F-35 versus DEW equipped jumbo jet

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
User avatar


Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1272
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post07 Dec 2018, 18:13

It is generally believed that at some future point with energy weapons, that is if targeting can keep up, then there will be a defensive advantage to "speed of light" weaponry. Any attack will trigger instantaneous defensive fire. A stalemate "might" result.

But this is not assured. Superior early targeting might prohibit such responses, which means things like stealth matter. In that case the first attack wins.

Meanwhile the physics of energy weapons is continuously evolving. Things like medium degradation (atmosphere), BQ (beam quality), range and net power at range, speed, dwell time, and bloom among probably dozens of other factors, each of which can seriously effect results, need to be addressed. That's on the weapon side. It doesn't even begin to look at counter-shielding measures, which are largely unknown at this time. You can't just pick a number like 500KW and decide anything. Higher power might create bigger bloom, and the 150KW energy might work better ... it's all a big formula of variables, and some fairly serious physics.

Which is all to say, the discussion is of marginal value without actually doing the math with real data... with the weapon, and the targeting... And it is not "high school" math either.

User avatar


Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2664
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post07 Dec 2018, 19:18

eloise wrote:For infrared sensor, bigger aperture is better
How much better you can refer to stealthflanker topic viewtopic.php?t=54648&p=406273
The photo i posted belong to DDM-NG aka MWS for Rafale, a much smaller IR sensor than AAS-42 system on YAL-1.
Furthermore, a derivetive of AAS-42 recently went on F-15/F-16/F-18 so i think the sensitivity of the system should be quite good, it hard to believe that it could be worse than Rafale MWS
AAS-42 is a long wave IRST too so it can detect cold target as well.

I would say that things are not that linear as you seem to claim.
I would also say that if you have an IR sensor which is designed to detect very high temperature targets (missile/ICBM plume) at very long distance (several hundreds of kms) then this same sensor would be tuned to only detect very high temperature sources (again, such as missile plume) while at the same time "rejecting" lower temperature targets (such as fighter aircraft) or else that same system/sensors would IMO receive lots of false alarms or false targets which wouldn't make them much feasible in the real world/war scenario.

But I guess that someone with much better knowledge than I on the subject, such as for example hornetfinn could "shed a better light" on this subject.

Anyway, the point is still the same - an ABL such as the YAL-1 will never, ever be able to detect the F-35 first than the F-35 is able to detect the ABL.

eloise wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Then you assume that the NKC-135's radar is AESA, why?.

When i want to know “what tactic that aircraft A can use to defeat aircraft B” ,and there are certain unknown information about aircraft B, i will assume the best case scenario for aircraft B, so that i don’t have to re-plan/re-think when aircraft B turn out better than expected. That make sense?

No, to be honest it doesn't make much of a sense to me. IMO, one thing is to imagine a best case scenario for a platform based on its actual capabilities but another completely different is inventing or giving capabilities to the "B" aircraft (a.k.a. ABL) that it doesn't have or never had!
You see, the first airborne AESA radar ever fitted to an aircraft (hence airborne) was during the 1990's, quite later and after when the NKC-135 was retired in 1984.
So with all due respect giving capabilities to an aircraft that it doesn't have is IMO entering in the BS realm (again, sorry for being "too frontal" here).

eloise wrote:Bottomline i want to know what possible/creative tactic that could be used to deal with jumbo jet equipped with highly powerful laser weapon,assuming they become more popular in the future

What you're asking for was actually replied to you by basically everyone else here:
- The ABL (such as YAL-1) doesn't stand a minimal chance against the F-35.
- Regarding tactics against the ABL simple: The F-35 flies straight towards the ABL shoots three (3) AMRAAM-Ds and speaking on best case scenarios for the "B" aircraft, the "B" aircraft (ABL) would be able to shoot down one of the incoming AMRAAMs and this after detecting them in the boost phase but then the other two won't be detected since they left the boost phase but even giving a second best case scenario to the ABL, if it will be able to detect the other two AMRAAMs when they're close then it either will be able to shoot down one of the two AMRAAMs and "eat" the other (BOOM - ABL dead!) or it simply won't be able to destroy any of the two (2) remaining AMRAAMs since they would be too close (BOOM - ABL dead again!).

In the end, it seems to me that you're trying to give the ABL "capabilities" that it simply doesn't have!
I would say that if the ABL had the capabilities that you're trying to imply that it has than IMO this would be a major breakthrough which would drastically change the entire concept of "aerial warfare" as we know it.
And remember again, the YAL-1 was retired and SCRAPPED. This IMO is more than evidence that you should NEVER assume best case scenarios for the ABL.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.


Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 850
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post09 Dec 2018, 05:40

eloise wrote:What is the blinding distance of 100 kW laser? will it be longer than the distance IRST can detect F-35?
The attachment Blinding tactic.png is no longer available


https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=ks ... &q&f=false

I assume F-35 HEL will have a mirror diameter of 20 cm and output of 100kW.
Using stealthflanker excel spreadsheet http://www.mediafire.com/file/r25cdq2f6 ... .xlsx/file
Such system can damage/destroy optical sensor from 70 km in 10 seconds and blind human eye from 100 km in 2 second
F-35 HEL blind sensor.PNG

F-35 blind eye.PNG




  • Posts: 65
  • Joined: 26 Mar 2015, 07:21

Unread post10 Dec 2018, 05:13

eloise wrote:
nathan77 wrote:While the acquisition radar is mid-plane, do you know if it's a sweeping or fixed radar?

I don’t know for sure, but let assume it is an AESA on a steering platform similar to what available on E-3

I'd then go stealth mode + the F-35's EW suite. Should be able to get within max AMRAAM range (jumbos aren't the most agile target). 4 AMRAAMS isn't ideal, but I'd hope at least one would hit (since the laser can only destroy one at a time).

eloise wrote:
nathan77 wrote:Without atmospheric conditions which can help disburse laser (i.e. cloud), I would still attack from a low altitude (make the sensors work to pick me out from the ground clutter). And I would still attack from the stern - with the laser at the top and closer to the front it still has to adjust as it can't shoot through its fuselage

What if the jumbo jet crusing at low altitude and flying in a circle pattern?

Excellent; that means I can use terrain to mask my approach. Could hopefully get well within the AMRAAMS NEZ which would leave the jumbo with little reaction time.

But let me guess... it's going to be at Sea or in the Desert?

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests