F-35 versus DEW equipped jumbo jet

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

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1515
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post05 Dec 2018, 11:18

Imagine you are the pilot of an F-35, tasked with the job to shot down a jumbo jet equipped with powerful laser weapon ( based on either A-60, NC-135 or YAL-1) you do this alone, no other support
How will you do it? What tactics you will use
What weapons will you choose to equip your fighter with?
let discuss.
:mrgreen:
Image
Image
Image
Image
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1537
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post05 Dec 2018, 13:41

Sometimes I do enjoy thinking about such very improbable and theoretical examples as the one you just posted. I would say that the probability of this example of yours actually happening is probable lower than an Alien invasion but this you probably know already. :wink:

This being said, I don't think that any of those ABLs (AirBorne Lasers) would have a minimal chance against the F-35 specially in a one-versus-one scenario.
The "best" or the ABL which has the most powerful laser of those that you mentioned (A-60, NC-135 or YAL-1) is likely the YAL-1 (which was based on the 747 and already retired and scrapped).
The YAL-1 was expected to destroy a robustly built ICBM at a maximum range of 300 km (and this at best or in a best case scenario).
A F-35 would be a much, much harder target to destroy (by that Laser) compared to an ICBM since it has a much sturdier construction and its interior is not mostly composed by highly flammable/explosive Liquid Fuel and Liquid Oxygen (like in the ICBM) and with its "external coating" (including airframe) being likely thicker and with lots of different angles (this again, compared to even a "sturdy built" ICBM) which in practical terms should drastically reduce the YAL-1 Laser "effective range" against the F-35 to a much lower range compared to those 300 km mentioned above.

Then it comes the most important part: Detection and Engagement Range.
The YAL-1 detection sensors are IR designed to detect missiles during the boost phase (likely by detecting the ICBMs huge plume) while as opposed, the F-35's radar shouldn't have any problems detecting the 747 (YAL-1) at ranges exceeding 300 km while the F-35 could technically engage the YAL-1 with AIM-120D missiles at maximum ranges of around 180km which in itself is probably more than the range that the YAL-1 could effectively use its Laser against the F-35.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1515
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post05 Dec 2018, 16:44

ricnunes wrote:The YAL-1 was expected to destroy a robustly built ICBM at a maximum range of 300 km (and this at best or in a best case scenario).
A F-35 would be a much, much harder target to destroy (by that Laser) compared to an ICBM since it has a much sturdier construction and its interior is not mostly composed by highly flammable/explosive Liquid Fuel and Liquid Oxygen (like in the ICBM) and with its "external coating" (including airframe) being likely thicker and with lots of different angles (this again, compared to even a "sturdy built" ICBM) which in practical terms should drastically reduce the YAL-1 Laser "effective range" against the F-35 to a much lower range compared to those 300 km mentioned above.

Iam not sure that F-35 airframe will be thicker because ICBM is a lot bigger and isn’t limited by weight as much as a tactical aircraft, any way, the laser can be used to blind F-35 pilot as well. I think the distance that the laser can blind pilot is much greater than the distance it can destroy a ballistic missile.
Image

ricnunes wrote:Then it comes the most important part: Detection and Engagement Range.
The YAL-1 detection sensors are IR designed to detect missiles during the boost phase (likely by detecting the ICBMs huge plume) while as opposed, the F-35's radar shouldn't have any problems detecting the 747 (YAL-1) at ranges exceeding 300 km while the F-35 could technically engage the YAL-1 with AIM-120D missiles at maximum ranges of around 180km which in itself is probably more than the range that the YAL-1 could effectively use its Laser against the F-35.

All of that are true, on the other hand, YAL-1, A-60, NC-135 can all use laser to destroy AIM-120D comming at them. Furthermore, when F-35 launch AIM-120D, it will momentarily has much higher IR signature than in cruising condition that could open an engagement window for YAL-1
Development in the United States has seen the system tested in 1981, when researchers had mounted the system to a KC-135 Stratotanker and successfully destroyed 5 AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles and a simulated cruise missile.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1771
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post05 Dec 2018, 17:03

eloise wrote:Iam not sure that F-35 airframe will be thicker because ICBM is a lot bigger and isn’t limited by weight as much as a tactical aircraft, any way, the laser can be used to blind F-35 pilot as well. I think the distance that the laser can blind pilot is much greater than the distance it can destroy a ballistic missile.


Ummm... aaahhh... while "aerodynamics" do not affect ballistic missiles (or launch vehicles) as much as aircraft, they are pretty much the definition of thrust vs drag / weight. So weight is very much a factor in missile design.

While I am unsure why a single F-35 has been tasked to destroy such an important tactical, if not strategic target, rather than, say at a minimum, an F-35 fourship... I'll play your silly scenario... I would try to approach undetected, from astern, preferably at a slightly higher altitude, and gun the mofo... Not sure if a high Mach dash would help here or not. If it risks IR detection, probably not.

Otherwise... what is the "cycle" time of the "Laser"? Heat issues could become a problem for the target. If that is the case, then a salvo of 4-6 AIM-120s may be in order. Especially if the AIM-120 can be "flown" like a Mk-48 ADCAP torpedo and be "doglegged" in.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1515
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post05 Dec 2018, 17:23

steve2267 wrote:While I am unsure why a single F-35 has been tasked to destroy such an important tactical, if not strategic target, rather than, say at a minimum, an F-35 fourship..

To make it hard :mrgreen:, in reality this will probably be solved by spamming SAM but that is extremely boring and easy, i want to see the creativity and unique solution from F-16.net members
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1515
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post05 Dec 2018, 17:40

steve2267 wrote:I would try to approach undetected, from astern, preferably at a slightly higher altitude, and gun the mofo... Not sure if a high Mach dash would help here or not. If it risks IR detection, probably not.

A quick reminder that iR sensors on YAL-1 has 360* coverage, so while approach from astern is a good idea, getting into gun range isn’t.
Image
The first shipset of six ABL Infrared Search and Track (IRST) sensors, a derivative of the proven F-14 IRST sensor, were delivered to Boeing by Lockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control of Orlando, Fla. Four of the six sensors were sent to Wichita, Kan., where Boeing is extensively modifying a 747-400 Freighter into the ABL weapon-system platform. Two sensors were delivered to Boeing in Seattle for integrated testing with missile-tracking software now under development.

The IRST sensors together comprise the ABL's wide-area surveillance subsystem and are to maintain 360-degree surveillance over hundreds of miles from the aircraft while on mission. Once the sensors make an initial detection of a boosting theater ballistic missile, the detection information is sent to the battle management command, control, communication, computers and intelligence (BMC4I) tracker. It will use that information to track the missile's trajectory, and send commands to another surveillance component, the active ranging system (ARS). ARS provides mission personnel with a highly accurate 3D track of its missile target.

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2001-07-11 ... ntegration


steve2267 wrote: Otherwise... what is the "cycle" time of the "Laser"? Heat issues could become a problem for the target. If that is the case, then a salvo of 4-6 AIM-120s may be in order.

If it can destroy ballistic missile from 500km with 3-5 second dwell time, i don’t think AIM-120 can survive long enough to cause overheat
steve2267 wrote:
Especially if the AIM-120 can be "flown" like a Mk-48 ADCAP torpedo and be "doglegged" in.

Can you explain what is “doglegg in”, i don’t understand
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1771
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post05 Dec 2018, 18:25

eloise wrote:
steve2267 wrote: Otherwise... what is the "cycle" time of the "Laser"? Heat issues could become a problem for the target. If that is the case, then a salvo of 4-6 AIM-120s may be in order.

If it can destroy ballistic missile from 500km with 3-5 second dwell time, i don’t think AIM-120 can survive long enough to cause overheat


After it fires the "Laser" for 3-5 seconds... how long until it can fire again? And again after that? and again? Heat from firing the "Laser" will need to be dissipated. It might be able to absorb the heat initially via some sort of heat sink, but eventually, it will need to dissipate the heat. How long will that take -- how long until it can fire again?
steve2267 wrote:
Especially if the AIM-120 can be "flown" like a Mk-48 ADCAP torpedo and be "doglegged" in.

Can you explain what is “doglegg in”, i don’t understand[/quote]

Let's say I manage to approach from directly astern the target. I fire one AIM-120 off to my right, say 30 deg to the right of my nose. It flies off along this heading a ways, then hangs a left and approaches the target from, say, the target's 135° aspect (i.e. 135° off the target's nose -- since I'm approaching from the target's 180° bearing -- i.e. directly behind it). I launch another slammer 30 deg to the left of my nose, such that it flies a ways, then hangs a right and approaches the target from it's 225° aspect or bearing. I'm trying to pincer the target between the slammers. Also, depending on when the target picks up the slammers... it may not know from where they came... so I try to keep my position a mystery as well.

Since this "game" is very much hypothetical... I'm flying a Block 4b F-35A with six internal AIM-120Ds. I ripple fire all six slammers, but such that they all separate along different inbound tracks. Once their motors burn out... they should pose a much harder IR targeting problem to the "Laser" aircraft. Approaching from different attack vectors... the likelihood of one missile getting through should increase.

I am unfamiliar with the sensitivity of the F-14 derived IRST sensor carried on the YAL-1. It may detect an ICBM (a very hot / bright target) from several hundred miles, but what is it's target detection range of an IR-suppressed tactical aircraft somewhere between 0.5-0.85 Mach? Since radar stealth is not really required here, and because you left out supporting aircraft (your scenario posits one YAL-1 (or similar) aircraft vs one F-35)... I may choose to go F-35 Block 4b Beast Mode and load up with 14 AIM-120s (or maybe 8 AIM-120s and 4-6 Meteors) and lob all the AIM-120s at you directly, each approaching from a different attack vector, and then launch the Meteors straight at you, perhaps slightly spread, so they all have the same TOT. Good luck burning down all the incoming before one gets through.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7835
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post05 Dec 2018, 18:36

High altitude F-35 with 4 internal AMRAAM-Ds launched nose on from 75nmi+.

Swap with 4 Meteors to open the range.

Get sneaky with 2 internal armed MALD variants (200nmi+ range) with 2 AMRAAMs as backup.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

fidgetspinner

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 7
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2018, 02:27

Unread post05 Dec 2018, 21:10

@eloise

Out of curiosity do you also go by the name mig-31bn at key forum pub? https://forum.keypublishing.com/forum/m ... ersus-f-35. Its also kind of interesting a topic on lasers is being discussed today when many sources have brought up the Peresvet on this day.

https://www.ruaviation.com/news/2016/9/26/6991/?h The only news anywhere on the laser capabilities is a 1,500km range of getting a reflection from a japanese satellite. This source here says destroy targets but no range estimates. Can we also talk about microwave weapons on this thread since they also relate to destroying missiles and electronics. KRET is worried about protecting their pilots from the laser system they will install, say only unmanned aircrafts should carry microwave weapons. But the only range they gave on their microwave cannons from a buk system was a 10km range.

Does anyone also know which is a better weapon? Lasers or microwave weapons? https://breakingdefense.com/2015/08/ret ... ser-drone/ The US was able to destroy a ballistic missile from 10km using 1 megawatt. At least more tests will be done.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2919
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post06 Dec 2018, 00:23

The F-35 can detect and engage one of these large aircraft outside of their detection/engagement ranges. Their lasers are designed to engage targets at high altitudes, where the atmosphere is thin/non-existent. Their range in thicker air, is a fraction of what it is versus targets in space. Additionally, they aren't designed to engage 9G targets, assuming they could detect the F-35.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1515
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post06 Dec 2018, 03:23

SpudmanWP wrote:High altitude F-35 with 4 internal AMRAAM-Ds launched nose on from 75nmi+.
Swap with 4 Meteors to open the range.

Nose on fighting seem like a bad idea, "laser aircraft" can either burn F-35 or the eye of F-35 pilots. Meteor can fly further than AIM-120D but has higher IR signature


SpudmanWP wrote:Get sneaky with 2 internal armed MALD variants (200nmi+ range) with 2 AMRAAMs as backup.

I thought about this as well, turn out TJ-150 operate at altitude >30.000 feet
Image
download/file.php?id=29020&t=1
fidgetspinner wrote:@eloise
Out of curiosity do you also go by the name mig-31bn at key forum pub? https://forum.keypublishing.com/forum/m ... ersus-f-35. Its also kind of interesting a topic on lasers is being discussed today when many sources have brought up the Peresvet on this day.

Yas
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1515
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post06 Dec 2018, 03:39

steve2267 wrote:Let's say I manage to approach from directly astern the target.

I am curious, how long will it take for F-35 to maneuver to the tail aspect of "laser aircraft"?
It can't use afterburner obviously because that will increase IR signature a lot


steve2267 wrote: I fire one AIM-120 off to my right, say 30 deg to the right of my nose. It flies off along this heading a ways, then hangs a left and approaches the target from, say, the target's 135° aspect (i.e. 135° off the target's nose -- since I'm approaching from the target's 180° bearing -- i.e. directly behind it). I launch another slammer 30 deg to the left of my nose, such that it flies a ways, then hangs a right and approaches the target from it's 225° aspect or bearing. I'm trying to pincer the target between the slammers. Also, depending on when the target picks up the slammers... it may not know from where they came... so I try to keep my position a mystery as well.

I get your idea but i don't think air to air missile can do that, what you propose sound more like what a cruise missile can do. But you could use the flying missile rail instead (if they actually get built)
FLying missile rail.png

SBIR.PNG


steve2267 wrote:I am unfamiliar with the sensitivity of the F-14 derived IRST sensor carried on the YAL-1. It may detect an ICBM (a very hot / bright target) from several hundred miles, but what is it's target detection range of an IR-suppressed tactical aircraft somewhere between 0.5-0.85 Mach?

It is the same one recently went on F-15, F-16 and F-18, let take a high optimistic estimate of 70 km.
viewtopic.php?t=54648&p=406001
Tiger-eye.jpg

webhornet-irst-pic.jpg

1.PNG
Last edited by eloise on 06 Dec 2018, 05:31, edited 1 time in total.
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7835
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post06 Dec 2018, 03:47

eloise wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:High altitude F-35 with 4 internal AMRAAM-Ds launched nose on from 75nmi+.
Swap with 4 Meteors to open the range.

Nose on fighting seem like a bad idea, "laser aircraft" can either burn F-35 or the eye of F-35 pilots. Meteor can fly further than AIM-120D but has higher IR signature


The launch envelope of the AMRAAM and Meteor is well outside 2x the detection range of an IRST in a nose-on engagement.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1515
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post06 Dec 2018, 04:09

I translate an idea from Keypublising into this photo.
In my opinion, it will work against A-60 at least because top speed of A-60 (IL-76 airframe) is Mach 0.82, slow enough for CHAMP (JASSM-ER airframe, top speed Mach 0.9) to catch up from behind, may be close enough for EMP beam to be effective
CHAMP.png


SpudmanWP wrote:The launch envelope of the AMRAAM and Meteor is well outside 2x the detection range of an IRST in a nose-on engagement.

That true, but when AIM-120 or Meteor are launched, they burn very strong, for a moment maybe a few seconds, IRST might be able to sense F-35 direction, then the blind ray coming. I haven't view AIM-120 launch in infrared so can't be sure :? But A2A missile are hot
Image
Offline

squirrelshoes

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 54
  • Joined: 08 Nov 2016, 23:53

Unread post06 Dec 2018, 06:06

wrightwing wrote:assuming they could detect the F-35.

I think this is the big "IF" since they aren't designed to look for LO fighter sized aircraft.
Next

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests