia" :mrgreen: :twisted:

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2020, 01:06
by underscan
Got some news information on the S-400.

https://topwar.ru/164483-neozvuchennye- ... it-rm.html

“We are talking about the unique trials of the S-400 Triumph long-range anti-aircraft missile system recently carried out at the Kapustin Yar training ground (Astrakhan Oblast), during which several Favorit-RM hypersonic target missiles were successfully intercepted using 48N6DM missile interceptors

What is the uniqueness of the above four-hundred firing tests compared to earlier full-scale tests involving the interception of target missiles of the Kaban 96M6 family (in the 96M6M version with a range increased to 107 km and in the 96M6-03 version with integrated electronic warfare complex) ), RM-75V / MV “Armavir” and 3M20M3 “Singing”?

After all, it is well known that, for example, target missiles of the Kaban family can boast of an ultra-low effective reflective surface (EOC) of 0.015 square meters. m, a flight speed of 4680 km / h in the final segment of the active section of the trajectory and a quasi-ballistic flight path with an apogee of about 46 km.

The hypersonic target missiles of the Favorit-RM family will prepare the calculations of the Buk-M3, S-350 Vityaz and S-400 Triumph air defense systems to repulse massive strikes by the Deep Strike tactical ballistic missiles and AGM-183A aeroballistic missiles

The answer to this question is more than obvious: being a modification of the 5V55P anti-aircraft guided missile S-300PS anti-aircraft missile system, the Favorit-RM target missile retained the entire spectrum of flight technical qualities of the first.

In particular, the maximum flight speed of this product at the time of burning out the charge of a solid rocket engine reaches hypersonic values ​​of 6650–7200 km / h (6.25–6.75 M), while on a descending branch of the trajectory (during diving at angles of 70 —80) Favorit-RM speed can reach 4.5-4M in the stratospheric and 3.5-2.5M in the tropospheric sections of the trajectory.

Such speed parameters turn Favorit-RM into an extremely difficult target both for early modifications of Buk military air defense systems (Buk-M1 and Buk-M1-2), and for a more advanced version of Buk-M2.”

In the case of the implementation of “Favorite-RM” anti-aircraft maneuvers with 25-30G overloads and complex quasi-ballistic flight paths with large diving angles at the terminal section, their interception can only be accomplished with the help of promising Buk-M3, S-350 Vityaz and modernized S-400, the ammunition of which is represented by anti-aircraft guided missiles 9M317MA and 9M96DM.

Thanks to equipping these missiles with active radar homing heads of the Slate family with terminals of a two-way asynchronous data exchange line, for the first time in history the air defense forces and antiaircraft defense of the airborne forces of Russia, it became possible to intercept the “Favorites-RM” and similar high-speed means of air attack of a potential enemy, attacking the “dead funnel”.

The latter is located above the position of the anti-aircraft missile battalion and is a cone-shaped sector of the airspace outside the elevation sector of the radar and guidance radar. Target designation of anti-aircraft missiles 9M317MA and 9M96DM in this case will be able to provide third-party means of radar and optical-electronic reconnaissance.

The unique flight performance of 9M317MA and 9M96DM missiles (performing maneuvers with overloads of 60–70G), due to the presence of a gas-jet system for deflecting the thrust vector in the first and gas-dynamic “belts” of transverse control engines in the second, will be revealed before calculating Bukov-M3, Vityazei ”And the updated“ four hundred ”unprecedented horizons in the field of counteracting the promising US operational-tactical ballistic missiles“ Deep Strike ”and aeroballistic missiles AGM-183A.

The imitation of precisely these elements of high precision weapons generated by the erupted arms race against the background of the Pentagon’s denunciation of the INF Treaty is the primary calling of Favorit-RM hypersonic target missiles.”

Re: S-400 over and again

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2020, 21:00
by Gums
Salute!

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

I may even turn in my papers if directed to attack any target within a hundred miles ( 300 + km for the folks using those values) of one of those SAM sites.
=========================
Good friggin grief! Last post above looks like an advertisement for folks to buy the system. That's O.K., but what about support equipment, maintenance numbers, actual combat employment results?

And who are the buyers afraid of?

IMHO, there are bigger fish to fry on the world's threat and actual harmful capability arena.

Gums sends...

Re: S-400 over and again

Unread postPosted: 26 Mar 2020, 23:41
by ricnunes
Gums wrote:Salute!

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

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


LoL :mrgreen:


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

And who are the buyers afraid of?


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

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

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 00:40
by spazsinbad
That post looks like something Carlo Kopp would write for APA Air Power Australia who used to write for magazines but was stopped because of the unreadable prose about zazzy ZaZlons with obscure inscrutable detail in odd English prose.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 03:25
by boogieman
Speaking of which, Carlo Kopp is one of the few individuals to publish a graph plotting the max detection range of modern Russian engagement/FCR radars against target RCS. AFAIK, one of the limitations of the S400 is that it ultimately needs to lock on to a given target with the 92N6/2E Grave Stone radar to guide a missile to that target. Here is said graph:

Image

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

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

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 05:20
by boogieman
Not to go too far into OT-land, but he has also published a similar graph for Russian fighter and missile radars:

Image

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

It is also amusing to note the vanishingly small detection range of active radar missile seekerheads against VLO targets. He generally neglects to mention this in his "analysis" but it is equally as pertinent to an R27/77 derivative as it is to, say, a 40N6 or 48N6 from the S400.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 05:24
by optimist
Before you use a source, it's always good to google them first
Google : carlo kopp "idiot"

Re: S-400 over and again

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 05:31
by hythelday
ricnunes wrote:
Gums wrote:Salute!

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

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


LoL :mrgreen:


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

And who are the buyers afraid of?


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

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


topwar.ru is russia stronk garbage.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 05:33
by boogieman
optimist wrote:Before you use a source, it's always good to google them first
Google : carlo kopp "idiot"

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

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 14:43
by mixelflick
I don't think there's any question the S-400 is a very capable and dangerous weapon. But it also isn't this steel umbrella people are making it out to be. It IS a rather dramatic improvement over previous SAM threats such as the SA-2, SA-3 and SA-5/6... and that's what I think people need to acknowledge.

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

Re: S-400 over and again

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 15:45
by disconnectedradical
hythelday wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
Gums wrote:Salute!

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

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


LoL :mrgreen:


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

And who are the buyers afraid of?


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

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


topwar.ru is russia stronk garbage.


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

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 16:13
by ricnunes
boogieman wrote:The RCS value is key here but even if we take an absolute worst-case frontal RCS for the F35 of 0.01m, that still gives the Grave Stone a paltry max detection range of around 40nm.


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

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


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


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

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 20:16
by Gums
Salute!

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

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

Gums sends...

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

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

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

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

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

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 20:38
by basher54321
LOL Gums talk about innovation and being ahead of time! :D

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 23:25
by Gums
Salute!

And then the S-400 pigeon ARM/PGM

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

Gums sends...

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 23:37
by boogieman
ricnunes wrote:
boogieman wrote:The RCS value is key here but even if we take an absolute worst-case frontal RCS for the F35 of 0.01m, that still gives the Grave Stone a paltry max detection range of around 40nm.


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

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


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


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


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

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

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2020, 23:55
by outlaw162
Jez some thots as I isolate down here and try to avoid human contact and not have "intimate contact" with fruit bats


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

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 00:19
by spazsinbad
:devil: Yeah BUTT one may have to use one's sinister hand in lieu of non-existent LOO PAPER! :doh: & WATCH OUT FOR... :shock: THIS DISCARD turning into THAT BLOB (the eggplant that ate Chicago). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfZ1ZHDAq08

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 00:41
by outlaw162
Bidet........

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 01:10
by spazsinbad
Bid eh? Apparently loo paper is being sold on the black web for exorbitant or exsorbing prices. I live in a NONbid eh land.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 01:37
by outlaw162
the brown web, an unscrupulous lot, hands down

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 02:47
by wrightwing
boogieman wrote:



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

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

This is where cooperative EW, along with SiAW/AARGM-ER, etc... come into play

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 04:44
by boogieman
wrightwing wrote:
boogieman wrote:



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

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

This is where cooperative EW, along with SiAW/AARGM-ER, etc... come into play


Yep, although even those would be fair game for things like 40N6 (~SM6 analogue), 48N6 (~PAC2/SM2), 9M96 (~PAC3) and point defences. You'd really want to launch a lot all at once to saturate the site quickly.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 04:47
by madrat
Back in my late teenage to twenty-something years they were pushing gel bottoms in the soles of shoes. Drop nape canisters full of that slick stuff. Why worry about a sticky bomb when you can make it so they cannot possibly stop on it? That stuff was nasty on any surface.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 08:16
by wrightwing
boogieman wrote:
wrightwing wrote:
boogieman wrote:



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

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

This is where cooperative EW, along with SiAW/AARGM-ER, etc... come into play


Yep, although even those would be fair game for things like 40N6 (~SM6 analogue), 48N6 (~PAC2/SM2), 9M96 (~PAC3) and point defences. You'd really want to launch a lot all at once to saturate the site quickly.

Well with EW greatly reducing reaction time/situational awareness/ability to target incoming munitions, and ARM/hypersonics holding anyone at risk that decides to radiate, it's not quite as bleak as you're making it. Pantsyr has had a pretty poor record of defending itself, much less other targets.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 08:38
by boogieman
wrightwing wrote:Well with EW greatly reducing reaction time/situational awareness/ability to target incoming munitions, and ARM/hypersonics holding anyone at risk that decides to radiate, it's not quite as bleak as you're making it. Pantsyr has had a pretty poor record of defending itself, much less other targets.

Oh no, nothing bleak about it. Just trying to maintain a dispassionate understanding of the other side's capabilities.

At the end of the day S400 is likely to be a very capable LR SAM system that can be plugged into a variety of different modern, high powered AESA arrays using different RF wavelengths. On paper it should be a tough nut to crack, but not an insurmountable one for a 5th gen airforce.

Agreed re: Pantsir - it seems to have been quite a disappointment. Tor sounds like it may be performing well though. It always did strike me as the better design. From the Russians themselves:
In the spring of 2018, the Tor-M2U complexes were transferred to Syria . It is reported that in total from April to October 2018, the Tor-M2U complexes shot down 80 air targets, with an efficiency of 80%. In turn, the effectiveness of using the Pantsir-C1 air defense missile defense system for the same period was 19%.

https://vz.ru/news/2018/11/2/949009.html

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 14:17
by madrat
Pantsir-C1 is too little iron in the air too late for defense. Maybe as a system it works out, but not as a standalone unit.

There simply is no substitute for air superiority over your own people.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Mar 2020, 15:08
by ricnunes
boogieman wrote:The main issue I can see is that the F35s weapons may very well have a greater frontal RCS than the F35 itself. This would make it necessary to swamp the S400 with munitions (GBU53 + MALD-J) to ensure the Grave Stone FCR and point defence systems (Pantsir/Tor) are destroyed. This would effectively neutralise the site and allow the other components to be picked off more easily.


Well, Small Diameter Bombs (GBU-39 and GBU-53) are reported to have low RCS, probably even very low RCS so their RCS isn't probably that much higher compared to a F-35 (a degree higher than the F-35 sure but not by much, I would say) and like the name says they are small.
These two features (Low or Very Low RCS and very small size) means that these weapons (GBU-39 and GBU-53) are quite hard to be shot down by enemy defenses which means that it will be the S400 that needs to "swamp munitions/missiles" at incoming Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) in order to shot down a single of these incoming (small) bombs, this probably more than otherwise.

Moreover, if we consider that a single S-400 battery is usually composed by 4 launchers with each launcher carrying a total of 4 ready to fire missiles then we're talking about 16 ready to fire missiles per S-400 battery. Now compared to a single F-35 which can carry up to 8 Small Diameter Bombs (all internally) then and IMO it's easy to figure out that the advantage is fully on the "F-35/SDB combo" side.

And all of this, not to mention that the cost of a single S-400 is most likely much higher than the cost of a single GBU-53 for instance.

And also note that I'm not even mentioning cooperative EW, along with SiAW/AARGM-ER, etc... which is an extremely valid point.

boogieman wrote:Agreed re: Pantsir - it seems to have been quite a disappointment. Tor sounds like it may be performing well though. It always did strike me as the better design. From the Russians themselves:
In the spring of 2018, the Tor-M2U complexes were transferred to Syria . It is reported that in total from April to October 2018, the Tor-M2U complexes shot down 80 air targets, with an efficiency of 80%. In turn, the effectiveness of using the Pantsir-C1 air defense missile defense system for the same period was 19%.

https://vz.ru/news/2018/11/2/949009.html


Call me skeptical if you will/want but I take everything that the Russians say with a "huge pile or mountain of salt"!
I clearly remember the Russians praising the Pantsir as being extremely effective in destroying every type of incoming enemy munitions (bombs or missiles), this before they were deployed into Syria.
Now that the Israelis have shown and proved that the Pantsir is a 'crap' against incoming enemy bomb or missiles the Russians seem to be trying to "save face" by claiming that the Tor system is indeed extremely effective in destroying every type of incoming enemy munitions (just like they did with the Pantsir before Syria).

Note that I'm not saying that Tor isn't better than Pantsir (I also believe it is) but for sure I don't believe that Tor has an effectiveness of 80% while Pantsir is 19%. This sounds BS to me which BTW goes in line with many/most of the information that comes from the Russians.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2020, 01:23
by boogieman
ricnunes wrote:Well, Small Diameter Bombs (GBU-39 and GBU-53) are reported to have low RCS, probably even very low RCS so their RCS isn't probably that much higher compared to a F-35 (a degree higher than the F-35 sure but not by much, I would say) and like the name says they are small...

..Call me skeptical if you will/want but I take everything that the Russians say with a "huge pile or mountain of salt"!
I clearly remember the Russians praising the Pantsir as being extremely effective in destroying every type of incoming enemy munitions (bombs or missiles), this before they were deployed into Syria.
Now that the Israelis have shown and proved that the Pantsir is a 'crap' against incoming enemy bomb or missiles the Russians seem to be trying to "save face" by claiming that the Tor system is indeed extremely effective in destroying every type of incoming enemy munitions (just like they did with the Pantsir before Syria).

Note that I'm not saying that Tor isn't better than Pantsir (I also believe it is) but for sure I don't believe that Tor has an effectiveness of 80% while Pantsir is 19%. This sounds BS to me which BTW goes in line with many/most of the information that comes from the Russians.

Looks like I am playing devil's advocate today, but that is fine - makes for a fun discussion :-) A few things to bear in mind:

- I suspect 4 x TELs is more like a minimum number for a typical S400 battery, which can support up to 12 of them. You also need to remember that 9M96 variants can be quad packed into regular S400 tubes (much like their American analogue, the PAC3) allowing for 16 of them per TEL. I don't think it would ever be safe to assume an S400 battery has only 16 ready to fire missiles...

- The effect of cooperative EW is certainly very relevant but also an intangible... it's nigh on impossible to know what effects it would have based on OSINT. On the other hand you'd also have to acknowledge that a big powerful AESA like Grave Stone may have EA capabilities of its own, along with those of any local Krasukha units.

- Yes SDB is an LO object in its own right, but as a subsonic glide weapon it is also rather slow and unmaneuverable. Once detected and locked the SDB would not make for an overly challenging target kinematically - it would be more a question of delaying detection and acquisition (via LO and EW) and maximising numbers to ensure enough of them get through. This is where AARGM-ER comes into play, because it could reduce available reaction time significantly, especially at closer ranges.

- I also take Russian info with a mountain of salt, but I found that particular article entertaining. There was a video from RT circulating a couple of weeks back that showed two Pantsir vehicles pitted against a single small prop driven UAV. After unloading an ungodly amount of 30mm at the thing they hit nothing but air. This ultimately led to one (presumably frustrated) gunner finally bringing it down with a 57E6. I can't find it any more - I guess the Kremlin's people may have pulled it from the net. Brownie points for anyone who can re-locate it.

- With that said, I do believe Tor and Pantsir can be datalinked to their "parent" S400 system in the point defence role, so I would expect their performance to be better here. S400 sensors would provide earlier warning of incoming munitions allowing Pantsir/Tor to focus their own radar energy into smaller volumes of airspace, resulting in earlier detection, acquisition and employment of interceptors.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2020, 06:31
by underscan
Dang it already being called a Russian troll, I thought the servers that host this website were located in the U.S. instead of N Korea because god forbid that people have different opinions, but atleast give me a chance to post topic related subjects on same topic related threads on this forum which I am still currently doing since this thread does say S-400 on it AFAIK.

1. What frequencies can the F-35 receive for RWRs? I have looked into the Next Gen Jammer which uses GaN on the EA-18 Growler and see VHF and UHF and the Russian's have presented GaN for 3 aircrafts and one land jammer but only said UHF. I could not find any information to have official confirmation that any airborne EW system using GaN will have lower frequencies than 1ghz. I am having a hard time trying to get information on the Spectra from France or Saabs new airborne GaN Jammer. looked at page 39 on this https://www.raytheon.com/sites/default/ ... erview.pdf. So do S-400 SAM operators use VHF and UHF frequencies before they decide to turn on fire control frequencies as a protocol to follow. Or they have to use low frequencies and high frequencies at the same time all the time?

2.I looked into the Nebo-M 480(0.0001 ÷ 1) ^.25 a .0001m2 target would be tracked from 48kms away which covers the VHF, L and S-band introduced around 2015 and from the looks of it I think very few members here are even aware this exists. And I have my doubts that there are any members here that knows the 103Zh6 Niobium-M even exists using UHF and X-band which was introduces around 2019 which I want to clarify is not the same as the 55Zh6M Nebo-M with a different name(sadly no information on those specs to bring up here). It is also even possible that air defense units can use ground radars like the one introduced in their 2019 army expo seeing a 5m2 target at 3000kms with a 64 meter antenna on S-band which has nowhere near the same performance or smaller size an/spy-6 radar but it seems it can turn 5th gen to 4th gen aircrafts if we were to do the same calculations for the nebo-m for the same .0001m2 target. But either gen aircraft can get the same job done launching JSM missiles without being in that radars range. Rather if users here want to go dismiss the info provided here(I have sources for those interested). Does anyone have information as to what heights an aircrafts flies along with distance information from a radar that is on the ground? I think it is important to know as to what amount of surface area is exposed at the front aspect or ventral body RCS of an aircraft to what radio waves are reflecting from most of the time.

3. Lets use Israel as an example. Do they have EW systems like the Krasukha-4, murmansk-bn, Divnomorye complex or the Tirada-2 which can help them obscure the locations of their F-35s or when their F-35s will perform a mission from OTH radars or satellites watching their air base? For example I see that the range of the new OTH container radar covers israel. And OTH radars can have 100 meter resolutions with doppler shifting. While they claim they can watch aircrafts leave their runways with them while getting updated information on their distance, altitudes, velocity, etc. I am assuming that OTH radars can be used for example to send a su-35 to say hi to an F-35 and that has happened a couple of times where su-35s and f-22s had encounters in Syria and Alaska. AFAIK what separates israel's F-35s from the U.S. is new software and wings, but if they are in a mission RCS should not be compromised, or it does not have to be compromised with luneburg lens but choosing a higher RCS which can raise risks?

4. I doubt anyone has this information, but it pertains more to the missile host radar performances of the s-400. I wonder what are people's thoughts here about the possibility of using a VHF or UHF target acquisition box on an aircraft, and what firecontrol frequency sucess is needed for a host radar on a missile to cover that box to successfully hit that aircraft. http://www.1728.org/angsize.htm. There have been target acquisition boxes presented like Nebo-SVU I am more curios about what size beam and distance RCS tracking performances those S-400 missile host radars must have to follow and hit those targets.

Can anyone give me some advice or thoughts on those 4 points. Because I am interested on the importance relating to them in trying to better understand the F-35s air to ground roles for stealth missions.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2020, 15:47
by ricnunes
boogieman wrote:Looks like I am playing devil's advocate today, but that is fine - makes for a fun discussion :-) A few things to bear in mind:


No problem. I also find fun an interesting such discussions.

boogieman wrote:- I suspect 4 x TELs is more like a minimum number for a typical S400 battery, which can support up to 12 of them. You also need to remember that 9M96 variants can be quad packed into regular S400 tubes (much like their American analogue, the PAC3) allowing for 16 of them per TEL. I don't think it would ever be safe to assume an S400 battery has only 16 ready to fire missiles...


Yes, you're correct that the 4 Launchers is the "usual minimum number" and yes, even according to wikipedia a S-400 battery can have a maximum number of 12 Launchers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system

However if you noticed I compared a S-400 battery with 4 Launchers against a single F-35. So if you want to 'bring' a S-400 battery with 12 Launchers then I'll bring a flight of 4 x F-35s which is the usual F-35 formation. This would/could bring up the number of SDBs to a total of 32 SDBs.


boogieman wrote:- The effect of cooperative EW is certainly very relevant but also an intangible... it's nigh on impossible to know what effects it would have based on OSINT. On the other hand you'd also have to acknowledge that a big powerful AESA like Grave Stone may have EA capabilities of its own, along with those of any local Krasukha units.


Well, it is well known that the F-35 EW was able to hide a flight of F-16s from opposing radars. Since the F-35 EW system could "apparently and easily" hide a flight of F-16s from opposing radars then it's easy to imagine that its effectiveness in hiding a bunch of SDBs which are much smaller and have much lower RCS will be even more effective and easy. :wink:


boogieman wrote:- Yes SDB is an LO object in its own right, but as a subsonic glide weapon it is also rather slow and unmaneuverable. Once detected and locked the SDB would not make for an overly challenging target kinematically - it would be more a question of delaying detection and acquisition (via LO and EW) and maximising numbers to ensure enough of them get through. This is where AARGM-ER comes into play, because it could reduce available reaction time significantly, especially at closer ranges.


On the other hand the SDB's low RCS means that the S-400 radars will only detect SDBs when they are close to the battery and this detection range will be even more shortened due to the F-35 EW suite (as explained above) which means the S-400 reaction time against SDBs would be very short, if any.
Also due to being a very small and gliding weapon it means that its IR signature will be small which means that relying on IR sensors to detect incoming SDBs wouldn't be reliable/effective.
Moreover even if a SDB is detected on time to employ a missile against it, you have to acknowledge that the SDB is a very small target and hitting a very small target with a missile is definitely not an easy feat, even if the target is "rather slow and unmaneuverable" like you said. With this, I mean that you will never have a 100% PK against a SDB (doesn't matter which weapon you deploy against it).
Besides with a flight of 2-4 F-35's would can launch SDBs against a S-400 battery from different directions which will makes the task of intercepting incoming SDBs a much, much harder (if not impossible) for the S-400 battery.

All the above means:
1- A S-400 battery won't have enough time to engage all and above all be able to launch enough missiles to destroy all and every incoming SDBs.
2- And even if for some 'miracle' a S-400 battery could destroy all incoming SDBs, this would still be a win for the F-35/SDB combo because each S-400 missile is more expensive than each SDB and such "successful operation" by a S-400 battery would mean that its missiles would be depleted and thus totally vulnerable to any follow up attack.

Yes, weapons like the AARGM-ER/SiAW could technically reduce available reaction time significantly. However, don't forget that such weapons probably have a higher RCS and a much, much higher IR signature which means that they will likely be detected at longer ranges.
Resuming AARGM-ER/SiAW will reduce the enemy's available reaction time thru speed while the SDB does basically the same this by having lower signature and being harder to detect or more precisely being only detected by the enemy at closer ranges.
Note that I'm not saying that the AARGM-ER/SiAW couldn't be more effective than the SDB. I even agree that it probably is. However also note that the AARGM-ER/SiAW is also much more expensive weapon than the SDB.


boogieman wrote:- I also take Russian info with a mountain of salt, but I found that particular article entertaining. There was a video from RT circulating a couple of weeks back that showed two Pantsir vehicles pitted against a single small prop driven UAV. After unloading an ungodly amount of 30mm at the thing they hit nothing but air. This ultimately led to one (presumably frustrated) gunner finally bringing it down with a 57E6. I can't find it any more - I guess the Kremlin's people may have pulled it from the net. Brownie points for anyone who can re-locate it.

- With that said, I do believe Tor and Pantsir can be datalinked to their "parent" S400 system in the point defence role, so I would expect their performance to be better here. S400 sensors would provide earlier warning of incoming munitions allowing Pantsir/Tor to focus their own radar energy into smaller volumes of airspace, resulting in earlier detection, acquisition and employment of interceptors.


As you can see below, the Pantsir's missiles don't seem to be very effective against "slow and unmaneuverable" (but bigger in this case) incoming weapons (in this case a Delilah cruise missile it seems):

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 29 Mar 2020, 23:17
by boogieman
ricnunes wrote:Yes, you're correct that the 4 Launchers is the "usual minimum number" and yes, even according to wikipedia a S-400 battery can have a maximum number of 12 Launchers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400_missile_system

However if you noticed I compared a S-400 battery with 4 Launchers against a single F-35. So if you want to 'bring' a S-400 battery with 12 Launchers then I'll bring a flight of 4 x F-35s which is the usual F-35 formation. This would/could bring up the number of SDBs to a total of 32 SDBs.

Yes, and this is where discussions like this can fall into a trap, because in the real world it is not a platform vs platform fight, but a system vs system fight. That said, 1 x S400 battery vs 1 x 4 ship of F35s sounds interesting.
ricnunes wrote:Well, it is well known that the F-35 EW was able to hide a flight of F-16s from opposing radars. Since the F-35 EW system could "apparently and easily" hide a flight of F-16s from opposing radars then it's easy to imagine that its effectiveness in hiding a bunch of SDBs which are much smaller and have much lower RCS will be even more effective and easy.

Hmm, I’m not sure how much we can read into this without knowing how the effect was achieved. For example if the F35 was providing escort jamming it may have needed to stay in close physical proximity to the F16s (obviously not possible with the SDBs). We also don’t know what kind of radar system the jamming was performed against – was it comparable to Grave Stone? Big Bird? Nebo-M? Hard to say.
ricnunes wrote:On the other hand the SDB's low RCS means that the S-400 radars will only detect SDBs when they are close to the battery and this detection range will be even more shortened due to the F-35 EW suite (as explained above) which means the S-400 reaction time against SDBs would be very short, if any.

I’m not so sure. It would certainly be shortened but it’s almost impossible to say by how much without knowing (for example) the RCS of SDB and the effectiveness of F35 EA against Grave Stone. The Grave Stone is a modern AESA in its own right, so it will have significant resistance to EW built in.
ricnunes wrote:Also due to being a very small and gliding weapon it means that its IR signature will be small which means that relying on IR sensors to detect incoming SDBs wouldn't be reliable/effective.
Moreover even if a SDB is detected on time to employ a missile against it, you have to acknowledge that the SDB is a very small target and hitting a very small target with a missile is definitely not an easy feat, even if the target is "rather slow and unmaneuverable" like you said. With this, I mean that you will never have a 100% PK against a SDB (doesn't matter which weapon you deploy against it).
Besides with a flight of 2-4 F-35's would can launch SDBs against a S-400 battery from different directions which will makes the task of intercepting incoming SDBs a much, much harder (if not impossible) for the S-400 battery.

I’m not confident that the SDB’s physical size alone would afford it much protection. Most S400 missiles have pretty big warheads. That said I agree that a multi-axis attack would be ideal. This is probably one of the big advantages of SDB over AARGM-ER – you can set them all to approach from different vectors and arrive simultaneously.
ricnunes wrote:As you can see below, the Pantsir's missiles don't seem to be very effective against "slow and unmaneuverable" (but bigger in this case) incoming weapons (in this case a Delilah cruise missile it seems):

The Russian claim is that the Pantsir repelled multiple waves of Delilah missiles before being hit while it reloaded, and that only one Pantsir was ever lost. I am obviously very skeptical of this claim. That said, an S400 site networked to multiple Pantsir/Tor systems still has a very large number of interceptors at its disposal, making the task of taking one down a very interesting challenge. Moreso if you add something like Krasukha which may have soft kill options up its sleeve. That said, if the S400 has an achilles heel, one of them would surely be that it takes an hour to reload one of its TELs(!) so if you can whittle down its missile stocks it will be very vulnerable after that.

My personal view is that you really need to use all the systems available to tackle the S400 and the systems that support it. ISR aircraft to sniff out and locate the site, Compass Call to provide standoff jamming, F22 to provide CAP/escort to strikers, F35 to perform SEAD/DEAD, possibly UAS to act as decoys and even long range MLRS (TACMS/PRSM) to help deplete the site’s available missile stocks etc etc.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2020, 01:57
by weasel1962
From a defensive perspectives, few will place area SAMs in isolation. There will be layers of SHORADs and possibly MRAD to handle saturation attacks, even possibly a last ditch CRAM.

Having said that, the main weakness of long ranged SAMs is the reliance on radar. Take out the single (and maybe back-up) radar, the site is ineffective, no matter how many launchers there are. In practice, its impossible to defend against a determined saturation attack. There will always be something that gets thru, and it only needs 1 PGM to hit.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2020, 02:20
by boogieman
weasel1962 wrote:From a defensive perspectives, few will place area SAMs in isolation. There will be layers of SHORADs and possibly MRAD to handle saturation attacks, even possibly a last ditch CRAM.

Having said that, the main weakness of long ranged SAMs is the reliance on radar. Take out the single (and maybe back-up) radar, the site is ineffective, no matter how many launchers there are. In practice, its impossible to defend against a determined saturation attack. There will always be something that gets thru, and it only needs 1 PGM to hit.

There will also likely be decoys to sort through and the fact that the system itself is capable of relocating as it sees fit.

That said, taking out the Grave Stone FCR should nullify the site for all intents and purposes, or at least significantly handicap it. Once that is down the remaining pieces ought to be a lot easier to find and kill, providing an opportunity to induce the collapse of the local enemy IADS.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2020, 03:26
by eloise
boogieman wrote:- I also take Russian info with a mountain of salt, but I found that particular article entertaining. There was a video from RT circulating a couple of weeks back that showed two Pantsir vehicles pitted against a single small prop driven UAV. After unloading an ungodly amount of 30mm at the thing they hit nothing but air. This ultimately led to one (presumably frustrated) gunner finally bringing it down with a 57E6. I can't find it any more - I guess the Kremlin's people may have pulled it from the net. Brownie points for anyone who can re-locate it.

I think this is the video

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2020, 03:52
by boogieman
eloise wrote:I think this is the video

:lmao:
You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar. :notworthy:

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2020, 04:41
by weasel1962
boogieman wrote:There will also likely be decoys to sort through and the fact that the system itself is capable of relocating as it sees fit.

That said, taking out the Grave Stone FCR should nullify the site for all intents and purposes, or at least significantly handicap it. Once that is down the remaining pieces ought to be a lot easier to find and kill, providing an opportunity to induce the collapse of the local enemy IADS.


There is an advantage in decoy utility for the attacker, rather than the defender. Cheap static decoy for the defender is less useful if the attacker uses EW to detect. Whilst using simple antenaes to simulate signal is feasible, the FCR operates on certain frequencies. Hence any signal decoy would need to sync with the FCR signal to avoid disruption. Not easy.

Whereas for the attacker, the defender doesn't have time to separate the chaff from the wheat. That's why Israeli styled Bekaa kind of attaks, with drone and today's MALD decoys etc makes life even worse for the defender. There are other defensive games that can be played but overall, IADS should only be seen as a delay or supplment rather than something that can fully defend against a determined aggressor, especially one with significant air power like the US. Its also a reminder for ignorantly placing too much emphasis on a Taiwan SAM defence scenario, instead of a proper IADS with air cover.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2020, 13:23
by ricnunes
boogieman wrote:Hmm, I’m not sure how much we can read into this without knowing how the effect was achieved. For example if the F35 was providing escort jamming it may have needed to stay in close physical proximity to the F16s (obviously not possible with the SDBs). We also don’t know what kind of radar system the jamming was performed against – was it comparable to Grave Stone? Big Bird? Nebo-M? Hard to say.


Yes, we really don't know much of the details. But I would assume that it probably was against other fighter aircraft radar and/or western SAM sites, namely Patriots or it could even have been against radars/transmitters simulating systems such as the S-300/400.

Anyway, my point above was that the F-35 does have excellent standoff jamming capability. Basically you hardly need a dedicated EW aircraft like the Growler for example because and since the F-35 can get closer to the SAM site (due to its Stealth) the F-35 standoff jamming capability is most likely better/more effective compared to a EW aircraft like the Growler against the Grave Stone radar and potentially even better against a Big Bird radar while a dedicated EW aircraft like the Growler would be better against the Nebo-M VHF radar due to covering a much wider band.
So, I would say that the F-35 EW would certainly make the task of detecting incoming SDBs by Grave Stone radars and potentially by Big Bird radars a very, very hard one.
Due to the SDB small size, I would say that there's a considerable probability that SDBs can't be detected by the Nebo-M VHF radar since this radar works with the metric wavelength.

With the above being said, I would say that a weapon like SiAW would be excellent against the Nebo-M VHF radar since it would allow the F-35s to get even closer to a S-400 site (and with all the already discussed benefits of this).


boogieman wrote:I’m not so sure. It would certainly be shortened but it’s almost impossible to say by how much without knowing (for example) the RCS of SDB and the effectiveness of F35 EA against Grave Stone. The Grave Stone is a modern AESA in its own right, so it will have significant resistance to EW built in.


It's well known that the F-35 radar (APG-81) is able to jam the F-22 radar (APG-77) which except for the F-35 own radar is the most advanced AESA radar in existence today (and in the foreseeable future). So, if the F-35 radar can jam the F-22 radar then I would say that jamming the Grave Stone radar would be a "relatively easy" or in a "worse case scenario", a quite feasible task.


boogieman wrote:I’m not confident that the SDB’s physical size alone would afford it much protection. Most S400 missiles have pretty big warheads. That said I agree that a multi-axis attack would be ideal. This is probably one of the big advantages of SDB over AARGM-ER – you can set them all to approach from different vectors and arrive simultaneously.


Well, as you can see from the video which you originally referred to (and eloise later posted) shooting down small targets is indeed a hard task. And as opposed to that drone, SDBs wouldn't be flying circles around or near the SAM site just waiting to be shot down :wink:

Nevertheless and independently of what would be the actual S-400 missile effectiveness or PK against an incoming SDB (granted that it can detect it on a timely manner) I believe we can agree that such effectiveness or PK would never be 100%, right?


boogieman wrote:My personal view is that you really need to use all the systems available to tackle the S400 and the systems that support it. ISR aircraft to sniff out and locate the site, Compass Call to provide standoff jamming, F22 to provide CAP/escort to strikers, F35 to perform SEAD/DEAD, possibly UAS to act as decoys and even long range MLRS (TACMS/PRSM) to help deplete the site’s available missile stocks etc etc.


Here's probably where I would disagree with you the most since it's in fact the S-400 that "needs to use all the systems available" (S-400 missiles, Pantsir, Tor, Krasukha, Nebo-M, you name it...) this just to barely be able to survive (let alone be able to shoot down an actual F-35)! And again, nothing of this remotely guarantees that the S-400 can survive even a small volley of SDBs.

Basically if you're building an Air Defense System that the best it can do is to barely survive a small volley of incoming munitions then I'm afraid that you already lost. :wink:

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2020, 16:44
by blindpilot
This may be a good place to make distinctions once again as to what "5th Gen" architecture is all about (especially description of "Sensor fusion" et al)

While the IADS systems of today have some remarkable abilities they tend towards lego style stove pipes in many regards. "A" is for long distance, "B" is for short distance, "C" is for fast ... "D" is for high altitude etc. Add them all together and they are deadly for everything, far away, close up, fast, high. BUT the actual implementation is more of a "kill chain" structure in that every link must work to stop all attacks.

Fifth Gen attackers (F-35) Is more of a mesh network. In fact often with the F-35, the operator/pilot doesn't even know which system is "systeming." Did radar or EOTS pick that up? Was it me or my wing man? We really don't know. Do we need to ... or did we .. use our missiles or a 4th gen aircraft missiles or some from a ship? Many or most of the warriors in the fifth gen formation don't know. Instead of a chain it is more like a fishing net that might get a hole in it, but you can move it around and it still catches the fish from the good sections.

The applications (apps) sit atop the overall robust and redundant architecture.

Since the IADS set up, (like S-400) is the former configuration it will always be vulnerable to a 5th Gen "App" like the F-35.

BTW this is why our (US) IAD systems (like AEGIS in the fleet) also NEED actual air dominance provided by the F-35 and other networked systems to truly defend. The SM-6 on a DDG is just a anti aircraft stove pipe in a the fleet chain ... UNLESS .. it is networked into the F-35's above and joins the fifth gen "mesh." Then it becomes truly deadly in every way, against low skimming cruise, high flying ballistic, slow sailing surface ships or whatever the network tasks it to do. In fact we might never know that the reason the Network sent that SM-6 against the surface ship was the harpoon was stopped by an IADS response. The mesh just replies, SM-6 fires and ship dies. Simple as that.

MHO FWIW,
BP

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2020, 19:00
by knowan
boogieman wrote:The Russian claim is that the Pantsir repelled multiple waves of Delilah missiles before being hit while it reloaded, and that only one Pantsir was ever lost. I am obviously very skeptical of this claim.


You definitely should be sceptical of the Russian claim; there's two Pantsir destroyed in that video, one of which was actively defending itself with multiple missile launches, all of which failed to take down the incoming Delilah.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2020, 19:11
by underscan
So is using 30mm rounds always useless or only efficient when directly coming at you? I am just wondering because there is alot of media circulating around Syrian air defenses shooting down Turkish drones(showing alot of images on the web)along with a viral online meme showing Erdogan signing a drone for a mission that was shot down later.

I got some s-400 questions listed a page back(admin gave the greenlight today) if anyone wants to share their ideas ideas with me on those 4 points I listed.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2020, 19:49
by sferrin
underscan wrote:So is using 30mm rounds always useless or only efficient when directly coming at you? I am just wondering because there is alot of media circulating around Syrian air defenses shooting down Turkish drones(showing alot of images on the web)along with a viral online meme showing Erdogan signing a drone for a mission that was shot down later.

I got some s-400 questions listed a page back(admin gave the greenlight today) if anyone wants to share their ideas ideas with me on those 4 points I listed.


Any relation to Overscan? :D

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2020, 19:59
by hythelday
knowan wrote:
boogieman wrote:The Russian claim is that the Pantsir repelled multiple waves of Delilah missiles before being hit while it reloaded, and that only one Pantsir was ever lost. I am obviously very skeptical of this claim.


You definitely should be sceptical of the Russian claim; there's two Pantsir destroyed in that video, one of which was actively defending itself with multiple missile launches, all of which failed to take down the incoming Delilah.


Keep in mind that Russian MOD spokesman said via official russian government TASS outlet that only two Pantsirs were damaged and were "being repaired to return into service". They don't even pretend to care to make believable statesments. The point is to flood the air with multiple statesmens, preferrably controversial and contradictory.

sferrin wrote:
underscan wrote:obvious incoherent wewuz bullshit


Any relation to Overscan? :D


It's his cousin from the top secret ROFAR devrlopment facility.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 30 Mar 2020, 23:00
by boogieman
ricnunes wrote:Yes, we really don't know much of the details. But I would assume that it probably was against other fighter aircraft radar and/or western SAM sites, namely Patriots or it could even have been against radars/transmitters simulating systems such as the S-300/400...

...Basically if you're building an Air Defense System that the best it can do is to barely survive a small volley of incoming munitions then I'm afraid that you already lost. :wink:


I think there are a few things to consider here:

- I have no doubt that the F35 has a potent jamming capability – both via the APG81 and I suspect (though it is not publically acknowledged) through other apertures around the airframe that allow for wide angle jamming in the beam and aft sectors.

- Jamming Nebo-M would be tough given its wavelength, possibly even for Growler. The fact that Growler is not a VLO aircraft would force it to conduct standoff jamming from outside the reach of 40N6, which could be prohibitively far. You might very well need Compass Call to be sure the job gets done... NGJ at the very least.

- The APG77 is certainly an excellent radar, and rightly represents the gold standard for fighter radars the world over. That said, it is completely different to Grave Stone, which uses a far larger and more powerful array. It is probably more analogous to a suitably scaled SPY6 in this regard. Could the F35(s) jam it? Certainly. What effect would this have? Not sure.

- I’m not convinced that the S400 would be quite so easy to destroy for the simple reason that there are a number of important questions we simply can’t adequately answer in the public domain.

- For example; what effect would jamming from the F35(s) (and enablers) have on the S400’s sensors? At what range would the S400 be able to start engaging the F35’s weapons? How effective would the S400’s missiles be at intercepting LO/VLO targets like SDB and F35? Would Russian EW assets be able to provide soft kill options against weapons like AARGM-ER or SDB? All of these (and more) would need to be answered before I could give a definitive assessment.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2020, 01:28
by ricnunes
boogieman wrote:- I have no doubt that the F35 has a potent jamming capability – both via the APG81 and I suspect (though it is not publically acknowledged) through other apertures around the airframe that allow for wide angle jamming in the beam and aft sectors.


Correct, the APG-81 will be the main source of the F-35's most potent jamming capability (although not the only one).


boogieman wrote:- Jamming Nebo-M would be tough given its wavelength, possibly even for Growler. The fact that Growler is not a VLO aircraft would force it to conduct standoff jamming from outside the reach of 40N6, which could be prohibitively far. You might very well need Compass Call to be sure the job gets done... NGJ at the very least.


Actually (and if my memory isn't failing me) the bigger the wavelength is, the easier it is to jam and metric wavelength radar are notoriously vulnerable to jamming. The 'difficulty' of jamming a radar with big wavelength (such as metric) is that if you also need at the same time be able to jam shorter wavelength radars (which you do since the vast majority of radars on the battlefield use shorter wavelength such as centimetric) then you'll need specific and bigger wideband equipment for this, equipment which is carried by dedicated EW aircraft such as the Growler (being such equipment, its EW pods).
In theory the Nebo-M VHF radar being AESA and modern could make the jamming task a little bit harder for an EW aircraft like the Growler with current EW pods but then again the NGJ should take care of this.


boogieman wrote:- The APG77 is certainly an excellent radar, and rightly represents the gold standard for fighter radars the world over. That said, I don’t think it is terribly comparable to Grave Stone. Grave Stone uses a far larger and more powerful array. It is probably more analogous to a suitably scaled SPY6 in this regard. Could the F35(s) jam it? Certainly. What effect would this have? Not sure.


This has actually been discussed here at F-16.net several times. For example members like Hornetfinn for example clearly explained how the F-35 will be extremely effective in jamming even the more powerful radars.
Basically it doesn't matter much that the Grave Stone radar is more powerful than the F-35 APG-81 radar because:
1- The APG-77 radar while technically less powerful than the Grave Stone it is still more advanced and as such technically harder to jam.
2- The F-35 EW jamming signal using the APG-81 radar as an antenna would be directional and narrow while the signal emitted by the Grave Stone radar would usually be wide (it must be or else it wouldn't be able to cover a significant airspace when scanning for targets in several directions effectively). And a lower output but narrow signal is still more powerful than a somehow higher output but wider signal.
3- A directional EW signal will be more effective if it's closer to the radar source it intends to jam as opposed to being located farther away. Due to the F-35 Stealth, the F-35 can send its directional EW signals against a Grave Stone radar while being closer to it and thus making the F-35 EW/jamming much more effective against this or any other kind of similar radars even compared with dedicated EW assets like the Growler which as you correctly mentioned must stay further away from the radar source.
4- Due to the laws of physics the lower the RCS of an object is the less powerful EW signal you'll need to hide such low RCS object from a much more powerful radar. And remember that not only the F-35 but also the SDB have low RCS.

Anyway, I believe that hornetfinn could explain the above better (specially with technical details) than I. So, lets hope that he sees this thread/post.


boogieman wrote:- I’m not convinced that the S400 would be quite so easy to destroy for the simple reason that there are a number of important questions we simply can’t adequately answer in the public domain.

- For example; what effect would jamming from the F35(s) (and enablers) have on the S400’s sensors? At what range would the S400 be able to start engaging the F35’s weapons? How effective would the S400’s missiles be at intercepting LO/VLO targets like SDB and F35?


Well, for my part I'm certainly not convinced at all that the S400 can survive even a small valley of SDBs.
Think for a second: Even the most modern and best Air Defense Systems have a hard time in dealing or being able to destroy big and not that fast cruise missiles then imagine against very small and low RCS (and with hardly any IR signature) incoming glide bombs.
So everything that I've seen, read, learned and mentioned above and before, gives the advantage/edge to the SDB and definitely not to the S-400.


boogieman wrote:Would Russian EW assets be able to provide soft kill options against weapons like AARGM-ER or SDB? All of these (and more) would need to be answered before I could give a definitive assessment.


Nope, at least not against the SDBII/GBU-53. The GBU-53 besides the GPS guidance has a Tri-Seeker mode (Active-Radar, IR and Laser) so even if the Russian EW assets are for some reason able to jam the incoming SDBs radar seeker, they still have their own IR seekers to home on their targets. By combining, GPS/Radar/IR seekers (you could also add Laser but for this lets assume that the F-35 still stays away from Laser Designator range) which the GBU-53 really does and then the difficulty in jamming such weapons becomes extremely hard or even almost impossible.
Moreover the GBU-53 active radar seeker uses millimeter wavelength which is very hard (the hardest) to jam. By the way, AARGM-ER and SiAW also carry millimeter wavelength radar seekers.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2020, 01:51
by boogieman
Yes, essentially agree with all of the above. My only remaining thoughts are:

- Can Growler/NGJ even jam in the VHF band? I would have thought it was too small (physically) to produce a waveform of that size.

- I am certainly interested in hearing expert input on how AN/ASQ239 would match up against a large and powerful radar like Grave Stone.

- I don't take it for granted that APG77 is necessarily more advanced than Grave Stone per se. They are both modern AESAs so it would be great to hear a break down of the features of both including what features make the APG77 more technologically sophisticated.

- On SDB/PGMs vs Russian EW. Russian sources regularly claim the ability to produce false thermal images as a feature of their more modern jamming equipment (ref SAP-14 and L175). Whether this is even possible I have no idea. I am skeptical but then again I would have been skeptical of their ability to defuse incoming artillery rounds via EW until they did it to the Ukrainians:

https://youtu.be/14LMmBsDw-g?t=1642

Russia's capacity to disrupt both GPS and RF based guidance via EW is obviously well documented. It would be great to get some expert insight on this as well.

https://medium.com/dfrlab/russian-gps-j ... 4ff7d8dcb8
https://defensionem.com/russian-electro ... e-systems/

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2020, 11:37
by hornetfinn
boogieman wrote:Yes, essentially agree with all of the above. My only remaining thoughts are:

- Can Growler/NGJ even jam in the VHF band? I would have thought it was too small (physically) to produce a waveform of that size.


I'd say that the low band version definitely can. You don't need big antenna to produce a waveform with that long wavelength but naturally the antenna directivity/gain (and thus effectiveness) are not very good with small antennas. For example there are a lot of handheld VHF radios. That's why VHF radars are huge (like a tennis court or so) as they won't be useful without such a big antenna to give narrow enough beam. Of course jammers don't need to be directional to be useful but higher directivity also means better performance against certain radar.

boogieman wrote:- I am certainly interested in hearing expert input on how AN/ASQ239 would match up against a large and powerful radar like Grave Stone.


I'd say that the combination of VLO stealth and AN/ASQ-239 is using APG-81 antenna for jamming, it will likely be very effective. VLO stealth allows it to do stand-in jamming at close ranges while APG-81 has a lot higher effective radiated power (ERP) than normal self-protection jammers. Of course a lot depends on what it's protecting and how each unit is positioned. For example F-35 jamming Grave Stone from close range while protecting F-22s or other F-35s far away will have pretty easy time. But if itself is far away from the radar and is protecting fully loaded F-15Es flying closer to radar, it will have tough time protecting them from such a powerful radar system.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2020, 16:21
by ricnunes
boogieman wrote:- I don't take it for granted that APG77 is necessarily more advanced than Grave Stone per se. They are both modern AESAs so it would be great to hear a break down of the features of both including what features make the APG77 more technologically sophisticated.


Well, the Americans are far more advanced than the Russians in Electronics specially when it comes to miniaturization of components, which includes Radar Systems (as well as other systems such as EW). Heck, not even the Chinese which have far more money and R&D and builds much more electronic components compared to the Russians, don't have Military Electronics as advanced as those from the US.
As such, it would be a shocking surprise if the Russian Grave Stone was similarly as advanced as the APG-77 (let alone more advanced).


boogieman wrote:- On SDB/PGMs vs Russian EW. Russian sources regularly claim the ability to produce false thermal images as a feature of their more modern jamming equipment (ref SAP-14 and L175). Whether this is even possible I have no idea.


I would say that there's a problem with "producing false thermal images" as you mentioned above as a mean of 'jamming' the target's IR signature against a GBU-53 which is: The IR seeker of the GBU-53 is IIR (Imaging Infra-Red) which means that what the bomb sees is basically what you and I (or human eye) would see but the image is generated using IR spectrum instead of Light Spectrum. The imaging of older IR seekers are basically composed by "IR blobs" but not those generated by IIR which and again are very similar to what a human will see.
With this in mind, IMO the way to jam incoming IIR weapons (GBU-53 and others) would be to generate something like a "massive flare" which could hide the entire S-400 battery from the direction where the bombs are incoming. But I would say that this wouldn't be feasible since it would be extremely hard if not next to impossible.
Another way would be to use a laser to blind the IIR seeker. This could indeed be feasible (and a human eye could be blinded using the same method) however the downside is that first you need to detect the bomb and then aim the laser precisely against it or more precisely against its IIR seeker. But what happens if for example, there are eight (8) incoming GBU-53? Let's say the Russians manage to blind one of them and how about the remaining 7 bombs?
Would the EW vehicle have 8 lasers which could be independently aimed? I don't think so!
And what if there are more than 8 incoming GBU-53s?

Moreover, there are reasons why munitions like the GBU-53 have multiple seekers. One of them should be to make them harder to jam. Also, considering that no jammer is 100% foolproof then using a combination of multiple seekers such as Millimeter-wave Active Radar (remember the harder RF frequencies to jam) with IR (as you can read above, very hard to effectively 'jam' specially in numbers) and with GPS will give the GBU-53 a much better picture of the target and as such be much, much harder to be effectively jammed.


boogieman wrote:I am skeptical but then again I would have been skeptical of their ability to defuse incoming artillery rounds via EW until they did it to the Ukrainians:

https://youtu.be/14LMmBsDw-g?t=1642


Interesting the video that you posted. However what was the real effectiveness of that system? Or resuming, how many rounds were jammed against a total number of incoming rounds?
And also I find strange why such artillery rounds don't have a backup impact detonator? :?
This way even if an EW system is able to defuse an electronic detonator artillery rounds then a (backup) impact detonator would still grant success (if the intention isn't an airburst detonation).

Moreover, you also have to notice that the Ukrainians use Soviet era weaponry which is extremely well known by the Russians and so developing an EW against Soviet era (and old) equipment by the Russians should be a "no brainer".
Now developing EW against modern western similar equipment would be a "different ball game".

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 31 Mar 2020, 22:43
by boogieman
Thanks to hornetfinn and ricnunes for your input, your perspective is always appreciated. A few thoughts:

- It does seem as though VLO has heavily influenced US doctrine with respect to EW. Rather than use large fleets of dedicated standoff jammers (the USAF only has ~12 Compass Call aircraft IIRC), there seems to be a shift to using the synergistic relationship between VLO RCS and jamming to suppress enemy GBAD radars.

- I also remain skeptical of the Russian claim that they can spoof IR/IIR based systems using EW. I have no idea how you would achieve this via the emission of RF energy. The physics just doesn't make any sense to me.

- The Ukraine definitely provided the Russians with an almost perfect shooting gallery within which to test their latest equipment. In almost every case the Ukrainians were using an older, more outdated version of the Russians' own gear. As you pointed out ricnunes, this is particularly relevant in the EW space, where tuning jamming equipment for optimal effect would have been unusually easy - far moreso than would have been the case if the Ukrainians were using modern western systems.

- With this said, it would be foolhardy to ignore or dismiss Russian advances in the EW domain. They appear to have developed a host of platforms and doctrines that have no western equivalent, and I think we in the west are right to be concerned about this. I am actually tempted to start another thread on this topic so we can explore it further.

EDIT: Voila - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=56807&p=437752#p437752

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2020, 10:11
by boogieman
While we're on the topic:
The US Navy (USN) issued a sole-source contract notification for the commencement of low-rate initial production (LRIP) of the Northrop Grumman AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile-Extended Range (AARGM-ER) on 31 March.

The notification, posted by the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) on the beta.sam.gov website, says that it is to award the LRIP 1 contract for the AARGM-ER air-to-surface missile to Alliant TechSystems Operations LLC, also referred to as Northrop Grumman Defense Systems (NGDS).

"NAVAIR intends to award a sole source Fixed-Price-Incentive Fee (FPIF) contract […] for the procurement of all tasks required to manufacture, fabricate, assemble, inspect, test, integrate and deliver the AGM-88G AARGM-ER All-Up Rounds (AUR), AGM-88G Captive Air Training Missiles (CATM), spares, support equipment, and Special Test Equipment (STE); and to provide programme management, systems engineering, system safety, configuration management, quality assurance, and integrated logistics support," the command said.

The notification did not disclose numbers, timelines, or an estimated contract value.

https://www.janes.com/article/95225/nav ... 1-contract

I must say this is moving fast. I wonder how long it will be before F35s are lugging live rounds.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2020, 12:07
by sferrin
A while. There are no F-35Cs deployed at sea.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2020, 16:56
by Gums
Salute!

I gotta admit, that new HARM makes a helluva difference for the SEAD jets, ..... the adversary SAM and radar-controlled AAA folks should be very afraid.

I had to review the specs and if it only works half as good as the spec it is a game-changer.

Imagine if you are one of the cosmic, uber SAM control component ( vehicle, portable buikding, etc), and you cannot see the Stubbie until 30 or 40 miles. He can see you! If you luck out and detect the HARM lurch, whatchya gonna do? Shut down and maybe the mmw seeker won't pick you up, but then again....... come back on line and pray to hit the incoming HARM? Oooops, his wingie HARM is now refining your position and homing in.

This stuff is getting very interesting, and I hope Red Flag is working up some scenarios. I only flew one mission closely coordinating with the Spark Vaark, and it was a blast. Being the mission commander that day, I had a lotta say about the attack plan, heh heh. So my wingie and I attacked the biggest, longest range SAM at the time ( SA-4) in the scenario. We flew wing on the Vaark at over 500 knots at 20K and rode his "shower of power" straight in until about 25 - 30 miles from the bad boy and bombed the sucker with dumb iron bombs!! The Vaark continued to jam as he turned tail but his jamming worked and the SAM didn't light up until we were about to release and too close for his missiles to engage. Now, the rest of the strike only had to deal with the less capable SAM sites and we had Weasels to help in that regard. A good day for the old man.

Gums sends...

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2020, 17:43
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I love Red Flag stories.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2020, 18:01
by underscan
Are there some red flag exercises that also included things like decoy emitters that can lure anti-radiation missiles away to short range air defenses? I am assuming that dual homing options are now the solution to address this with the newest versions of the HARM missiles.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2020, 19:51
by Gums
Salute!

@ underscan

You have to talk with active players and planners about the scenarios, sir. Hope you have a good security clearance and follow guidance about what you learn.

My war stories are from 30 years ago, and even some things from back then are still not for general discussion except us chickens that were there then.

I must remind you that some of the exercises do not have many foreign contributors. The U.S. has very close allies that have been there since the inception of Red Flag and Green Flag. NATO !!!

I doubt if the whole capabilities of the Red Flag "threat" simulators and other things are used or advertised for many exercises, depending upon who is there. Fer chrissakes, the drill is intended to enhance capabilities of the U.S. and close Allied folks.

Gums sends..

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2020, 22:44
by jessmo112
underscan wrote:Are there some red flag exercises that also included things like decoy emitters that can lure anti-radiation missiles away to short range air defenses? I am assuming that dual homing options are now the solution to address this with the newest versions of the HARM missiles.


I think there is an old saying.. someone who talks doesnt know and those who know wont talk, or something like that. Anyway. The F-35 doesnt need the emitter to locate the sam. The F-35 can find the sam via Sar map.

https://youtu.be/wIwAOupjMeM

So the decoys are irrelevant.
Even if you had a number of decoys, I would just saturate the area with SBD instead.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2020, 22:53
by ricnunes
boogieman wrote:Thanks to hornetfinn and ricnunes for your input, your perspective is always appreciated. A few thoughts:

- It does seem as though VLO has heavily influenced US doctrine with respect to EW. Rather than use large fleets of dedicated standoff jammers (the USAF only has ~12 Compass Call aircraft IIRC), there seems to be a shift to using the synergistic relationship between VLO RCS and jamming to suppress enemy GBAD radars.

- I also remain skeptical of the Russian claim that they can spoof IR/IIR based systems using EW. I have no idea how you would achieve this via the emission of RF energy. The physics just doesn't make any sense to me.

- The Ukraine definitely provided the Russians with an almost perfect shooting gallery within which to test their latest equipment. In almost every case the Ukrainians were using an older, more outdated version of the Russians' own gear. As you pointed out ricnunes, this is particularly relevant in the EW space, where tuning jamming equipment for optimal effect would have been unusually easy - far moreso than would have been the case if the Ukrainians were using modern western systems.


Yes, I would say that your thoughts above are spot on!


boogieman wrote:- With this said, it would be foolhardy to ignore or dismiss Russian advances in the EW domain. They appear to have developed a host of platforms and doctrines that have no western equivalent, and I think we in the west are right to be concerned about this. I am actually tempted to start another thread on this topic so we can explore it further.

EDIT: Voila - viewtopic.php?f=16&t=56807&p=437752#p437752


Well, I fully agree with what you said above as well. I hope that I didn't sound too dismissive about those modern Russian Air Defense Systems like the S-400 and others.

Those modern Russian Air Defense Systems like the S-400 are (IMO) definitely deadly and a "tough nut to crack", specially against 4th and 4.5th gen fighter aircraft. That's why new 5th gen fighter aircraft - namely the F-35 (but also and of course the F-22) are being fielded.

In my humble opinion the S-400 and all the other systems that you mentioned could still pose a considerable degree of danger against 5th gen fighter aircraft like the F-35, if:
1- used together with a powerful air force equipped with equaly capable and opposing 5th gen fighter aircraft (something that IMO, the Russians don't have).
2- or, in case an opposing force like Russian forces are equipped with those Russian Air Defense Systems but isn't able to secure the Air Superiority over its own airspace (or its own air force is destroyed/neutralized) then there's also a possibility of setting up 'ambush' tactics in order to be able to shot down a few or some enemy aircraft. Of course such tactic would never be able to stop enemy attacks and the best it could do would be to somehow attrit the enemy/opposing air force and as such would never ensure victory.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2020, 23:16
by ricnunes
@ Gums,
Very interesting and awesome that story of yours against the SA-4, that's for sharing! :thumb:

As such I would like to pose you two questions:

1- Which aircraft were you flying during that exercise? I couldn't gather that from your post but from your background it would either be a A-7 or F-16, no?

2- For some reason the SA-4 (Ganef) was a SAM system that always 'fascinated' me. Perhaps it's because it was the least well known Soviet SAM system (to me at least), among the least exported (compared to other Soviet SAM systems) and as far as I know was never used in real/actual combat or perhaps its those massive missiles mounted on a chassis which should make it a very mobile system, I dunno.
However, my 2nd question is: What's your take/opinion on the Ganef compared with other Soviet SAM systems or the era, namely the SA-2, SA-3, SA-5 and specially the SA-6 (this one a system that I always find a bit similar to the SA-4, although I could be wrong?) or even against similar era/timeframe western SAM systems?

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 01 Apr 2020, 23:30
by boogieman
jessmo112 wrote:The F-35 doesnt need the emitter to locate the sam. The F-35 can find the sam via Sar map.

https://youtu.be/wIwAOupjMeM

So the decoys are irrelevant.
Even if you had a number of decoys, I would just saturate the area with SBD instead.

Actually SAR may not always be so effective if the S400 site is accompanied by EW systems like SPN-4 and Krasukha 2/4. If present, their job would be to jam APG81 and prevent it from SAR mapping the desired area, although I admit I'm not sure how effective they would be. Passively geolocating the true emitters would be ideal, since breaking EMCON via SAR mapping would also risk giving away the F35's position to Moskva-1, possibly allowing it to cue a punitive missile shot from the S400. Cooperative mapping by multiple F35s alternating radar "chirps" might solve this problem, but I confess I am no expert on the subject.

Take out Grave Stone and the whole site should be more or less disarmed. Take out its other arrays (Big Bird, Nebo-M etc) and it would be blind, deaf and dumb. The remaining vehicles (EW, point defences, C2, TELs) could then be hunted down and picked off from there.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2020, 00:08
by madrat
Jam an agile signal? Preposterous!

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2020, 00:09
by boogieman
Hasn't APG81 demonstrated an ability to jam APG77? I know jamming a modern AESA is difficult, but I didn't think it was impossible...

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2020, 00:36
by hythelday
boogieman wrote:
jessmo112 wrote:The F-35 doesnt need the emitter to locate the sam. The F-35 can find the sam via Sar map.

https://youtu.be/wIwAOupjMeM

So the decoys are irrelevant.
Even if you had a number of decoys, I would just saturate the area with SBD instead.

Actually SAR may not always be so effective if the S400 site is accompanied by EW systems like SPN-4 and Krasukha 2/4. If present, their job would be to jam APG81 and prevent it from SAR mapping the desired area. Not sure how effective they would be, but passively geolocating the true emitters would be ideal, since breaking EMCON like that would also risk giving away the F35's position to a system like Moskva-1 (although cooperative mapping by multiple F35s alternating radar "chirps" might solve this problem).

Take out Grave Stone and the whole site should be more or less disarmed. Take out its other arrays (Big Bird, Nebo-M etc) and it would be blind, deaf and dumb. The TELs could then be hunted down and picked off from there.


It's is more important to take out C&C "booths" (e.g. Universal, Baikal, Senezh etc.) that can share targeting data from external sources, including A-50 Mainstay (and probably MiG-31 Foxhound too). They don't put "I" in front of ADS for nothing, SA-21 units are not limited to their organic Flap Lid and Big Bird radars only. One can find Soviet publications about their version of network-based warfare as early as 1970s. They did put a lot of work into it, but it yet to be seen how well their systems actually work. Which is highly unlikely by the way, since Russians will always have the benefit of the doubt that whatever they exported was "top notch", and the war against actual Russian systems shall be decided by other weapons anyway.

Image

Image

Image

ricnunes wrote:I would say that there's a problem with "producing false thermal images" as you mentioned above as a mean of 'jamming' the target's IR signature against a GBU-53 which is: The IR seeker of the GBU-53 is IIR (Imaging Infra-Red) which means that what the bomb sees is basically what you and I (or human eye) would see but the image is generated using IR spectrum instead of Light Spectrum. The imaging of older IR seekers are basically composed by "IR blobs" but not those generated by IIR which and again are very similar to what a human will see.



What about a big radar activated smokescreen?
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... etchik.htm

I don't have much info about it. At least this seems like a system that could possibly work... given that it can detect a radar signal... from a LPI APG-81... and a IIR seeker (lol).

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2020, 01:04
by boogieman
hythelday wrote:It's is more important to take out C&C "booths" (e.g. Universal, Baikal, Senezh etc.) that can share targeting data from external sources, including A-50 Mainstay (and probably MiG-31 Foxhound too). They don't put "I" in front of ADS for nothing, SA-21 units are not limited to their organic Flap Lid and Big Bird radars only. One can find Soviet publications about their version of network-based warfare as early as 1970s. They did put a lot of work into it, but it yet to be seen how well their systems actually work. Which is highly unlikely by the way, since Russians will always have the benefit of the doubt that whatever they exported was "top notch", and the war against actual Russian systems shall be decided by other weapons anyway.


Ah yes, the "NIFC-CAski" problem. The question to my mind is how many of those external ISR donors could actually provide the S400 site with targeting data of high enough quality to allow for missile guidance? I suspect MiG31 would be up to the task and maybe the forthcoming A-100 but I have my doubts about the A50. There is also the question of which of the S400's interceptors could be used in this way - 40N6 and 48N6 only? The smaller 9M96 missiles too? Not sure.

I suspect the loss of the Grave Stone would still deliver a big blow to the S400's combat effectiveness, although Cooperative Engagement Capability would certainly soften it. Taking out the control vehicles would be ideal but I imagine they would also be more difficult to pinpoint. Unlike the Grave Stone they wouldn't be sitting there emitting predictably large amounts of RF energy into the surrounding environment...

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2020, 01:30
by Gums
Salute!

Good stuff , hythelday.

One aspect of the Soviet/Russian systems and their execution under fire is that "they" have never used them when under fire thenselves. It has always been the "other" countries and their folks. So it is unfair to critique some instances of Russian system employment.

The best example of using Soviet systems was Vietnam. They had older systems, but they had more "practice" than any client state that bought their systems. In fact, at the time I faced those old SAM's and radar directed AAA, the Vee were likely better than any Soviet unit around. The Middle East scenarios over the years only showed one system to be a game-changer - the SA-6. The doppler radar allowed the site to track you down to the deck, and the IAF found out how good that thing was the hard way. Ask any one of my IAF Viper students about the Yom Kippur fracas. Nevertheless, they figured out tactics and equipment to minimize their effectiveness and then....

Gums sends...

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2020, 13:38
by ricnunes
hythelday wrote:What about a big radar activated smokescreen?
https://translate.google.com/translate? ... etchik.htm

I don't have much info about it. At least this seems like a system that could possibly work... given that it can detect a radar signal... from a LPI APG-81... and a IIR seeker (lol).


First of all, thanks for the link and heads up about that Gazetchik-E system.

From the link and by reading the following:
The problem arose of ensuring the continuous effective functioning of the air defense radar field under conditions of widespread use by the enemy of the anti-radar (PRR) WTO [anti-radar high-precision weapons].

Designed to protect radar from anti-radar missiles (PRR) by the method of short-term shutdown of their radiation by the commands

distracting devices in the frequency range of the protected radar;


With the above I gather that system (or part of that system) is only effective against Passive Radar homing such as used by HARM and other anti-radiation missiles.
In the case of the GBU-53 which uses Active Radar (millimeter wavelength) homing seeker then such system shouldn't be effective or be pretty much useless.
Probably because of systems like the above the newer variants of the HARM missile, namely the AGM-88E AARGM and AGM-88G AARGM-ER not only use Passive Radar homing seekers but also use Active Radar (millimeter wavelength) homing seekers.

From what I've read, this Gazetchik-E system seems to be composed by two (2) components. The component described above would be this:
Image


Details about the other and 2nd component which is meant to be used against other types of seekers, namely IR, Active radar and Electro-Optical can be read in the following quote:
as well as to use distracting devices and interfere with guidance systems of PRR with thermal, television and active radar homing systems.

And by looking at the corresponding image:
Image

This part of the system seems to be composed by Chaffs, Flares and smoke generators (or smoke grenades).
Chaffs would of course be used against Active Radar weapons/seekers, Flares against IR weapons/seekers and smoke generators against Electro-Optical weapons/seekers.
And I have my doubts about the effectiveness of Chaffs against millimeter wavelength Active Radars since the millimeter wavelength should be the hardest to jam and it's well known that Flares aren't so effective against IIR specially when compared against older or less advanced IR seekers.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2020, 13:51
by ricnunes
Gums wrote:Salute!


Hi Gums,

I don't know if you read or noticed my last but one post (my last post on previous page) where I basically posed you two questions based on your experience that you also posted on the last page?

I would appreciate you insight on this, if possible that is? :wink:

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2020, 14:47
by Gums
Salute!

Sorry, ric. BZ here with new restrictions on we old, infirm folks in Florida are stocking up our beer and pretzels for the isolation process.

To address your questions:

1- Which aircraft were you flying during that exercise? I couldn't gather that from your post but from your background it would either be a A-7 or F-16, no?

Was a Bk 15 Viper while attached to the 421st TFS. Was 388th Ops Plans chief, but flew with all three sqds and the reserve unit down the street.
I think last Slufs prolly flew in 1980 or so, and guessing a Guard unit.

2- For some reason the SA-4 (Ganef) was a SAM system that always 'fascinated' me. Perhaps it's because it was the least well known Soviet SAM system (to me at least), among the least exported (compared to other Soviet SAM systems) and as far as I know was never used in real/actual combat or perhaps its those massive missiles mounted on a chassis which should make it a very mobile system, I dunno.
However, my 2nd question is: What's your take/opinion on the Ganef compared with other Soviet SAM systems or the era, namely the SA-2, SA-3, SA-5 and specially the SA-6 (this one a system that I always find a bit similar to the SA-4, although I could be wrong?) or even against similar era/timeframe western SAM systems?


I think the only combat use of the SA-4 could have been Syria in Bekka Valley scenario. Would have to check. It was more of an area defense system and the SA-6 was not( mobile and a point defense system). The main thing at the time was its range. The SA-5 was supposed to have immense range, but we all pooh poohed the claim.

Don't know much about the SA-3, but during Linebacker II there was intell that the Vee had at least a component of the SA-3 because we started to see a different band illuminate on our RHAW gear, and the Weasels noted that.

The SA-2 was ubiquitous up north and I got to see them on the missions I flew there that Christmas. Our chaff and jamming really screwed it up, but it was most effective on non-maneuvering planes. The spray and pray AAA guns got most of the kills - an amazing number of guns, and the good gunners picked out and hit the weakest links.

I would put the SA-6 against the Hawk and prolly have a draw.

Gums sends...

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2020, 15:43
by ricnunes
Gums wrote:Salute!

Sorry, ric. BZ here with new restrictions on we old, infirm folks in Florida are stocking up our beer and pretzels for the isolation process.


No problem Gums!

Here we're also facing restrictions which in our case affects people of all ages. Personally, this also means stocking some beer and wine (and food) and having drinks with some friends thru video-conference while being at home.

And of course, thanks for your replies :thumb:

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2020, 21:03
by boogieman
Gums wrote:Salute!

Sorry, ric. BZ here with new restrictions on we old, infirm folks in Florida are stocking up our beer and pretzels for the isolation process.

To address your questions:

1- Which aircraft were you flying during that exercise? I couldn't gather that from your post but from your background it would either be a A-7 or F-16, no?

Was a Bk 15 Viper while attached to the 421st TFS. Was 388th Ops Plans chief, but flew with all three sqds and the reserve unit down the street.
I think last Slufs prolly flew in 1980 or so, and guessing a Guard unit.

2- For some reason the SA-4 (Ganef) was a SAM system that always 'fascinated' me. Perhaps it's because it was the least well known Soviet SAM system (to me at least), among the least exported (compared to other Soviet SAM systems) and as far as I know was never used in real/actual combat or perhaps its those massive missiles mounted on a chassis which should make it a very mobile system, I dunno.
However, my 2nd question is: What's your take/opinion on the Ganef compared with other Soviet SAM systems or the era, namely the SA-2, SA-3, SA-5 and specially the SA-6 (this one a system that I always find a bit similar to the SA-4, although I could be wrong?) or even against similar era/timeframe western SAM systems?


I think the only combat use of the SA-4 could have been Syria in Bekka Valley scenario. Would have to check. It was more of an area defense system and the SA-6 was not( mobile and a point defense system). The main thing at the time was its range. The SA-5 was supposed to have immense range, but we all pooh poohed the claim.

Don't know much about the SA-3, but during Linebacker II there was intell that the Vee had at least a component of the SA-3 because we started to see a different band illuminate on our RHAW gear, and the Weasels noted that.

The SA-2 was ubiquitous up north and I got to see them on the missions I flew there that Christmas. Our chaff and jamming really screwed it up, but it was most effective on non-maneuvering planes. The spray and pray AAA guns got most of the kills - an amazing number of guns, and the good gunners picked out and hit the weakest links.

I would put the SA-6 against the Hawk and prolly have a draw.

Gums sends...

Amazing stuff. A couple years back I was fortunate enough to take a joy flight in an L39C and even had the chance to take the controls and do a few gentle turns and barrel rolls of my own (I knew all that time spent on DCS would pay off! haha). An experience that I will take with me for life. The (real) pilot took us through some more aggressive maneuvers, pulling a max of 6Gs in places. At the end of a 45min flight I was surprisingly depleted and happy to return to terra firma (but elated to have done it).

It immediately occurred to me how physically and mentally demanding it must be to fly into harm's way. I simply cannot fathom the balls it must have taken to fly into the jaws of the NVA GBAD network. Hats off to you sir - as an Aussie I am glad to have had people like yourself on our side :)

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2020, 23:23
by jessmo112
boogieman wrote:
jessmo112 wrote:The F-35 doesnt need the emitter to locate the sam. The F-35 can find the sam via Sar map.

https://youtu.be/wIwAOupjMeM

So the decoys are irrelevant.
Even if you had a number of decoys, I would just saturate the area with SBD instead.

Actually SAR may not always be so effective if the S400 site is accompanied by EW systems like SPN-4 and Krasukha 2/4. If present, their job would be to jam APG81 and prevent it from SAR mapping the desired area, although I admit I'm not sure how effective they would be. Passively geolocating the true emitters would be ideal, since breaking EMCON via SAR mapping would also risk giving away the F35's position to Moskva-1, possibly allowing it to cue a punitive missile shot from the S400. Cooperative mapping by multiple F35s alternating radar "chirps" might solve this problem, but I confess I am no expert on the subject.

Take out Grave Stone and the whole site should be more or less disarmed. Take out its other arrays (Big Bird, Nebo-M etc) and it would be blind, deaf and dumb. The remaining vehicles (EW, point defences, C2, TELs) could then be hunted down and picked off from there.


So now your trying to Jamm a signal that's hopping frequencies. Not realizing that the massive amount of Jamming makes for an easy target. I'll make this simple.
A. The Jammers Die,
B. The Point defenses die.
C. The active radars die.
D. The Tels and launchers die.

All of this happens in 1 pass from an F-35A 2 ship.
If you bring air assets the F-35 says "Hold my beer" and brings in a 4 ship
Russia needs a stealth fighter.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 02 Apr 2020, 23:28
by boogieman
jessmo112 wrote:So now your trying to Jamm a signal that's hopping frequencies. Not realizing that the massive amount of Jamming makes for an easy target. I'll make this simple.
A. The Jammers Die,
B. The Point defenses die.
C. The active radars die.
D. The Tels and launchers die.

All of this happens in 1 pass from an F-35A 2 ship.
If you bring air assets the F-35 says "Hold my beer" and brings in a 4 ship
Russia needs a stealth fighter.

:lmao:

I've got to admit this post gave me a good laugh. If I were an F35 driver I would be expecting things to be a wee bit tougher than this but I do like it. :thumb:

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2020, 01:24
by ricnunes
boogieman wrote::lmao:

I've got to admit this post gave me a good laugh. If I were an F35 driver I would be expecting things to be a wee bit tougher than this but I do like it. :thumb:



Hi boogieman,

I couldn't help to notice that you mentioned DCS world. I actually enjoy PC flight simulations alot too. IMO, they are a very good tool to learn more about military aviation, specially the more/most realistic sims.
This being say, my favourite sim is Falcon BMS. IMO, it's by far the best and most realistic sim when we're talking about modeling a 4th gen multirole fighter aircraft (DCS A-10C, BS2 and Huey modules are also excellent and the best in their categories but they don't model a 4th gen multirole fighter aircraft like the F-16) and of course Falcon BMS is the best F-16 sim available for PC.
Anyway, what I mean with the above is that the diference in capabilities between the F-16 (which again one can almost fully experience in Falcon BMS) and the F-35 are like night and day. The F-35 is so, so advanced that when I watch the real F-35 simulator (and you can watch it too in the video that I'll share below) I feel like playing Falcon BMS or one of the DCS modules in full Arcade Mode where everything is presented to me in a "god like" 360º view around with enemies and friendlies perfectly identified!
That's how easy the things are for a F-35 pilot. Actually I heard a comment that 15 year old kids when "flying" the real F-35 simulator and after being explained a few things after a few minutes were already shooting down/destroying stuff on the same simulator.
Considering that the F-35 automatically detects and geolocates all and every threat (being it air, land or ship based), it indicates until where each threat can detect your F-35 and if you're about to be detected or not and so on... I'll say that the 'life' of the F-35 pilot is far, far easier compared to any previous generation fighter aircraft.
Actually when in combat, the F-35 pilot is considered to be more of a "tactician" than a pilot "per se".

So yes, I tend to agree with jessmo112 that the enemies will die (and quite easily so), unless they are capable of developing and deploying a fighter aircraft which would be similarly capable as the F-35 (something still far from happening).

Here's the F-35 simulator video (in case you still haven't seen it):

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2020, 02:24
by boogieman
Thanks ricnunes, I will check that out. Glad to hear you're a keen simmer - I would highly recommend you give DCS another look as it has come along in leaps and bounds in the last year or so. The Hornet module is fantastic now as is the Tomcat. The Viper is definitely getting there but still has further to go until it is BMS-level complete. The real beauty of the sim is the ability to jump online and take on numerous other players in their respective jets. I have turned hunting Flankers in my Hornet into a fine art, much to the chagrin of the Russophiles in the DCS community haha :twisted: :wink:

https://youtu.be/PtjRhrnZQoY
https://youtu.be/tnIKT2k2shY
https://youtu.be/-HyRdekaxAs

Back to the topic at hand, I think you can make an excellent argument that the west is well placed to handle the S400 with its 5th gen assets. Perhaps my mentality is a little more conservative when compared to others though.

Speaking from personal experience, I took up MMA shortly after I left highschool, and stuck with it for years afterwards. It really became evident to me how people can surprise you when their back is to the wall and they are fighting for survival. Now MMA is not modern warfare, but this is kind of how I see the Russians. At the end of the day, Russia is a large country with a long history in GBAD development and operation, so I think it is reasonable to expect a fight with them to be a difficult and bloody one with unpleasant surprises for us in places, GBAD being a prime candidate.

Now, if I were an F35 pilot (virtual or real! :wink:) I would be treating the S400 and supporting assets as probably the most dangerous and most valuable effectors in the Russian IADS. IMO this warrants a joint force approach to ensure their destruction. This might prove to be overkill, but my understanding of Russian doctrine says that an S400 site would be protecting highly valuable assets, with the S400 itself being a vital ISR node in its own right. I'd much rather overestimate my opponent and utterly crush him than underestimate that opponent and get a nasty surprise.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2020, 04:31
by eloise
boogieman wrote:breaking EMCON via SAR mapping would also risk giving away the F35's position to Moskva-1, possibly allowing it to cue a punitive missile shot from the S400. Cooperative mapping by multiple F35s alternating radar "chirps" might solve this problem, but I confess I am no expert on the subject.

We can bait Moskva-1 with Mald-n and Spear-ew, once they launch their first missiles, the launcher location can be found with DAS and EOTS
h3tUVd.png

spear-ew-2.png

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2020, 04:55
by boogieman
eloise wrote:We can bait Moskva-1 with Mald-n and Spear-ew, once they launch their first missiles, the launcher location can be found with DAS and EOTS]

Yes, based on my (admittedly amateurish) knowledge of the subject I think you could dismantle a Russian S400 based IADS by understanding their doctrine, which (AFAIK) prioritises using GBAD to protect critical infrastructure and C2 apparatus over maneuver forces. To this end:

- You might first prioritise understanding what critical assets a given S400 system has been tasked with defending - possibly easier said than done.
- With this accomplished, you could then launch a massed Tomahawk/UAS attack against these assets with the aim of forcing the IADS to respond with hard kill measures. If they actually get through to their targets consider it a bonus.
- With this underway, ISR aircraft (including F22/35) would be tasked with geo-locating threat emitters, sorting decoys from the real thing and identifying SAM launch points.
- From here you'd immediately send in your true SEAD/DEAD assets from multiple axes using a mixture of different effectors. PRSM from land based MLRS units, Compass Call and Growler for standoff jamming, F35 w/SDB, MALD-J/N and AARGM-ER, even disposable UAS to misdirect enemy SAMs and aircraft. The idea would be to cause as much chaos and confusion in the enemy IADS as possible in a very short timeframe, ultimately culminating in its collapse.

Perhaps not overly imaginative, as it is essentially a 2020+ version of Operation Mole Cricket 19, but that one did work out rather well didn't it? :wink:

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2020, 05:38
by wrightwing
underscan wrote:Are there some red flag exercises that also included things like decoy emitters that can lure anti-radiation missiles away to short range air defenses? I am assuming that dual homing options are now the solution to address this with the newest versions of the HARM missiles.

AARGM/AARGM-ER isn't just following an emission. They're also using INS/GPS, 2 way datalinks, and MMW radar to compare images with.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2020, 06:12
by wrightwing
boogieman wrote:
eloise wrote:We can bait Moskva-1 with Mald-n and Spear-ew, once they launch their first missiles, the launcher location can be found with DAS and EOTS]

Yes, based on my (admittedly amateurish) knowledge of the subject I think you could dismantle a Russian S400 based IADS by understanding their doctrine, which (AFAIK) prioritises using GBAD to protect critical infrastructure and C2 apparatus over maneuver forces. To this end:

- You might first prioritise understanding what critical assets a given S400 system has been tasked with defending - possibly easier said than done.
- With this accomplished, you could then launch a massed Tomahawk/UAS attack against these assets with the aim of forcing the IADS to respond with hard kill measures. If they actually get through to their targets consider it a bonus.
- With this underway, ISR aircraft (including F22/35) would be tasked with geo-locating threat emitters, sorting decoys from the real thing and identifying SAM launch points.
- From here you'd immediately send in your true SEAD/DEAD assets from multiple axes using a mixture of different effectors. PRSM from land based MLRS units, Compass Call and Growler for standoff jamming, F35 w/SDB, MALD-J/N and AARGM-ER, even disposable UAS to misdirect enemy SAMs and aircraft. The idea would be to cause as much chaos and confusion in the enemy IADS as possible in a very short timeframe, ultimately culminating in its collapse.

Perhaps not overly imaginative, as it is essentially a 2020+ version of Operation Mole Cricket 19, but that one did work out rather well didn't it? :wink:
The MALD/Spear-EW would be used before or in conjunction with Tomahawks, JASSM-ERs, etc.... SEAD/DEAD would involve multiple simultaneous strikes against critical nodes in the kill chain. You make the opponent emit, geolocate targets, and share them throughout the network. They can then be targeted by Air, sea, or land systems. UHF/VHF sites will have a very short life span, and once your opponent is limited to L, S, X band, their situational awareness is a fraction of what it had been.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2020, 08:19
by boogieman
wrightwing wrote:The MALD/Spear-EW would be used before or in conjunction with Tomahawks, JASSM-ERs, etc.... SEAD/DEAD would involve multiple simultaneous strikes against critical nodes in the kill chain. You make the opponent emit, geolocate targets, and share them throughout the network. They can then be targeted by Air, sea, or land systems. UHF/VHF sites will have a very short life span, and once your opponent is limited to L, S, X band, their situational awareness is a fraction of what it had been.

Agree with the only caveat being that some of the mobile systems (S400 components, Nebo-M etc) would require an especially short OODA loop (there I said it ;-p) to hunt down and kill. As a consequence you want the time on target after geolocation to be as short as possible, so a flight of F35s laying in wait with AARGM-ER may be the preferred delivery platform over, say, ship based fires. I'd expect this effect to be particularly pronounced in the Baltics where naval forces would be operating at a significant distance from the theatre and land forces would have their hands absolutely full dealing with Russian numerical superiority on the ground. So - for example - while using PRSM would be ideal in some cases it might not always be available if all of your MLRS units are operating at absolute max capacity trying to stay alive and directing counter-battery fires at Russian artillery.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2020, 08:28
by eloise
boogieman wrote:Yes, based on my (admittedly amateurish) knowledge of the subject I think you could dismantle a Russian S400 based IADS by understanding their doctrine, which (AFAIK) prioritises using GBAD to protect critical infrastructure and C2 apparatus over maneuver forces. To this end:

- You might first prioritise understanding what critical assets a given S400 system has been tasked with defending - possibly easier said than done.
- With this accomplished, you could then launch a massed Tomahawk/UAS attack against these assets with the aim of forcing the IADS to respond with hard kill measures. If they actually get through to their targets consider it a bonus.
- With this underway, ISR aircraft (including F22/35) would be tasked with geo-locating threat emitters, sorting decoys from the real thing and identifying SAM launch points.
- From here you'd immediately send in your true SEAD/DEAD assets from multiple axes using a mixture of different effectors. PRSM from land based MLRS units, Compass Call and Growler for standoff jamming, F35 w/SDB, MALD-J/N and AARGM-ER, even disposable UAS to misdirect enemy SAMs and aircraft. The idea would be to cause as much chaos and confusion in the enemy IADS as possible in a very short timeframe, ultimately culminating in its collapse.

Perhaps not overly imaginative, as it is essentially a 2020+ version of Operation Mole Cricket 19, but that one did work out rather well didn't it? :wink:

I think the strategy at start is to launch hypersonic missile such as ARRW, HSWab and long range cruise missile like JASSM-XR, Tomahawk to attack fixed strategic target such as OTHR, airbase, known command center, TV and mobiles antenna mass (to make passive radar useless). These are high value fixed target so you don't need your ISR aircraft in enemy territory to find them.
ER7CnrVU4AIe-iF.jpg

HSCW2.jpg

Then MALD-N/X or SPEAR-EW coming in second, blasting their jamming system to make it harder for the enemy to find stealth aircraft and stealth cruise missile while also act as more attractive targets for SAM.
F-35 then silently follows behind the decoys screen while using their ASQ-239, EOTS and DAS to look for targets.
If the IADS decided to stay silent, and only launch missiles at jamming sources, they will waste their missile on cheap decoys
If the IADS decided to activate their radars, they let us know where they are and they can be attacked by AARGM-ER, SiaW, SDB, SPEAR and it still very hard to find stealth aircraft in a jamming environment

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2020, 11:32
by weasel1962
The question is knowing all this, what could a potential defender then do to mitigate this overwhelming qualitative (and likely quantitative) advantage. (hint*, real live defenders would never say nothing. Some low tech solutions can be quite interesting)

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 03 Apr 2020, 13:59
by jessmo112
Do you think that the Russians actually believe their own propaganda? Do they really believe stealth doesn't work?
Do they assume that because they cant detect stealth planes no planes are there?
Do they believe that going all the way back to GW1 the F-117 didnt work, and that Iraq was just incompetent?
Hmm maybe if they are this delusional we should let them stay this way.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2020, 01:12
by boogieman
weasel1962 wrote:The question is knowing all this, what could a potential defender then do to mitigate this overwhelming qualitative (and likely quantitative) advantage. (hint*, real live defenders would never say nothing. Some low tech solutions can be quite interesting)

Context is everything, so in the case of the Russians you're really looking at the Baltics as the most likely flashpoint. Their approach seems to be to absorb or deflect our initial airborne assault via the use of heavy EW, regular movement of essential IADS systems, camouflage, decoys etc while simultaneously striking at our own high value assets.

I'd expect them to use BM and LACM strikes against all available airbases on mainland Europe to reduce our sortie generation rates and cripple our own C2 structures. Wouldn't surprise me to see them attempt some fairly bold OCA attacks to exploit the lower density of our GBAD network as well. They would take heavy losses from our fighters but it might be worth it to them. I'd expect similar moves against USN carrier groups from Tu22/160 etc, alongside land/sub/ship based AShM to push them away if not sink them. They would also enjoy a vast numerical advantage on the ground so I would expect them to swiftly move to close the Suwalki gap and then overrun our closest airbases with massed mechanized formations, further reducing the amount of airpower we could bring to bear.

The problem here is not one of technological sophistication, but of sheer numbers. We just don't have that many troops in position to mount our defence, whereas the Russians fighting from their home turf could move on the Baltics en masse with relatively little notice.

jessmo112 wrote:Do you think that the Russians actually believe their own propaganda? Do they really believe stealth doesn't work?
Do they assume that because they cant detect stealth planes no planes are there?
Do they believe that going all the way back to GW1 the F-117 didnt work, and that Iraq was just incompetent?
Hmm maybe if they are this delusional we should let them stay this way.

I think the real decision makers would know the truth, hence their emphasis on EW. We can't see your aircraft properly, so we'll level the playing field by blinding all your sensors and munitions - at least that's the idea. In practice it's still not ideal, because our side can still play the EW game as well while they are still at square one trying to field a true VLO capability.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2020, 02:39
by ricnunes
boogieman wrote:Thanks ricnunes, I will check that out.


Yes, you should. After knowing how a modern 4th gen fighter aircraft like the F-16 or F/A-18 works (or more precisely what are their capabilities from a pilot's perspective) then I'm sure that you'll be instantly aware that the F-35 is indeed a "huge gamechanger".

boogieman wrote:Glad to hear you're a keen simmer - I would highly recommend you give DCS another look as it has come along in leaps and bounds in the last year or so. The Hornet module is fantastic now as is the Tomcat.


Once and if ever ED/DCS finishes the Hornet module then I'll certainly check it out (purchase it). Currently DCS Hornet is an unfinished product (for example it doesn't have a working Air-to-Ground radar) and I simply won't buy Alpha/Beta products (specially from ED).

boogieman wrote:The Viper is definitely getting there but still has further to go until it is BMS-level complete.


I believe that even ED admitted that DCS Viper won't have the same realistic level as for example DCS Hornet (and as such as Falcon BMS) or resuming DCS Viper is more of a DCS Flamming Cliffs (FC) level when it comes to realism. There's nothing wrong with this IMO (FC is still very interesting) but its the level of realism isn't expected to reach BMS.


boogieman wrote:The real beauty of the sim is the ability to jump online and take on numerous other players in their respective jets.


Yes, indeed. Although and personally I prefer the dynamic campaigns of Falcon BMS even because I only and rarely play games online.


boogieman wrote:Back to the topic at hand, I think you can make an excellent argument that the west is well placed to handle the S400 with its 5th gen assets. Perhaps my mentality is a little more conservative when compared to others though.


Yes, fully agree on getting back to the topic (afterall this isn't a sim forum/thread).

Technically I guess that's no harm in having a "more conservative" approach when comparing to opposing systems. I'm pretty sure that the good folks at LM (and other companies involved in the F-35 project) when designing it (the F-35) are having the same conservative approach when comparing their product (F-35) against emerging threats such as the S-400.
Myself being an "outside observer", I have the 'luxury' of not needing to take such approach and as such I'm basing my opinion on the best information possible.
And the best information possible is that the aircraft (this case the F-35) has and will have a massive advantage over air defense system (such as the S-400) as by the way it always have been throughout the history of military aviation.

boogieman wrote:Now, if I were an F35 pilot (virtual or real! :wink:) I would be treating the S400 and supporting assets as probably the most dangerous and most valuable effectors in the Russian IADS. IMO this warrants a joint force approach to ensure their destruction. This might prove to be overkill, but my understanding of Russian doctrine says that an S400 site would be protecting highly valuable assets, with the S400 itself being a vital ISR node in its own right. I'd much rather overestimate my opponent and utterly crush him than underestimate that opponent and get a nasty surprise.


The good thing about the F-35 is that a flight of F-35's (for example a 4 ship formation) is by itself and alone "a joint force approach". If you have different F-35's with different loadouts (SDBs, SiAW, etc...) then you'll have much more than a "traditional joint force approach".

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2020, 06:45
by boogieman
ricnunes wrote:Yes, you should. After knowing how a modern 4th gen fighter aircraft like the F-16 or F/A-18 works (or more precisely what are their capabilities from a pilot's perspective) then I'm sure that you'll be instantly aware that the F-35 is indeed a "huge gamechanger"...

...The good thing about the F-35 is that a flight of F-35's (for example a 4 ship formation) is by itself and alone "a joint force approach". If you have different F-35's with different loadouts (SDBs, SiAW, etc...) then you'll have much more than a "traditional joint force approach".

- No doubt the F35 is a massive game changer. I am actually lucky enough to have seen it up close at Avalon Airshow a few years back and got to chat to some of the RAAF pilots about it. A masterpiece of aerospace technology to say the least...

- Yeah the DCS Hornet does need its A2G radar, but that's not a showstopper for me as I'm more of an air to air guy. If they improve the SAM AI, implement a better EW system and/or make player controlled SAMs a viable thing then I will probably shift to the air to mud role a bit more. For now I get a kick out of beating up on Tomcat, Eagle, Viper, Flanker and Fulcrum drivers in my little bug :wink:

- By "joint force approach" I mean one that encompasses multiple (if not all) military branches. It's very much a focus here in Australia as we try to develop a networked defence force that can punch above its weight, with the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. To my mind this is the holy grail of network centric warfare - moving away from platform vs platform scenarios and pitting a system of systems against the enemy's vulnerabilities.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2020, 15:19
by ricnunes
boogieman wrote:I am actually lucky enough to have seen it up close at Avalon Airshow a few years back and got to chat to some of the RAAF pilots about it.


Now, I'm envious of you :wink:


boogieman wrote:- By "joint force approach" I mean one that encompasses multiple (if not all) military branches. It's very much a focus here in Australia as we try to develop a networked defence force that can punch above its weight, with the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. To my mind this is the holy grail of network centric warfare - moving away from platform vs platform scenarios and pitting a system of systems against the enemy's vulnerabilities.


Yes, that will be pretty much the future of warfare.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 04 Apr 2020, 16:33
by underscan
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/air-defence-s ... vtobaza-m/ I do know that this system is said to track 150 simultaneously. But I cant find how many targets the Moskva-1 can passively track. Are there any new SAM developments with interceptor missiles given the options of passive or active tracking?

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2020, 03:43
by boogieman
ricnunes wrote:Now, I'm envious of you :wink:

Yeah it was pretty sweet. The F35 guys were super popular so it was tough to get much out of them, but I managed to have a good chat to one of the USAF Raptor pilots from the 90th FS. He sang the praises of our Hornet pilots which was good to hear. Also got to have a very long chat to a one of the console operators working on our E7s. He was on exchange from the USN having previously worked on Hawkeyes and was great to talk to. Described being on exercises like Red Flag and watching what happened when the Raptors showed up. In his words "you just watch them supercruise in and suddenly everything dies". Sounds about right...

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2020, 05:38
by spazsinbad
With what did he 'watch the F-22s supercruise in'?

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2020, 07:37
by boogieman
spazsinbad wrote:With what did he 'watch the F-22s supercruise in'?

Good question. I am paraphrasing of course so I could be misquoting slightly. The emphasis was on the effect the Raptors had more than how they did it. Then again with the MESA on E7 watching, I suppose luneberg lenses could have been in play.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2020, 14:43
by ricnunes
boogieman wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:With what did he 'watch the F-22s supercruise in'?

Good question. I am paraphrasing of course so I could be misquoting slightly. The emphasis was on the effect the Raptors had more than how they did it. Then again with the MESA on E7 watching, I suppose luneberg lenses could have been in play.


Perhaps thru Data-link instead?
(This way a friendly AWACS radar wouldn't need to actually detect the F-22s in order to keep tracking them)

Afterall luneberg lenses would also make the F-22s visible (or more visible) to "opposing forces".

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2020, 23:19
by Gums
Salute!

Hmmmm...... tracking a Raptor or Stubbie?

Perhaps thru Data-link instead?
(This way a friendly AWACS radar wouldn't need to actually detect the F-22s in order to keep tracking them)


How do you guys think we're gonna go to war if we can't have a decent idea of where our own forces are? Even 35 years ago when I hung up the gee suit we had "secure" IFF modes. The avionics folks would even code the box while we're on the ramp if the time of day changes were a factor after we cranked up. Then we had a test and they would confirm our jet was correctly coded.

Gums recalls.....

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 05 Apr 2020, 23:46
by boogieman
Gums wrote:Salute!

Hmmmm...... tracking a Raptor or Stubbie?

Perhaps thru Data-link instead?
(This way a friendly AWACS radar wouldn't need to actually detect the F-22s in order to keep tracking them)


How do you guys think we're gonna go to war if we can't have a decent idea of where our own forces are? Even 35 years ago when I hung up the gee suit we had "secure" IFF modes. The avionics folks would even code the box while we're on the ramp if the time of day changes were a factor after we cranked up. Then we had a test and they would confirm our jet was correctly coded.

Gums recalls.....

Of course! Silly me :doh:

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2020, 00:09
by wrightwing
boogieman wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:With what did he 'watch the F-22s supercruise in'?

Good question. I am paraphrasing of course so I could be misquoting slightly. The emphasis was on the effect the Raptors had more than how they did it. Then again with the MESA on E7 watching, I suppose luneberg lenses could have been in play.

It's likely the they were using ACMI pod data, to see the F-22s.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2020, 03:36
by Gums
Salute!

Wrightwing prolly has it correct, if the ACMI stuff didn't increase the RCS a lot.

Although things have progressed, it's possible that exercise opponents ( normally friendlies) might be able to get a "hit" from the IFF ( I tink it was Mode IV). Back in the day, the Eagles had a symbol around the HUD TD box to let them know friend or foe. This was in addition to the NCTR stuff using the radar return.

Maybe a new source here could verify if that IFF procedure is still used.

Gums sends...

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2020, 05:39
by jessmo112
Without details how does acme work?
When red or blue does do they send out a signal?
And who keeps score up there?
Is it just being in a piper too long gets you dead?
There has to be some ref.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2020, 08:00
by weasel1962
This might help explain. No road runner though.

https://www.prescient.com.sg/?page_id=71

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2020, 09:48
by hornetfinn
ricnunes wrote:
boogieman wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:With what did he 'watch the F-22s supercruise in'?

Good question. I am paraphrasing of course so I could be misquoting slightly. The emphasis was on the effect the Raptors had more than how they did it. Then again with the MESA on E7 watching, I suppose luneberg lenses could have been in play.


Perhaps thru Data-link instead?
(This way a friendly AWACS radar wouldn't need to actually detect the F-22s in order to keep tracking them)

Afterall luneberg lenses would also make the F-22s visible (or more visible) to "opposing forces".


Definitely data-link is the best source for information about where friendly aircraft are, including F-22. They know exactly where they are, what their speed is, what their heading is etc. They then transmit that data constantly to C2 assets which can then track every friendly aircraft with very high precision and with information about what their vehicle status is and what weaponry they still have, what their fuel status is etc.

Of course like Gums said, each aircraft has IFF system which would respond to suitable interrogation signal with info about aircraft identification code, altitude and position. So it gives most crucial information, but a lot less than data-linked infomation. But of course they compliment each other well and I'm sure AEW aircraft will use both as sources of information.

Of course neither of these works with enemy aircraft and tracking F-22s will likely be a nice challenge to even the most advanced AEW aircraft like E-7. Naturally Luneburg lens would help a lot as that can make the F-22 have 4th gen fighter RCS. Not very realistic training against it though.

During training ACMI systems are definitely used but they are basically data-link systems with focus on training environments and needs. In F-22 and F-35 these systems are internal and they don't use pods AFAIK. Here is some info about them: https://www.leonardodrs.com/air-combat- ... ubsystems/

Leonardo DRS, as principal subcontractor to team mate Cubic Global Defense, is responsible for the development, performance, and sustainment of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) P5 Internal subsystem (JSF P5 IS). The JSF P5 CTS IS supports JSF-to-JSF training operations in addition to JSF-to-Legacy P5 CTS dissimilar air combat training. The subsystem is composed of a P5 internal instrumentation package and a P5 planning software application within the JSF Off-board Mission Support (OMS) system.

The JSF P5 IS instrumentation package is housed within the JSF and is connected to the JSF fiber channel interface receiving aircraft-provided weapon and position data to support real-time weapon simulations and real-time kill notification (RTKN). The JSF P5 IS outputs data for recording on the JSF pilot memory device (PMD) to support post mission debriefing and receives pre-mission data files from the PMD. The JSF P5 instrumentation package also incorporates a type one encrypted data link operating in the L and S RF bands.

Legacy P5 CTS pods are interoperable with the JSF P5 IS and legacy P5 ranges have the ability to decrypt the JSF P5 IS data link messages providing a real-time ground monitoring capability.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2020, 11:00
by spazsinbad

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2020, 11:02
by aussiebloke
I am guessing that an F-22’s IFF transponder broadcasts non-directionally an RF signal rather than using a directional antenna. Wouldn’t this potentially compromise F-22 low observability?

As to data links the F-22 has or had no way of communicating with non F-22s other than voice communications. No Link 16 and only IDFL. Unless some developmental gateway was being used data links weren’t being used to keep track of F-22s.

https://www.airforcemag.com/f-22s-agile ... next-year/

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2020, 14:47
by Gums
Salute!

Tuff luck, Spaz!! I "out searched ya"!!!

The ACMI equivalent is internal!!

Google F-35 acmi and find many articles. First hit I got was right here and from 2007Just a quote or two:

San Diego based Cubic Corp. have won a $50.3 million contract from Lockheed Martin to design and integrate a new embedded version of its latest air combat training system (ACMI) for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).


Leonardo DRS and Cubic Corporation will work together to delivery more than 500 P5 CTS Internal Subsystems for the latest-generation Air Combat Training System (ACTS) for the F-35 Lightning II.


http://www.f-16.net/f-35-news-article2557.html

https://www.leonardodrs.com/news/press- ... -training/

Guess that clears up things.

Gums sends...

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2020, 15:40
by ricnunes
aussiebloke wrote:I am guessing that an F-22’s IFF transponder broadcasts non-directionally an RF signal rather than using a directional antenna. Wouldn’t this potentially compromise F-22 low observability?


As far as I know IFF's don't constantly broadcast (either directionally or non-directionally). An IFF only broadcasts when it's interrogated on the correct frequency and transmission/code and IFF interrogators are directional (often slaved to where the radar/antenna is pointing at).

If you're using non-encrypted military IFF mode 1 and 2 or the military/civilian Mode 3/A then I would say that there's a good chance of the enemy can or could detect the opposing aircraft resorting to those IFF modes. For example, Mode 3/A which is used by any ATC (Air Traffic Controller) worldwide is able to identify any aircraft (military or civilian, doesn't matter) which has its IFF mode 3/A turned on.
That's why I remember to have read somewhere that a pilot when facing the enemy or entering into enemy territory will always shut down IFF Mode 3/A. It's possible that IFF Mode 1 and 2 are also shut down in these situations but here I'm not 100% sure.

Now the military IFF mode 4 is something entirely different. For starters it's an encrypted IFF mode whose codes are constantly changed (for example and paraphrasing Gums: "The avionics folks would even code the box while we're on the ramp") so the IFF Mode 4 of a certain aircraft will only be 'triggered' (start to broadcast) if its interrogated on the correct code.
Then there's also IFF mode 5 which if I'm not mistaken is basically a more modern and advanced version of Mode 4.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2020, 16:23
by aussiebloke
ricnunes wrote:
aussiebloke wrote:I am guessing that an F-22’s IFF transponder broadcasts non-directionally an RF signal rather than using a directional antenna. Wouldn’t this potentially compromise F-22 low observability?


Now the military IFF mode 4 is something entirely different. For starters it's an encrypted IFF mode whose codes are constantly changed (for example and paraphrasing Gums: "The avionics folks would even code the box while we're on the ramp") so the IFF Mode 4 of a certain aircraft will only be 'triggered' (start to broadcast) if its interrogated on the correct code.


I am not suggesting the encrypted IFF codes could be broken. Instead I am asking if the transponder signals themselves can be detected and geolocated. Theoretically they can if this company’s marketing material is to be believed:
https://www.crfs.com/applicationstory/p ... -using-rf/
What kinds of RF transmissions can be used for tracking?

RFeye can detect all the signal types commonly associated with aircraft, including:

IFF
ADS-B
Link16
TACAN/DME
Radar
ATC channels
Geolocation can be performed using any or all of these detected signal types.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2020, 17:12
by underscan
Do most of the datalinks used for aircrafts operate at HF and VHF? I do love the option of MADL for being around 20-30 ghz because I believe that most RWRs of adversary aircrafts are up to 16 or 18ghz if I remember correctly at the sources I was looking at which makes the transmission difficult to suppress.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2020, 17:27
by Gums
Salute!

@ JESSMO....

The ACMI pods implemented in the 70's were game changers. When the Viper video cam came along in 1980, they both made realistic air combat training believeable.

No more who could talk the best and use their hands. The battle could be viewed and recorded in real time by the ground stations, then used for debriefs. For awhile in early 80's, nobody had the VCR like we had in the Viper. So put the two together and wow! They used to kid us at Red Flag and other events, asking to see our "home movies" after a mission.

The pod looked like a missile without fins, and was loaded on a basic missile rail. Each pod in an exercise was coded for each player. So it broadcast a myriad of data about the aircraft and its systems - attitude, speed, altitude, position, and maybe in the Viper, weapon selected, system modes(?), etc. because we had the mux bus at each station that could provide additional stuff than the old jets could. During real time and debrief, you could select the "view" of specific players. So a shootdown was easy to confirm, especially if using guns or 'winder and HUD recorder. If I recall, during AIMVAL-ACEVAL the system would "bong" you and you were outta the fight.

Good to confirm the ACMI equivalent is embedded on the new generation. Just hope all the encryption junk works well or you can turn the damn thing off manually.

Gums sends...

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2020, 18:47
by quicksilver
“If I recall, during AIMVAL-ACEVAL the system would "bong" you and you were outta the fight.“

...and put a 3d coffin symbol around your aircraft, so the monitor on range console watching could make a call to the effect — ‘that’s a valid shot...maverick you’re dead’ — sometimes necessary when someone didn’t kill-remove.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2020, 19:30
by ricnunes
aussiebloke wrote:I am not suggesting the encrypted IFF codes could be broken. Instead I am asking if the transponder signals themselves can be detected and geolocated. Theoretically they can if this company’s marketing material is to be believed:
https://www.crfs.com/applicationstory/p ... -using-rf/


Yes, IFF transponders can be geolocated. You can see this happening when looking at the screen in front of an ATC.
But in order for an IFF transponder to be geolocated, first it must be transmitting and then you must have the proper equipment to intercept and interpret such transmissions (which for example in the case of IFF Mode 4 are top secret) or resuming you must know what and where to listen.
And like I previously said, IFF transponders will only transmit (and very briefly so, reducing the probability of being intercepted by the enemy) when they are successfully interrogated by a fully compliant/allied equipment which is interrogating with the proper codes (which BTW, are constantly changing in case of Mode 4).

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2020, 19:54
by BDF
The E-7's MESA is a L-band array, it may be able to see the Raptors to an extent. I can't think of any datalink that they could use that they would be transmitting. They don't have Link-16 out yet, unless the USAF has the TALON HATE pods involved. Perhaps BACN nodes? I can't recall if they have IFDL receive capability. Its a neat anecdote in any case.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2020, 22:02
by aussiebloke
ricnunes wrote:
aussiebloke wrote:I am not suggesting the encrypted IFF codes could be broken. Instead I am asking if the transponder signals themselves can be detected and geolocated. Theoretically they can if this company’s marketing material is to be believed:
https://www.crfs.com/applicationstory/p ... -using-rf/


Yes, IFF transponders can be geolocated. You can see this happening when looking at the screen in front of an ATC.
But in order for an IFF transponder to be geolocated, first it must be transmitting and then you must have the proper equipment to intercept and interpret such transmissions (which for example in the case of IFF Mode 4 are top secret) or resuming you must know what and where to listen.
And like I previously said, IFF transponders will only transmit (and very briefly so, reducing the probability of being intercepted by the enemy) when they are successfully interrogated by a fully compliant/allied equipment which is interrogating with the proper codes (which BTW, are constantly changing in case of Mode 4).


We seem to be talking at cross-puposes. I am asking if opposing forces can geolocate an IFF signal coming from an F-22's transponder not if friendly ATC can geolocate it.

So a scenario is that a friendly AWACS or ground based radar interrogates the F-22's transponder. The transponder sends out the appropriate encrypted response as intended. Can that response be detected by opposing forces and, without being decrypted, the signal used to geolocate the F-22? Does IFF potentially compromise F-22 (and F-35 for that matter) stealth?

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 06 Apr 2020, 22:27
by ricnunes
aussiebloke wrote:We seem to be talking at cross-puposes. I am asking if opposing forces can geolocate an IFF signal coming from an F-22's transponder not if friendly ATC can geolocate it.

So a scenario is that a friendly AWACS or ground based radar interrogates the F-22's transponder. The transponder sends out the appropriate encrypted response as intended. Can that response be detected by opposing forces and, without being decrypted, the signal used to geolocate the F-22? Does IFF potentially compromise F-22 (and F-35 for that matter) stealth?


And like I've been telling/hinting, it's highly unlikely that an enemy force can detect, let alone geolocate a transmission from an IFF transponder (doesn't matter which aircraft its fitted in) resulted from a positive challenge/interrogation from another friendly asset, this for all the reasons that I previously mentioned and of course from the way that an actual IFF works.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2020, 00:00
by boogieman
I suppose detecting the IFF emissions would be plausible, but since they are transient I doubt they would be of much use to OPFOR. At best they might get some idea of where the jet was when it emitted them, but that info would be almost instantly out of date for a tactical fighter doing ~Mach 1 and potentially changing course/maneuvering etc.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2020, 10:49
by aussiebloke
boogieman wrote:I suppose detecting the IFF emissions would be plausible, but since they are transient I doubt they would be of much use to OPFOR. At best they might get some idea of where the jet was when it emitted them, but that info would be almost instantly out of date for a tactical fighter doing ~Mach 1 and potentially changing course/maneuvering etc.


Transient perhaps but sufficient to cue several active radar homing missiles to that vicinity that then can commence their own search?

I found this quote interesting:

Active IFF systems—the most obvious examples are radars and question-and-answer systems— can have longer range but they, of course, might be detected, providing the enemy information about friendly forces. This risk can be minimized by transmitting the least power necessary, transmitting intermittently, using and looking for special transmission patterns (or “waveforms’ known only to other friendly forces, and so on.


https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/19 ... 935105.PDF

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2020, 12:50
by hornetfinn
aussiebloke wrote:
boogieman wrote:I suppose detecting the IFF emissions would be plausible, but since they are transient I doubt they would be of much use to OPFOR. At best they might get some idea of where the jet was when it emitted them, but that info would be almost instantly out of date for a tactical fighter doing ~Mach 1 and potentially changing course/maneuvering etc.


Transient perhaps but sufficient to cue several active radar homing missiles to that vicinity that then can commence their own search?


Probably not in any case as missiles are not very good at searching large volumes of airspace. Their radars are too small and there is far too short time to scan any larger air space. So the targeting info should be extremely precise and up to date for missiles succeed. IFF transmissions are short and not frequent, so it's hard to get accurate targeting info. Besides, that info very quickly becomes obsolete because the aircraft that sent them will be somewhere else with likely different heading, altitude and speed.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2020, 19:28
by wolfpak
Didn't Combat Tree on board EC-121's and F-4D's exploit the North Vietnamese IFF transmissions?

Earlier in this thread is was noted that the ARRGM-ER was entering LRIP. Did they flight test it yet? ////////

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2020, 21:53
by ricnunes
wolfpak wrote:Didn't Combat Tree on board EC-121's and F-4D's exploit the North Vietnamese IFF transmissions?


I never seem to have read about that.
But in case that has happened and looking at the era (Vietnam War) it's quite possible that those North Vietnamese IFF were very simple and unencrypted devices and as such the Americans could have "easily" developed an interrogator in order to 'constantly' interrogate the North Vietnamese IFFs and thus know where their Migs were roughly located at (but never to aim or shoot missiles at those same Migs). Nonetheless those early and old IFFs would have been a far cry from more modern, advanced and encrypted IFF systems such as Mode 4.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2020, 22:00
by spazsinbad
Flight Tests Of Extended Range AARGM Expected In Fiscal 2021
06 May 2019 Calvin Biesecker

"NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.–Captive carry-testing of an extended-range variant of the Navy’s anti-radiation missile is expected to begin in fiscal year 2020 and be followed by flight-testing some time in FY ’21, a service official said on Monday...."

Source: https://www.defensedaily.com/flight-tes ... navy-usmc/

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2020, 22:14
by basher54321
ricnunes wrote:
wolfpak wrote:Didn't Combat Tree on board EC-121's and F-4D's exploit the North Vietnamese IFF transmissions?


I never seem to have read about that.
But in case that has happened and looking at the era (Vietnam War) it's quite possible that those North Vietnamese IFF were very simple and unencrypted devices and as such the Americans could have "easily" developed an interrogator in order to 'constantly' interrogate the North Vietnamese IFFs and thus know where their Migs were roughly located at (but never to aim or shoot missiles at those same Migs). Nonetheless those early and old IFFs would have been a far cry from more modern, advanced and encrypted IFF systems such as Mode 4.





Combat Tree could supposedly interrogate the Soviet SRO-2 that was exploited via many sources in the 60s. It was operated from the late 60s in secret on EC-121s but in 1972 was used on F-4D/Es to verify and fire AIM-7s at MiGs BVR.

One thing was the SRO had to be switched on and the VPAF likely got wise to it - slight problem was their GCI needed the SRO on so they could see and guide them. Yes ancient technology and likely not as easy to do anymore.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2020, 22:18
by aussiebloke
wolfpak wrote:Didn't Combat Tree on board EC-121's and F-4D's exploit the North Vietnamese IFF transmissions?



By the late 1960s, U.S. forces were taking steps to solve the BVR IFF problem. The first was enabled by covert exploitation of Soviet SRO-2 IFF transponder equipment recovered by the Israelis from MiGs shot down during the 1967 Six-Day War. In 1968 the USAF started a program known as Combat Tree to build and incorporate a suitable SRO-02 interrogator into U.S. fighters. By 1971 a suitable system had been designed, tested, and fitted to a number of USAF F-4D aircraft. Known officially as the AN/APX-81, the system could be used in a passive mode where it received and processed IFF replies sent from MiGs in response to their own Ground Controlled Intercept (GCI) radar interrogations, or it could be used in active mode to trigger the MiGs response. A Combat Tree-equipped F-4 could positively identify enemy aircraft at up to 60 nm, three times farther than the F-4 could detect, but not identify, them with its radar alone.

Page 18 of https://csbaonline.org/uploads/document ... eport-.pdf

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 07 Apr 2020, 23:53
by Gums
Salute!

Don't tink as many planes had the Tree gear as some tink. Even in 1972.

Except for a very few cases, a visual was required by the ROE. So the BVR capability was thwarted except for new tactics such as "shooter-eyeball". The AIMVAL-ACEVAL guys in our cadre at Hill talked about it. Trouble was the "eyeball" also had to have other cojones. Since the Vee rarely, if ever, tried a HO radar missile, the tactic worked. Biggest problem was getting separation the eyeball and the bandit, but the shooter was locked up already, and if the bandit blew thru a HO was possible.

OTOH, Teaball was very good and made a huge difference in our overall situtational awareness during the end game. On one of my few trips to Bullseye during the Christmas blitz, we got a call on either strike or guard freq when about 75 or 80 miles out, and greening up " Two bandits on end of runway at Yen Bai" ( could have been Phuc Yen).

Disco, Red Crown, the EW folks out over the Gulf and the fusion center at NKP did outstanding work. If we had kept the site at Lima Site 85, it would have been even better. But the Vee wanted that place very much, and it fell in early 1968.

http://aviationtrivia.blogspot.com/2011 ... -real.html

Gums sends...

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2020, 00:34
by boogieman
hornetfinn wrote:
aussiebloke wrote:
boogieman wrote:I suppose detecting the IFF emissions would be plausible, but since they are transient I doubt they would be of much use to OPFOR. At best they might get some idea of where the jet was when it emitted them, but that info would be almost instantly out of date for a tactical fighter doing ~Mach 1 and potentially changing course/maneuvering etc.


Transient perhaps but sufficient to cue several active radar homing missiles to that vicinity that then can commence their own search?


Probably not in any case as missiles are not very good at searching large volumes of airspace. Their radars are too small and there is far too short time to scan any larger air space. So the targeting info should be extremely precise and up to date for missiles succeed. IFF transmissions are short and not frequent, so it's hard to get accurate targeting info. Besides, that info very quickly becomes obsolete because the aircraft that sent them will be somewhere else with likely different heading, altitude and speed.

Exactly. Trying to get one or more active radar homing missiles to reliably find and track a VLO target would be a nightmare even with a high quality radar lock because the effective range of the missile seekers would be so drastically reduced. Trying to employ them on the basis of a brief IFF "chirp" would be a guaranteed waste of perfectly good missiles

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2020, 00:38
by outlaw162
We had tree in all our hand me down F-4Ds (at least 24). Even with it, it still took a considerable amount of 'tilt & gain' finesse (analog radar) to be able to actually shoot anything at the return. Our ex C-5 navigator WSOs often struggled for finesse. Hats off to those folks that used it effectively back then. :thumb:

Actually better for mode 3 collision avoidance in its twilight.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2020, 01:43
by ricnunes
Thanks basher54321 and aussiebloke for the info about Combat Tree!

And also thanks Gums and outlaw162 for your real life first hand stories and experiences!

:thumb:

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2020, 03:42
by spazsinbad
Back in the dreamiest of dream times 23 Jun 2014 'BP' :applause: had a few clues for us about COMBAT TREE brudda:

viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25662&p=273905&hilit=Combat+Tree#p273905

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2020, 11:28
by spazsinbad
07 Apr 2020 USS FORD IFF in ACTION: https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=112565
"...Ford’s first certification of integrated combat systems tested the Air Traffic Control Radar Beacon (ATCRB) and Identification of Friend or Foe (IFF). The tests, conducted over several days, evaluated the ATCRB’s ability to track air and surface contacts and to identify friendly and enemy aircraft using an advanced identification system. IFF is used not only for positive, secure, friend identification, but also to control aircraft.

“We use an interrogator system to challenge aircraft transponders for identification,” said Operations Specialist 2nd class Juannietagrace Okeli, from Moss Point, Mississippi. “The interrogator, cooperative engagement capability, and the Ships Self-Defense Systems (SSDS) work together to provide us the combat identification.”..."

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2020, 18:12
by outlaw162
(Ancient) History Lesson:

Contrary to some of the statements in that Combat Tree thread above, F-4 WSOs did not 'guide' AIM-7s among other things.

Radar targets could be locked on to by the WSO, or by the pilot auto-acq switch on the outboard throttle. The AIM-7 CW guidance illumination requirement was the same for either type of acquisition, the difference being the pilot boresight auto-acq system was limited to 10 miles, and was switched to by the WSO when requested by the pilot, often in cases where the WSO was having some difficulty, generally during maneuvering. No tilt and gain required if the pilot could see and boresight the target, front or rear aspect, inside 10 miles on the front with closure being problematical for tuning and settling times.

With respect to BVR shots, you could not lock on to an APX return. In the F-4D, you had to have the raw analog radar return, which involved azimuth, distance AND ELEVATION to lock on to a target. The displayed APX lines gave rough azimuth and distance, so at least one knew 'something' was out there to refine the radar antenna direction to, while trying to nail the elevation. Looking down, gain was particularly critical. Tilt and gain, tilt and gain, range gate, lock, wait, wait....shoot....hope.

It was a primitive beginning, just like the AIM-7E itself, but without those small steps, no slammer. Ritchie may have been a great dogfighter also, but his real strength was his absolute knowledge and mastery of how to employ his weapons successfully, even with their somewhat severe limitations.

F-35 and slammer, who could ask for more? :D

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2020, 18:37
by f-16adf
Outlaw,

Generally how far out could the F-4D APQ-109 radar see a fighter sized type target? I have a book that says the Solid State pulse F-4E radar (the APQ-120) with the smaller sized 28 inch dish was from about 25 miles and beyond. However, for a bomber sized target it was around 80nm or more (I think a 57th FIS F-4E WSO said it was approx. 80 or 90nm for a Soviet Bear).

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2020, 19:40
by outlaw162
I think it was advertised as 30ish, which was optimistic from what I saw. And not PD, so it was well advised to stay low. With the APX, advertised at 60ish to get initial range and azimuth bracketed, more time to massage tilt for elevation and gain while pointing in approximately the right direction, and the APX would show all targets....but once you switched back to scan you lost that additional SA and had to pick one and go for it....if you could find a raw return again at all.

Without AWACS, I recall being very happy with the rare 20 mile contacts (actually even with AWACS), but there was a bell curve of WSO ability....with some guys I'd just be happy to have a contact at any range, but I had 20/12 eyes also. I once picked up a lizard F-5E at 13 miles looking down, really. :shock:

Without TWS capability, from 20ish miles you could afford to break lock and sample the APX maybe once if you dared before you committed. In the canned training situation, you could generally expect to find at least two (or more) in mutual support, even running on one contact out of necessity. Not good real world thinking. As I said, it was primitive.

But it sure was fun. :D

edit: BTW the modern radar capabilities of 'sorting' and cross-targeting, etc. and all these type luxuries, were just not usually available to you. You played the cards you were dealt as it were.

edit #2: The F-35 drivers will never have to deal with the 'blind' and 'clueless' concept we were familiar with.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2020, 21:53
by Gums
Salute!

Thanks for the great stuff, Outlaw. My feeling is that Ritchie's or Lodge's kills were due to better SA than finding and poking a bandit with the Tree gear. OTOH apparently Lodge had two HO shots/kills using it to verify ID, despite ROE a for most of the war. We had just gone back up north and needed some kills, plus we had much better GCI than in 1968.

The piece brings back good and bad for this old fart. They were both friends and classmates from the Zoo.

Image
Ritchie upper left, Gums center bottom
Steve, Gums and the two guys on far right got fighters outta UPT

Image
Gums and Steve at an airshow 25 or so years later

Bob lived down the hall in Vandenburg, so I knew him better. I went thru "pilot indoctrination training" with Steve in 1963, when I gave up summer leave for the chance to see what UPT was be like. We both got 12 rides outta the T-37 syllabus, but they wouldn't let us solo. It was obvious from the IP's talk that Steve had great hands. Ditto for Karl Richter, another classmate that I flew with in UPT the next year. No mystery that the three of us graduated very high from UPT and got front seat fighters ( the Double Ugly was just coming aboard, but UPT grads could only be "pilot systems operators" until late '67 or '68.) Bob Lodge was in the quickie Master's degree program, being brainy, so didn't go to UPT for almost a year after Steve and I. But he had good hands and got a Thud assignment.

Steve was a very good pilot, and knew the Sparrow and the Double Ugly better than most, even when he took long shots for tactical reasons. Bob Lodge was "brainy" and I think he may have been involved in in the genesis of Teaball along with Steve.

Lottsa opinions about Bob being shot down, and Steve was in the flight. Despite calls that he had a trailer, he either didn't hear or pressed on to get another kill. I could ask Steve at next reunion, but he will likely remain quiet.

The Locher rescue in the link was one of our case studies when I became a Sandy. We tries a similar rescue with the A-7 in December that year, but too close to Bullseye and we had to abandon the effort after two tries and a shot up Jolly that crash landed on a Lima Site in Laos. We then destroyed the thing ouselves to prevent the PL or Vee from getting the classified stuff.
Long link, but has many good pages about the folks we're talking about:

https://books.google.com/books?id=BxT6h ... ge&f=false

Gums sends...

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2020, 23:07
by jessmo112
Gums you were a handsome devil.
We love the history, please keep it up.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 08 Apr 2020, 23:09
by spazsinbad
:devil: I always imagine GUMS looks like his avatar! :doh:

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 09 Apr 2020, 13:20
by ricnunes
spazsinbad wrote::devil: I always imagine GUMS looks like his avatar! :doh:


LoL, me too :mrgreen:

Anyway, great stories there Gums and Outlaw! Keep them coming :thumb:

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2020, 10:34
by hocum
charlielima223 wrote:Its funny when Russian fanboys/trolls claim that the S-300/400 can detect the F-35 and F-22. Yet when pressed as to how their usual response comes out reading like this after awhile...

Usually it uses a different frequency bands - L-band, UHF-band, "optic"... For example, S-400 has L-band surveylance radar - 91N6. Low and middle range systems always has optic/thermo visors. All clear, it's magic only for persons who knows nothing about this complexes and physics. For L-band (15 - 30cm wavelength) radar you need to cover stealth plane comparable layer thickness of half radar wave lenght (half-legth antenna/vibrator), or such cover is uneffective. Plane form like F-117 we don't see, so much stealth it is a coverage. Stealth planes has so thick coverage? :oops:

Defence area minimum limit - 2 large complexes, normal -3 large complexes. It means that stealth will be surveylance from very different angles.

If stealth use their radar or open bays/gears off - it's not a stealth anymore, so it can't survey and attack immediatly by yourself without fired at own, and must use only full self-guided ammunitions. Or stealth will be fired on instantly.

So, what I am wondering - why nobody speacking about land decoys and jammers? Do you all really belive that air-defence complexes hasn't any protection? :D Whithout any strict aviation limits for weight, sizes, forms, energy consumption, logistics? Every SDB, or, my godness - CRUISE MISSILE - and complex takes a direct hit, of course, into complex HQ or surveylance radar? :D
Let me suggest - because you are knowning nothing about that, aren't you? :wink:

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2020, 11:41
by falcon.16
hocum wrote:
charlielima223 wrote:Its funny when Russian fanboys/trolls claim that the S-300/400 can detect the F-35 and F-22. Yet when pressed as to how their usual response comes out reading like this after awhile...

Usually it uses a different frequency bands - L-band, UHF-band, "optic"... For example, S-400 has L-band surveylance radar - 91N6. Low and middle range systems always has optic/thermo visors. All clear, it's magic only for persons who knows nothing about this complexes and physics. For L-band (15 - 30cm wavelength) radar you need to cover stealth plane comparable layer thickness of half radar wave lenght (half-legth antenna/vibrator), or such cover is uneffective. Plane form like F-117 we don't see, so much stealth it is a coverage. Stealth planes has so thick coverage? :oops:

Defence area minimum limit - 2 large complexes, normal -3 large complexes. It means that stealth will be surveylance from very different angles.

If stealth use their radar or open bays/gears off - it's not a stealth anymore, so it can't survey and attack immediatly by yourself without fired at own, and must use only full self-guided ammunitions. Or stealth will be fired on instantly.

So, what I am wondering - why nobody speacking about land decoys and jammers? Do you all really belive that air-defence complexes hasn't any protection? :D Whithout any strict aviation limits for weight, sizes, forms, energy consumption, logistics? Every SDB, or, my godness - CRUISE MISSILE - and complex takes a direct hit, of course, into complex HQ or surveylance radar? :D
Let me suggest - because you are knowning nothing about that, aren't you? :wink:


Weapon bays open very few seconds, it is not enough for get firing solution on it. And after you need guide the missile very near.

You do not understand all these phases.

And of course, radar will stay ON all time....for telling to everybody, "hey i am here". :D

It is so easy destroy a stealth airplane that everybody wants one, included Rusia or China. :roll:

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2020, 13:07
by eloise
hocum wrote:Usually it uses a different frequency bands - L-band, UHF-band, "optic"... For example, S-400 has L-band surveylance radar - 91N6. Low and middle range systems always has optic/thermo visors. All clear, it's magic only for persons who knows nothing about this complexes and physics. For L-band (15 - 30cm wavelength) radar you need to cover stealth plane comparable layer thickness of half radar wave lenght (half-legth antenna/vibrator), or such cover is uneffective. Plane form like F-117 we don't see, so much stealth it is a coverage. Stealth planes has so thick coverage? :oops:

Although that theory gets recycle and brought up every now and then, it is sadly an oversimplify and incorrect representation of fact. If only countering stealth aircraft can be that easy then no one would be researching them. The way waves interact with objects are far more complex.
Firstly, the total radar reflection of a complex body such as aircraft made from several different kinds of reflections:
Image
Specular return: this is the most significant form of reflection in optical region (when structure circumphere > 10 times wavelength) ,surface acts like a mirror for the incident radar pulse. Most of the incident radar energy is reflected according to the law of specular reflection ( the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence).This kind of reflection can be reduced significantly by shaping
Traveling/Surface wave return: an incident radar wave strike on the aircraft body can generate a traveling current on surface that propagates along a path to surface boundaries such as leading edge, surface discontinuous …etc, such surface boundaries can either cause a backward traveling wave or make the wave scattered in many directions .This kind of reflection can be reduced by radar absorbing material, radar absorbing structure, reduce surface gap or edges alignment ( so that their lobes occur in low priority region )
Diffraction: wave striking a very sharp surface or edge are scattered instead of following law of spectacular reflection.
Creeping wave return: this is a form of a traveling wave that doesn’t face surface discontinuous and not reflected by obstacle when traveling along object surface ,so it is able to travel around the object and come back at the radar. Unlike normal traveling wave, creeping wave traveled along surface shadowed from incidence wave (because it has to go around the object). As a result, the amplitude of creeping wave will reduce the further it has to travel because it can’t feed energy from the incident wave in the shadow region. Creeping wave mostly traveled around a curved or circular object. So, stealth fighters and stealth cruise missiles do not use tube fuselage. Nevertheless, the creeping wave return is much weaker than the specular return.
The percentage which each type of return will contribute to the total RCS value of an object depending on which region that object located in.
A high-frequency regime (or optical region) applies when the circumference of the object is at least 10 times longer than the wavelength of the incident radar wave. In this regime, specular mechanisms dominate the radar reflection ,(the angle of reflection equals the angle of incidence), like billiard balls colliding. Reflection towards the emitting radar – is reduced by angling surfaces so that they are rarely perpendicular to radars and suppressing the reflections from re-entrant structures such as engine intakes and antenna cavities with combinations of internal shaping, radar-absorbent material (RAM) or frequency selective surfaces. In this regime, “surface wave” mechanisms are small contributors to RCS, but are still present. If the wavelength is small relative to the surface, these waves are weak and their overlap will generate maximum backscatter when the radar signal is at grazing angles. When these currents encounter discontinuities, such as the end of a surface, they abruptly change and emit “edge waves.” The waves from different edges interact constructively or destructively due to their phases. The result is that they can strengthen the reflection in the specular direction and create “sidelobes” – a fan of returns around the specular reflection which undulate rapidly and weaken as the angle deviates from the specular direction. Surface wave reflections are generally very small in the optical region.
Mie region or also known as the resonance region : applies when radar wavelength*0.1 ≤ object circumference ≤ radar wavelength*1 in this region the surface wave can also swing around a structure’s back side, becoming “creeping waves” that shed energy incrementally and contribute to backscatter when they swing back toward the threat radar. This creeping wave can interferes constructively or destructively with the specular backscatter to produce a variation in the object’s RCS. Creeping wave doesn’t follow mirror like reflection rule, thus the common angular shape of stealth aircraft doesn’t help deflect them away from the threat radar
Image
So why is stealth less effective at low frequency? As the radar wavelength of radar grows, the intensity of specular reflections is reduced but its lobes width are widened (the same phenomenon also happened to radar, if aperture size remained the same, the reduction in frequency will increase radar beamwidth). Because the specular reflection lobes are widen ,shaping become less effective because it will be harder to deflect radar wave away from the source ( it is important to note that, while this lobe widening phenomenon making shaping less effective, it also reduce the intensity of the reflection because the energy will be distributed over a wider volume )
Image
Specular reflections from flat surfaces decrease with the square of the wavelength but widen proportionally: at 1/10th the surface length(approaching Mie region) they are around 6 deg. wide.

At lower frequency, the effect of traveling wave and diffraction is also more pronoun. For flat surfaces, traveling waves grow with the square of wavelength and their angle of peak backscatter rises with the square root of wavelength: (at 1/10th the surface length, it is over 15 deg). As the power of surface wave grow, the power of creeping wave return also grow. Tip diffractions and edge waves from facets viewed diagonally also grow with the square of wavelength. The end result is that the net value of stealth aircraft’s RCS often increases in Mie region. Maximum RCS is often reached when the wavelength reaches the circumference of the structure
There is a common misconception that any low-frequency radar can render stealth aircraft useless regardless of their transmitting power or aperture size (Ex: Tikhomirov NIIP L-band transmitter on the leading edge of Flanker series are often cited by enthusiasts as a counter stealth system) , that is wrong however. While it is true that stealth aircraft will often have higher RCS in Mie region. It is important to remember that given equal radar aperture area, lower frequency radars will have much wider beam compared to high-frequency radars, thus, the concentration of energy is much lower making them more vulnerable to jamming, lower gain also result in lower accuracy. Moreover, as mentioned earlier lower frequency also resulted in wider reflection beamwidth, hence weaker reflection. As a result, most low-frequency radars have much bigger transmitting antenna compared high-mid frequency radar (to get narrow beamwidth) ,it is also the reason that fighters fire control radar still work in X-band, because a L-band, VHF band radars of similar size would be too inaccurate for any purpose others than early warning.
So, is there any way for modern stealth aircraft to reduce their return even in Mie region?. The answer is YES
To begin with, the negative effect of traveling wave and diffraction can be reduced by: aligning discontinuities to direct traveling waves towards angles of unavoidable specular return, such as the wing leading edge, thus limit their impact at other angles.
For example: serrated edges are used in places where there is current discontinuity such as weapon bay door so that traveling wave return reflected toward less important aspect
Image
Image
Another common method to reduce the effect of surface wave is designing airframe facets with non-perpendicular corners and so radars view them along their diagonals, at low angles and across from the facets’ smallest angles, limits the area of edge-wave emission. Surface wave diffraction can also be reduced by blending facets. The first stealth aircraft, the F-117, was designed with a computer program that could only predict reflections from flat surfaces, necessitating a fully faceted shape, but all later stealth aircraft such as B-2 , F-35 , F-22, X-47 use blended facets. Shapes composed of blended facets are not only more aerodynamic but also allow currents to smoothly transition at their edges, reducing surface-wave scattering. Therefore, blended bodies have the potential for a lower RCS than fully faceted structures, especially at low-frequency regime. And blending the curves around an aircraft in a precise mathematical manner can reduce RCS around the azimuth plane by an order of magnitude. The penalty is often a slight widening of the specular return at the curves, but in directions at which threat radars are less likely to be positioned. This was one of the great discoveries of the second generation of stealth technology.
Image
Image
Image
It is, however, important to remember that, even though a blended body shape can benefit stealth characteristics because they reduce surface scattering compared to sharp facet design. A full circular (tube) body is extremely bad for stealth application, the reason is that the surface wave doesn’t get scatter but will travel a full circle around the object and come back to the source (also known as creeping wave return).
Image
While it is possible to reduce the number of sharp edges with blended edge design, it is not possible to get rid of them all, for example an aircraft will always have wing and inlet edges. Thus, there are the need for trailing edge and leading edge treatment. As mentioned earlier, the edge diffraction is more pronoun at lower frequency. To reduce the effect of edge diffraction, the wing and inlet leading edge can be made to be a soft electromagnetic surface, to achieve this, a tapered resistive sheet can be stuck or painted on the edge. Additionally, the edge can be made from bulk absorber to improve the result. Similar to the previous example, the resistivity of the sheet will reduce from the maximum at the front tip of the edge to near zero at the rear. The resistivity of the sheet can be increased by adding holes and reduce by adding metal particles in it. This allows the surface current to transition slowly rather than abruptly as well as be absorbed and thus reduce the edge diffraction as well as surface waves
Image
Image
Image
Image
As mentioned earlier, the resistive strip/tape must have a WIDTH at least half the wavelength of the lowest frequency of interest to be effective (read image carefully, the width not the thickness) , so it is plausible to estimate the lowest frequency where the edge treatment can remain effective.
For example the inlet edge strip/tape treatment of F-35 has a width between 22- 25.4 cm, which would indicate the lowest frequency where the treatment can still be effective is around 0.5-0.7 GHz
Image

Finally, Rayleigh Region applies when the circumference of the object is smaller than the radar wavelength. A common misconception is that the lower the operating frequency of the radar ( longer wavelength ), the better it would perform again stealth assets. That is wrong, however. It is important to remember that aircraft RCS does not necessarily grow linearly with an increase in frequency. Once the radar wavelength grows past the target’s circumference, the specifics of target geometry cease to be important and only its general shape affects reflection. The radar wave is longer than the structure and pushes current from one side of it to the other as the field alternates, causing it to act like a dipole and emit electromagnetic waves in almost all directions. This phenomenon is known as Rayleigh scattering. At this point, the RCS for aircraft will then decrease with the fourth power of the wavelength and can get exponentially smaller as the frequency reduced.
Image
There is a common misconception that any low-frequency radar can render stealth aircraft useless regardless of their transmitting power or aperture size (Ex: Tikhomirov NIIP L-band transmitter on the leading edge of Flanker series are often cited by enthusiasts as a counter stealth system) , that is wrong however. While it is true that stealth aircraft will often have higher RCS in Mie region. It is important to remember that given equal radar aperture area, lower frequency radars will have much wider beam compared to high-frequency radars, thus, the concentration of energy is much lower making them more vulnerable to jamming, lower gain also result in lower accuracy. Moreover, as mentioned earlier lower frequency also resulted in wider reflection beamwidth, hence weaker reflection. As a result, most low-frequency radars have much bigger transmitting antenna compared high-mid frequency radar (to get narrow beamwidth) ,it is also the reason that fighters fire control radar still work in X-band, because a L-band, VHF band radars of similar size would be too inaccurate for any purpose others than early warning.
Image
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... ermeasure/

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2020, 13:58
by tank-top
eloise wrote:
hocum wrote:Usually it uses a different frequency bands - L-band, UHF-band, "optic"... For example, S-400 has L-band surveylance radar - 91N6. Low and middle range systems always has optic/thermo visors. All clear, it's magic only for persons who knows nothing about this complexes and physics. For L-band (15 - 30cm wavelength) radar you need to cover stealth plane comparable layer thickness of half radar wave lenght (half-legth antenna/vibrator), or such cover is uneffective. Plane form like F-117 we don't see, so much stealth it is a coverage. Stealth planes has so thick coverage? :oops:

Although that theory gets recycle and brought up every now and then, it is sadly an oversimplify and incorrect representation of fact. If only countering stealth aircraft can be that easy then no one would be researching them. The way waves interact with objects are far more complex.
Firstly, the total radar reflection of a complex body such as aircraft made from several different kinds of reflections:
Image
Specular return: this is the most significant form of reflection in optical region (when structure circumphere > 10 times wavelength) ,surface acts like a mirror for the incident radar pulse. Most of the incident radar energy is reflected according to the law of specular reflection ( the angle of reflection is equal to the angle of incidence).This kind of reflection can be reduced significantly by shaping
Traveling/Surface wave return: an incident radar wave strike on the aircraft body can generate a traveling current on surface that propagates along a path to surface boundaries such as leading edge, surface discontinuous …etc, such surface boundaries can either cause a backward traveling wave or make the wave scattered in many directions .This kind of reflection can be reduced by radar absorbing material, radar absorbing structure, reduce surface gap or edges alignment ( so that their lobes occur in low priority region )
Diffraction: wave striking a very sharp surface or edge are scattered instead of following law of spectacular reflection.
Creeping wave return: this is a form of a traveling wave that doesn’t face surface discontinuous and not reflected by obstacle when traveling along object surface ,so it is able to travel around the object and come back at the radar. Unlike normal traveling wave, creeping wave traveled along surface shadowed from incidence wave (because it has to go around the object). As a result, the amplitude of creeping wave will reduce the further it has to travel because it can’t feed energy from the incident wave in the shadow region. Creeping wave mostly traveled around a curved or circular object. So, stealth fighters and stealth cruise missiles do not use tube fuselage. Nevertheless, the creeping wave return is much weaker than the specular return.
The percentage which each type of return will contribute to the total RCS value of an object depending on which region that object located in.
A high-frequency regime (or optical region) applies when the circumference of the object is at least 10 times longer than the wavelength of the incident radar wave. In this regime, specular mechanisms dominate the radar reflection ,(the angle of reflection equals the angle of incidence), like billiard balls colliding. Reflection towards the emitting radar – is reduced by angling surfaces so that they are rarely perpendicular to radars and suppressing the reflections from re-entrant structures such as engine intakes and antenna cavities with combinations of internal shaping, radar-absorbent material (RAM) or frequency selective surfaces. In this regime, “surface wave” mechanisms are small contributors to RCS, but are still present. If the wavelength is small relative to the surface, these waves are weak and their overlap will generate maximum backscatter when the radar signal is at grazing angles. When these currents encounter discontinuities, such as the end of a surface, they abruptly change and emit “edge waves.” The waves from different edges interact constructively or destructively due to their phases. The result is that they can strengthen the reflection in the specular direction and create “sidelobes” – a fan of returns around the specular reflection which undulate rapidly and weaken as the angle deviates from the specular direction. Surface wave reflections are generally very small in the optical region.
Mie region or also known as the resonance region : applies when radar wavelength*0.1 ≤ object circumference ≤ radar wavelength*1 in this region the surface wave can also swing around a structure’s back side, becoming “creeping waves” that shed energy incrementally and contribute to backscatter when they swing back toward the threat radar. This creeping wave can interferes constructively or destructively with the specular backscatter to produce a variation in the object’s RCS. Creeping wave doesn’t follow mirror like reflection rule, thus the common angular shape of stealth aircraft doesn’t help deflect them away from the threat radar
Image
So why is stealth less effective at low frequency? As the radar wavelength of radar grows, the intensity of specular reflections is reduced but its lobes width are widened (the same phenomenon also happened to radar, if aperture size remained the same, the reduction in frequency will increase radar beamwidth). Because the specular reflection lobes are widen ,shaping become less effective because it will be harder to deflect radar wave away from the source ( it is important to note that, while this lobe widening phenomenon making shaping less effective, it also reduce the intensity of the reflection because the energy will be distributed over a wider volume )
Image
Specular reflections from flat surfaces decrease with the square of the wavelength but widen proportionally: at 1/10th the surface length(approaching Mie region) they are around 6 deg. wide.

At lower frequency, the effect of traveling wave and diffraction is also more pronoun. For flat surfaces, traveling waves grow with the square of wavelength and their angle of peak backscatter rises with the square root of wavelength: (at 1/10th the surface length, it is over 15 deg). As the power of surface wave grow, the power of creeping wave return also grow. Tip diffractions and edge waves from facets viewed diagonally also grow with the square of wavelength. The end result is that the net value of stealth aircraft’s RCS often increases in Mie region. Maximum RCS is often reached when the wavelength reaches the circumference of the structure
There is a common misconception that any low-frequency radar can render stealth aircraft useless regardless of their transmitting power or aperture size (Ex: Tikhomirov NIIP L-band transmitter on the leading edge of Flanker series are often cited by enthusiasts as a counter stealth system) , that is wrong however. While it is true that stealth aircraft will often have higher RCS in Mie region. It is important to remember that given equal radar aperture area, lower frequency radars will have much wider beam compared to high-frequency radars, thus, the concentration of energy is much lower making them more vulnerable to jamming, lower gain also result in lower accuracy. Moreover, as mentioned earlier lower frequency also resulted in wider reflection beamwidth, hence weaker reflection. As a result, most low-frequency radars have much bigger transmitting antenna compared high-mid frequency radar (to get narrow beamwidth) ,it is also the reason that fighters fire control radar still work in X-band, because a L-band, VHF band radars of similar size would be too inaccurate for any purpose others than early warning.
So, is there any way for modern stealth aircraft to reduce their return even in Mie region?. The answer is YES
To begin with, the negative effect of traveling wave and diffraction can be reduced by: aligning discontinuities to direct traveling waves towards angles of unavoidable specular return, such as the wing leading edge, thus limit their impact at other angles.
For example: serrated edges are used in places where there is current discontinuity such as weapon bay door so that traveling wave return reflected toward less important aspect
Image
Image
Another common method to reduce the effect of surface wave is designing airframe facets with non-perpendicular corners and so radars view them along their diagonals, at low angles and across from the facets’ smallest angles, limits the area of edge-wave emission. Surface wave diffraction can also be reduced by blending facets. The first stealth aircraft, the F-117, was designed with a computer program that could only predict reflections from flat surfaces, necessitating a fully faceted shape, but all later stealth aircraft such as B-2 , F-35 , F-22, X-47 use blended facets. Shapes composed of blended facets are not only more aerodynamic but also allow currents to smoothly transition at their edges, reducing surface-wave scattering. Therefore, blended bodies have the potential for a lower RCS than fully faceted structures, especially at low-frequency regime. And blending the curves around an aircraft in a precise mathematical manner can reduce RCS around the azimuth plane by an order of magnitude. The penalty is often a slight widening of the specular return at the curves, but in directions at which threat radars are less likely to be positioned. This was one of the great discoveries of the second generation of stealth technology.
Image
Image
Image
It is, however, important to remember that, even though a blended body shape can benefit stealth characteristics because they reduce surface scattering compared to sharp facet design. A full circular (tube) body is extremely bad for stealth application, the reason is that the surface wave doesn’t get scatter but will travel a full circle around the object and come back to the source (also known as creeping wave return).
Image
While it is possible to reduce the number of sharp edges with blended edge design, it is not possible to get rid of them all, for example an aircraft will always have wing and inlet edges. Thus, there are the need for trailing edge and leading edge treatment. As mentioned earlier, the edge diffraction is more pronoun at lower frequency. To reduce the effect of edge diffraction, the wing and inlet leading edge can be made to be a soft electromagnetic surface, to achieve this, a tapered resistive sheet can be stuck or painted on the edge. Additionally, the edge can be made from bulk absorber to improve the result. Similar to the previous example, the resistivity of the sheet will reduce from the maximum at the front tip of the edge to near zero at the rear. The resistivity of the sheet can be increased by adding holes and reduce by adding metal particles in it. This allows the surface current to transition slowly rather than abruptly as well as be absorbed and thus reduce the edge diffraction as well as surface waves
Image
Image
Image
Image
As mentioned earlier, the resistive strip/tape must have a WIDTH at least half the wavelength of the lowest frequency of interest to be effective (read image carefully, the width not the thickness) , so it is plausible to estimate the lowest frequency where the edge treatment can remain effective.
For example the inlet edge strip/tape treatment of F-35 has a width between 22- 25.4 cm, which would indicate the lowest frequency where the treatment can still be effective is around 0.5-0.7 GHz
Image

Finally, Rayleigh Region applies when the circumference of the object is smaller than the radar wavelength. A common misconception is that the lower the operating frequency of the radar ( longer wavelength ), the better it would perform again stealth assets. That is wrong, however. It is important to remember that aircraft RCS does not necessarily grow linearly with an increase in frequency. Once the radar wavelength grows past the target’s circumference, the specifics of target geometry cease to be important and only its general shape affects reflection. The radar wave is longer than the structure and pushes current from one side of it to the other as the field alternates, causing it to act like a dipole and emit electromagnetic waves in almost all directions. This phenomenon is known as Rayleigh scattering. At this point, the RCS for aircraft will then decrease with the fourth power of the wavelength and can get exponentially smaller as the frequency reduced.
Image
There is a common misconception that any low-frequency radar can render stealth aircraft useless regardless of their transmitting power or aperture size (Ex: Tikhomirov NIIP L-band transmitter on the leading edge of Flanker series are often cited by enthusiasts as a counter stealth system) , that is wrong however. While it is true that stealth aircraft will often have higher RCS in Mie region. It is important to remember that given equal radar aperture area, lower frequency radars will have much wider beam compared to high-frequency radars, thus, the concentration of energy is much lower making them more vulnerable to jamming, lower gain also result in lower accuracy. Moreover, as mentioned earlier lower frequency also resulted in wider reflection beamwidth, hence weaker reflection. As a result, most low-frequency radars have much bigger transmitting antenna compared high-mid frequency radar (to get narrow beamwidth) ,it is also the reason that fighters fire control radar still work in X-band, because a L-band, VHF band radars of similar size would be too inaccurate for any purpose others than early warning.
Image
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavion ... ermeasure/


I have been getting into home theater recently and it’s mind numbing just to start figuring out how sound waves interact with the room and other sound waves. That’s in a room you know the dimensions of in a very narrow audio bandwidth and you still get all kinds of issues with frequency cancellation etc. Referencing what Gums just said about the F-4 and the AIM 7 is about where audio is currently, now fast forward 50 years to stealth, EW and general tactics and FOW, I’m starting to believe the military industrial complex lies more about abilities than snake oil charlatan hi fi companies!

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2020, 15:36
by spazsinbad
Rather than repeat all of the above quote I'll just quote the text part of the quote:
"I have been getting into home theater recently and it’s mind numbing just to start figuring out how sound waves interact with the room and other sound waves. That’s in a room you know the dimensions of in a very narrow audio bandwidth and you still get all kinds of issues with frequency cancellation etc. Referencing what Gums just said about the F-4 and the AIM 7 is about where audio is currently, now fast forward 50 years to stealth, EW and general tactics and FOW, I’m starting to believe the military industrial complex lies more about abilities than snake oil charlatan hi fi companies!"

This will be an interesting read for you 'tank-top': https://socratic.org/questions/how-are- ... etic-waves

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2020, 16:23
by tank-top
spazsinbad wrote:Rather than repeat all of the above quote I'll just quote the text part of the quote:
"I have been getting into home theater recently and it’s mind numbing just to start figuring out how sound waves interact with the room and other sound waves. That’s in a room you know the dimensions of in a very narrow audio bandwidth and you still get all kinds of issues with frequency cancellation etc. Referencing what Gums just said about the F-4 and the AIM 7 is about where audio is currently, now fast forward 50 years to stealth, EW and general tactics and FOW, I’m starting to believe the military industrial complex lies more about abilities than snake oil charlatan hi fi companies!"

This will be an interesting read for you 'tank-top': https://socratic.org/questions/how-are- ... etic-waves


No argument there, I was simply making a comparison even if it was apples to space ships. My point was claimed abilities vs real world abilities and I was really making the statement toward our broken English friend. In response to your article, EM waves don’t need physical particles to travel through but they are affected by it, hence stealth. I had the opportunity to chat with some people who work with our latest radar technology and emerging radar technology, from the little they told me we can do some really cool stuff, like tracking individual rotor blades on multiple drones under less than stellar conditions.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2020, 04:14
by Gums
Salute!

@Tank !!!!!!

PLZ attempt to simply extract a few words to make a point and avoid a complete duplicate of a previous post!!!

GASP! I almost passed your post up as I thot it was a keystroke mistake by Eloise.

@eloise
A super tutorial about radar and such. I hope there's a lot more about the LO plane design that you will keep quiet.

Gums sends...

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2020, 11:34
by hocum
eloise wrote:Although that theory gets recycle and brought up every now and then, it is sadly an oversimplify and incorrect representation of fact.

Really? So much words and pictures from you, and all about radar waves, with simple book theory, without any your own mindwork. It is showing something, I suspect. :wink:

Do you reject that stealth plane exellent visible by human eye, don't you? Optic/thermovisors scopes/cameras can easyly observe and tracking stealth aircraft. Buk, Vyitaz, Osa, Pantsir, Thor, Tunguska, Strela-10, Kub/Kvadrat has it. Su and Migs has it. Is it incorrect representation of the fact?

But you did "incorrect representation" (more correct that you just missed uncomfort question) that normally in position area has THREE main complexes in very different places. Plane can absorb wave from any direction with high cedenbals must looks like an electromagnetic anechoic chamber, reversal outspace. It hasn't even hint of aerodinamics at all. So it isn't especially against stealth even - complexes need to reload their rockets after launches, refresh personnel, stops for maitenance and repair... 8)

Antenna geometry can't cheat by any materials or computer modelling. In another case, nobody would construct miles/kilometras length antenna arrays for submarine linking, for example. Just special materials and computer modelling "phasets surfaces", implement in reversal direction - from absorbing to emitting waves.

It is a matter of fundamental metric of our Riman space. If object is too small/thin - there is no any inluence on wave, that's all. If you can manipulate this - you can manipulate with our space, create hyperdrives, warp portals and so on. If the steals lost its coverage - it becomes much more visible, even by all another complex measures.

Complex countermeasure, such as another band seekers/trackers, different angles of emitting WITH information exchange, radar modes such accumulative informations from special sectors of space instead of regular round obeserving makes every stealth full visible. No any tricks, or "incorrect representaions"... :wink:

And if recall that russian long range complexes in Siria placed nothern Masyaf, so its can't observe air space of Lebannon and Israel because mountines southern and western, placed like so especially for unavailable tracking israely planes... It is obvios that potential danger exists, even for new israely stealth planes.

eloise wrote:If only countering stealth aircraft can be that easy then no one would be researching them.

Why do you mean that it is so easy? Enemy must design, produced, full tested and deploy new radars/optic, upgrade links between them. For fighter planes all it is worse, it is more difficult. Onboard fighter/interceptor radars really has very low capabuilities against stealth, because it is must much more compact then landing/naval, and it isn't so easy to change its band without creating much disadvantages.

For radio guidance missile (especially air-to air) requirements for giudance precisions grows very high, and no ways to go its back so easily too. In another case nor Russia, neither China woudn't create their own stealth planes. But in Russia stealth conception differs: against very problematic unsurveylance (but very temting for first looking, of course) much more measures trying to reach untracking, and radio/proximity fuse correct working problems. This is more difficult to going back, because tracking needs more precisions, and more length waves just fail requirements. For radiofuses, for example, I just don't know good decision at all.

So, stealth is advantage - but against what? Another planes/fighters? Yep, that's true, exellent measure. But against land/naval multi-echeloning air defence position area??? :shock: :D Are you serious? Think again. 8)

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2020, 15:30
by jessmo112
Holy leaping walls of text Batman!!

So in a nutshell does that translate to stealth doesn't work? Even after.

*Gulf war 1 F-117s decimate Iraq?

*Serbia B-2s roam around unmolested

*F-22s over Syria flying unmolested untracked

*F-35s over Syria carrying out strikes with impunity

* stealthy drones and choppers flying in and out of Pakistan with impunity. Real time footage via stealth drone.

Numerous other exercises by other countries at the top of the food chain, including China who finally realized they dangers they are in facing U.S. stealth air craft.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2020, 15:35
by jessmo112
Those darn Chinese and there propaganda.
They should know by now stealth doesnt work.

https://www.businessinsider.com/china-b ... wan-2020-9

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2020, 16:48
by tank-top
Don’t forget about General Farzad Ismaili.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2020, 17:25
by eloise
hocum wrote:If stealth use their radar or open bays/gears off - it's not a stealth anymore, so it can't survey and attack immediatly by yourself without fired at own, and must use only full self-guided ammunitions. Or stealth will be fired on instantly.

Detection alone isn't enough, to attack target you need to track and have a firing solution
Missile are not moving at speed of light so to attack an aircraft, the missile must LEAD it. In other words you don't launch missile at the current location of your target but the expected future location. To do that, you need to know the distance to the stealth aircraft, as well as its direction, heading, altitude and speed. Let say the stealth aircraft uses its radar, the only thing you will know is the general direction of that aircraft, but not the distance or altitude or speed or heading, so you can't get a firing solution for your missile. As a result, you can't launch your missiles
Secondly, the simple radio wave alert doesn't let you identify that the emitter is a stealth aircraft so if you launch your SAM at any radio emitter, you will spend most of your SAM attacking flying decoys rather than actual aircraft, to make thing worse, you might not hit anything either if they use cooperative blinking jamming tactics
Image
Image

hocum wrote:Really? So much words and pictures from you, and all about radar waves, with simple book theory, without any your own mindwork. It is showing something, I suspect. :wink:
Do you reject that stealth plane exellent visible by human eye, don't you? Optic/thermovisors scopes/cameras can easyly observe and tracking stealth aircraft. Buk, Vyitaz, Osa, Pantsir, Thor, Tunguska, Strela-10, Kub/Kvadrat has it. Su and Migs has it. Is it incorrect representation of the fact?

You can see stealth aircraft with optical and thermal system but there are pretty good reasons why thermal and optical systems are mostly integral parts of short and medium range system rather than long range one:
Firstly, passive system such as IRST, optical sensor can't measure range to target and speed of target by themselves. You need to rely on a laser range finder (LRF) to calculate the distance to target and speed, and from that you can get a firing solution for your missile. But the laser doesn't have very long range.
For example: OLS-35 system on Su-35S can detect Su-30 from 90 km in tail aspect, 35 km from frontal aspect. But the laser range measurement distance is only 20 km. So even though you can detect target from longer distance, you can't launch your missile from further than 20 km.
Image

Secondly, thermal and visual radiation are blocked by rain, snow, clouds. You can have the best IR system in the world, but if a cloud is between you and your target, you can't detect them
Image

Last but not least, stealth aircraft do have methods to reduce their infrared signature:
From coating to reduce emissivity
Image



To cooling vent to cool the nacelle bays
Image
Image


to cooled blocker to reduce engine infrared signature
Image
Image


To Cooled engine nozzle
Image


hocum wrote:But you did "incorrect representation" (more correct that you just missed uncomfort question) that normally in position area has THREE main complexes in very different places. Plane can absorb wave from any direction with high cedenbals must looks like an electromagnetic anechoic chamber, reversal outspace. It hasn't even hint of aerodinamics at all. So it isn't especially against stealth even - complexes need to reload their rockets after launches, refresh personnel, stops for maitenance and repair... 8)

Stealth aircraft doesn't need to be stealth in all direction to be effective, it only need to be stealthy in important direction. What you said about three main complexes in different places is much easier said than done.
For example: consider this radar scattering model
Image
We can see the high radar cross section spike located at 30° off boresight (the total low RCS cone at the front is 60°) . So to take advantage of the high RCS spikes, your radars must be located in a way that if you draw a 2 line from the 2 radar to the stealth aircraft, the angle the 2 radar makes with the stealth aircraft is greater than 60°.

But that isn't the only problem, a ground radar emitting will shows its location on aircraft ESM however unlike an airborne emitter, a ground radar can't move very fast and they can't change altitude very fast like an aircraft so air to surface missile doesn't have to LEAD the target, they can be fired at the current target location instead of future predicted location like an anti air missile. In laymen words, a ground radar and an airborne radar will both show up on ESM system when they are transmitting and they can both disappear by going offline but a ground radar can't move very far from the starting location while an aircraft can. So anti radar are a threat to ground radar but they are almost useless against an aircraft.
AARGM-ER range is 300 km, and it fit inside F-35, so for your radar station to track F-35 and doesn't get killed, it must be further than 300 km from the F-35
Using trigonometry, you will see that the two radar stations must further than 300 km each other to full fill both conditions
sss.PNG

Then come the next problem: radar horizon
supposing the radar height is 10 meters, the maximum distance that it can detect an aircraft at 14000 ft is 282 km, so if you put two radar more than 282 km apart then only one of them can have line of sight to the stealth aircraft.
Image
radar horizon.PNG
.

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2020, 18:30
by eloise
hocum wrote:Antenna geometry can't cheat by any materials or computer modelling. In another case, nobody would construct miles/kilometras length antenna arrays for submarine linking, for example. Just special materials and computer modelling "phasets surfaces", implement in reversal direction - from absorbing to emitting waves.

There is no cheat, you lack the basic physic knowledge needed to understand the fundamental of radio wave and radar so you parroting the common stereotype theories without understand what they truly mean
Antenna area and length is dictated by directivity requirement, more focus beam need bigger antenna. Lower frequency need bigger antenna for the same level of directivity as high frequency
Image
You want to see a small antenna transmitting and receiving low frequency when directivity isn't needed, look no further than your own mobile phone, they can receive and transmit at 850 MHz
Image

hocum wrote:It is a matter of fundamental metric of our Riman space. If object is too small/thin - there is no any inluence on wave, that's all. If you can manipulate this - you can manipulate with our space, create hyperdrives, warp portals and so on. If the steals lost its coverage - it becomes much more visible, even by all another complex measures.

There is so much nonsense your comment that it is almost laughable
:doh: if object too small and too thin have no influence on wave then how can chaff work? they are effectively thinner than the human hair and still work in x-band.
Image
and let me guess, you have never heard of Rayleigh scattering too?
and how small for you to consider too small?. Are you aware that pass the Mie region, increase the wavelength will reduce the RCS?
Image
Image
Your comment is only true if we consider atom size but that is very different thing because atoms size is literally 2000-3500 times smaller than the wavelength of visible light and the quantum realm has unique interraction . The interaction is very different from how low frequency radar interact with stealth aircraft.

hocum wrote:Complex countermeasure, such as another band seekers/trackers, different angles of emitting WITH information exchange, radar modes such accumulative informations from special sectors of space instead of regular round obeserving makes every stealth full visible. No any tricks, or "incorrect representaions"... :wink:

Air defense with radars operate in different bands has exist since the Vietnam war they aren't complex or recent.
Different angle of emitting and exchange information? refer to my last post, and find a way for your ground radar to effectively communicate when they are 300 km from the other.
Your broken English make it hard to understand what you are trying to say with a radar modes such accumulative informations from special sectors but suppose that you mean illuminate one sector with many pulse until you can see the stealth aircraft, but you must there is only so many radar pulse you can send until you get the range ambiguity problem
unambiguity.PNG



hocum wrote:So, stealth is advantage - but against what? Another planes/fighters? Yep, that's true, exellent measure. But against land/naval multi-echeloning air defence position area??? :shock: :D Are you serious? Think again. 8)

Stealth is always an advantage not only in detection but also in jamming
Image


Gums wrote:@eloise
A super tutorial about radar and such. I hope there's a lot more about the LO plane design that you will keep quiet.
Gums sends...

I have to thank Garrya for gathering a huge treasure trove of information in his blog, I mostly Ctrl+V from there to save time

Re: S-400 and F-35

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2020, 00:47
by jessmo112
The funny part is when you realize
That the F-35 could possibly take on a S-400 even without stealth. To external cruise missiles
Jamm the radar array.
And head home. The towed decoy for egress.