[Dutch F-35A Pilots] Out of the SHADOWS May 2018 PDF

Variants for different customers or mission profiles
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1526
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post07 Apr 2018, 10:49

popcorn wrote:https://patents.google.com/patent/US4823136

The transmit-receive cells are fully functional at broadband and narrow band radio frequencies. In the narrow band of 9.2 to 10.2 GHz, the active antenna system would operate as a radar system. In the broadband range of 2.0 GHz to 20.0 GHz the active antenna system is fully functional in electronic countermeasures and radio frequency jamming. Either application would find a place on an advanced aircraft or space based sensor systems because of weight and size restrictions.


So, this is ESM plus integral passive target detection and locating via phase, plus ECM active phase cancellation re-emission 'jamming', within one system for the whole frequency range?


"... 8. An improved phased-array active antenna system, as in claim 4 wherein said antenna means is a dual horn antenna operable in said broad band range to selectively receive enemy radar transmissions and respond with a cross polarized radio frequency signal of sufficient polarization to jam said enemy radar system.
...
10. A transmit-receive means operable for use in an active, phased array antenna system to transmit or receive a multiplicity of individually phase-shifted radio frequency signals, comprising: ... "


So whatever it hears and classifies as an ACTIVE detector it will automatically re-emit a phase-cancelled mirror signal to reduce gain of return (i.e. after VLO aspect gain attenuations that is)?

And whatever it PASSIVELY hears is recorded, classified and located by phase shifting and triangulation, feed into fused picture?

bugga!
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1526
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post07 Apr 2018, 10:54

popcorn wrote:Makes me wonder what frequencies MALD-X will focus on.


Wouldn't it make sense to use those to defeat VHF on the way in?
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3599
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post07 Apr 2018, 20:05

hornetfinn wrote: Especially so since F-35 can direct very tight jamming beams towards enemy in the frequency band where AN/APG-81 operates.


That's not even including the electronic trickery of the ASQ-239, and ALE-70.
Offline

vanshilar

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2015, 11:23

Unread post08 Apr 2018, 00:26

popcorn wrote:Makes me wonder what frequencies MALD-X will focus on.


Whenever I think of decoys for stealth fighters I think of an F-35 towing a steel marble on a long piece of string.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7722
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post08 Apr 2018, 01:11

wrightwing wrote:
hornetfinn wrote: Especially so since F-35 can direct very tight jamming beams towards enemy in the frequency band where AN/APG-81 operates.


That's not even including the electronic trickery of the ASQ-239, and ALE-70.


The synergy arising from networked collaborative F-35 EW takes it to the next level.
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3177
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post09 Apr 2018, 06:58

popcorn wrote:That could be quite a frequency spread, only the Shadow knows.

usnvo wrote:...The real limitation of the F-35 when it comes to electronic attack is the fact that it is largely limited to the frequency range of the APG-81.



https://patents.google.com/patent/US4823136

The transmit-receive cells are fully functional at broadband and narrow band radio frequencies. In the narrow band of 9.2 to 10.2 GHz, the active antenna system would operate as a radar system. In the broadband range of 2.0 GHz to 20.0 GHz the active antenna system is fully functional in electronic countermeasures and radio frequency jamming. Either application would find a place on an advanced aircraft or space based sensor systems because of weight and size restrictions.


Yes, that's one common misconception that AESA systems are restricted to X-band only also when used for EW. GaAs systems are pretty much restricted to X-band when operating as radar, but as EW systems the frequency range can be significantly wider. Only the output power levels are likely reduced. Of course EW systems generally have far lower output power levels than radar systems in legacy aircraft. Future GaN modules can have much wider bandwidth coverage without sacrificing output power. Future GaN AESA systems will likely have really incredible jamming capabilities.

Good find, btw. That was what was state-of-the-art 30 years ago. Just imagine what can be done today... :D
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2343
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post09 Apr 2018, 08:56

vilters wrote:TRUE Stealth is : Keep your mouths shut and EVERYTHING OFF.



I'm curious about this, its been thrown around quite a while now by a few people here.
But my question is, has it been done before?

And if not? why not?
"They simply never thought about it" or, "they are still using 4th gen tactics"
doesn't seem like a fitting reason to be honest.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7722
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post09 Apr 2018, 09:12

hornetfinn wrote:[
Good find, btw. That was what was state-of-the-art 30 years ago. Just imagine what can be done today... :D


Can't take the credit hornetfinn, just citing the patent link you originally posted back in the day. :mrgreen:
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3177
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post09 Apr 2018, 09:15

popcorn wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:[
Good find, btw. That was what was state-of-the-art 30 years ago. Just imagine what can be done today... :D


Can't take the credit hornetfinn, just citing the patent link you originally posted back in the day. :mrgreen:


LOL! :D
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1382
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post09 Apr 2018, 12:21

zero-one wrote:
vilters wrote:TRUE Stealth is : Keep your mouths shut and EVERYTHING OFF.



I'm curious about this, its been thrown around quite a while now by a few people here.
But my question is, has it been done before?

And if not? why not?
"They simply never thought about it" or, "they are still using 4th gen tactics"
doesn't seem like a fitting reason to be honest.


As I understand it, Vilters was talking about not emitting (ie not even trying to jam enemy radar) in order to avoid detection; that's how the F-117 operated (even if it sometimes had EW support, it itself didn't emit anything when operating over the enemy). The F-22 and F-35 would likely have tried out 100% EMCOM at times as well, though (for the Raptor) maybe not over Syria.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2343
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post09 Apr 2018, 16:18

Thanks Dragon

F-35 sits somewhere in between the F-16 and F/A-18 when it comes to within visual range maneuvering.


Regarding the pilot's statements above,

1. Call me paranoid but critics can spin this into something to the effect of "not as good as an F-16 and not as good as an F/A-18" But the way I understand it is, the F-35 can do everything the 18 can while very closely matching the F-16 in most of it's strengths.

In fact, its better than both when loaded for combat. So I guess a better analogy is, "its an F/A-18 with F-16 like power"

2. The F-35 is not the first Western high alpha capable plane with brute power. The F-22 was first. does the Raptor loose as much or maybe even more energy at high alpha (due to larger wings) than the F-35, or does it simply plow through all that head wind. I mean, its not called the most powerful fighter ever built for no reason.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post09 Apr 2018, 16:59

The way I read that quote was when clean ...

Turn Rate performance = F-16 > F-35 > F-18
High Alpha performance = F-18 > F-35 > F-16

You can see that the F-35 has enough all round ability to dogfight with any opponent if it has to but of course its primary strength is its stealth/SA which usually will mean dogfighting is an optional extra in the majority of its missions ;). Contrary to what its critics have claimed over the years LMT delivered to spec on all major criteria.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2343
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post09 Apr 2018, 17:18

marsavian wrote:The way I read that quote was when clean ...

Turn Rate performance = F-16 > F-35 > F-18
High Alpha performance = F-18 > F-35 > F-16


See thats my problem, I agree with the Turn rate performance though I think the F-35 may even have the advantage over the F-16 at certain altitudes, air speeds or fuel loads.

But with the high Alpha, I don't see why the F/A-18 is superior? is it because the F-35 CLAWS limit it to just 50 degrees?
I've never seen the limit for the Hornet or Rhino is it greater than 50? if it is then I understand why you gave it an edge in high alpha
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3599
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post09 Apr 2018, 17:28

marsavian wrote:The way I read that quote was when clean ...

Turn Rate performance = F-16 > F-35 > F-18
High Alpha performance = F-18 > F-35 > F-16

You can see that the F-35 has enough all round ability to dogfight with any opponent if it has to but of course its primary strength is its stealth/SA which usually will mean dogfighting is an optional extra in the majority of its missions ;). Contrary to what its critics have claimed over the years LMT delivered to spec on all major criteria.

If you read that quote along with numerous other quotes, which provide further context, that's not what's being said. There are numerous examples of pilots saying rates like F-16, radiuses like F-18, or in other cases pilots have suggested superior kinematics to 4th generation aircraft in general (to include Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen.) Whatever the case may be, the F-35 is a challenging WVR foe for any aircraft, but its greatest strengths are situational awareness/information superiority.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2343
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post09 Apr 2018, 17:54

wrightwing wrote: Whatever the case may be, the F-35 is a challenging WVR foe for any aircraft, but its greatest strengths are situational awareness/information superiority.


Very true, but this one gets the most attention because it was one of the biggest criticisms that turned out to be flat out wrong.

Also, Situational Awareness and info gathering is upgraded, just look at how far the S.A of a current block 60 F-16 is to a block 40 (some of which are still in service). the difference is a world apart.

but the performance of the latest F-16 today to how it was in 1980s is still quite similar. So there is a sense that, if you're only advantage is S.A. then others will eventually catch up, but if you're slow and sluggish, theres no way you can catch up.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 Variants and Missions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests