F-35 blog?

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

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2725
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post13 Aug 2018, 09:17

mk82 wrote:Awesome explanation about radar detection and tracking ranges Hornetfinn! I agree with your viewpoint that VLO platforms can be devious adversaries in all radar frequency bands. To the radar operator noticing a very faint “ping”/detection at long range......is that a ghost/false target, clutter or a genuine VLO adversary? Good luck radar operator buddy, better flip a coin!!!!

It confirms my suspicions that VHF radar “anti stealth” fanbois are extreme simpletons!

I have to say (once again :P )........the Serbian SA 3 crew have mad skillz!!! Considering that the SA 3 requires a high degree of manual operation!


Thank you! :D I definitely agree with that VHF/UHF radars are not really any kind of silver bullet against VLO stealth. They do have their benefits and can be good to have, but they are not making miracles.

I also have a lot of respect for that Serbian SA-3 battallion and their skills and especially discipline. SA-3 and P-18 are ancient systems, but in skilled hands they can still be a lot of trouble. Just like MIM-23 Hawk.
Offline

michaelemouse

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 59
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2017, 10:29

Unread post13 Aug 2018, 12:59

hornetfinn wrote: They must've known in theory how to engage it and what kind of tactics would help survive SEAD/DEAD efforts. They worked up very solid tactics to do that with their old equipment and had very good discipline to execute that tactics successfully.


Iraqi air defences had given them a demonstration of what not to do a few years earlier.

Aside from transmitting for 10-20 seconds and doing the AD equivalent of shoot & scoot, how did they counter SEAD/DEAD efforts? What were their tactics?
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2725
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post13 Aug 2018, 13:24

michaelemouse wrote:
hornetfinn wrote: They must've known in theory how to engage it and what kind of tactics would help survive SEAD/DEAD efforts. They worked up very solid tactics to do that with their old equipment and had very good discipline to execute that tactics successfully.


Iraqi air defences had given them a demonstration of what not to do a few years earlier.

Aside from transmitting for 10-20 seconds and doing the AD equivalent of shoot & scoot, how did they counter SEAD/DEAD efforts? What were their tactics?


Those were the main things. They tried to do everything to make their units as elusive as possible and also used old radar systems and other such things as decoys. It's unclear if these had any real effect, but that they tried. I'm sure they used camouflage and terrain masking to enhance survivability of their systems. Low frequency radars like P-18 were used to get some kind of situational awareness and early warning as those are invulnerable to HARMs and are more difficult to locate accurately for bombing.
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2112
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post13 Aug 2018, 20:48

I can't help but thinking that that great Hoover (an American vacuum cleaner) in the sky, otherwise known as an F-35, would suck up all those trons, and fairly quickly triangulate the location of the emitter of said trons, map the area with the APG-81, automagically identify said emitters, and the pilot could dispatch a few SDB's or SDB2's with the wave of his hand between bites of his energy bar and sips of his coffee or other favorite beverage, to make life "interesting" for those manning said tron emitters...
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

viper12

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 241
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post13 Aug 2018, 22:25

steve2267 wrote:those trons


Photons, not electrons. Like in some previous article I read which had to correct the same mistake : https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ce/307291/
Everytime you don't tell the facts, you make Putin stronger.

Everytime you're hit by Dunning-Kruger, you make Putin stronger.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 04:58

hornetfinn wrote:Thanks eloise. So it seems like they had both P-15 radar and also P-18 radar. That picture seems to indicate that the P-15 belonged to the battery and the battery also got support or had the P-18 system attached directly. Interesting to read about this from Serbian POV

My bad, after watching the lecture given by Zoltan Danny, now we can safely conclude that they used P-18 radar instead of P-15.

Important parts in the video
_At 8:31 Zoltan Danny explained that he used the lowest frequency setting L-1 at 140 Mhz to see F-117 clearly on radar screen
_ Between 18:32-19:09 Zoltan Danny explained that he received some intel (outsider information) from headquarters, on when to turn on his radar, as he had no target on his radar screen.
_ Between 19:43-20:02 Zoltan Danny said he detected several targets at distance 30 km and some are closer, but they are not inside engagement range.
_ At 20:18, he talked about the exact time when the P-18 acquire a clear track of one F-117 at azimuth 195 (as recorded by Djordje Anicic, this happened at 23 km away)
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2725
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 07:17

Oh man, that was great find eloise! Very interesting to hear Zoltan Dani telling their side of that war and engagement. Also very interesting to hear about some technical details of F-117! Good thing that there was English translation available... :D
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 10:02

hornetfinn wrote:Oh man, that was great find eloise! Very interesting to hear Zoltan Dani telling their side of that war and engagement. Also very interesting to hear about some technical details of F-117! Good thing that there was English translation available... :D

Do you or anyone here happen to know the cruising altitude of F-117 in these missions?, we can accurately estimate its rcs at 140 Mhz through that.
P-18 chart.PNG

P-18 radar.PNG

http://progress.gov.ua/wp-content/uploa ... 6-2017.pdf
http://www.aerotechnica.ua/en/index.php ... &prodid=51
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2725
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 10:46

I've to say that Zoltan Dani gives pretty damn good explanation about SAM tactics and how to maximize effectiveness and survivability. It's important to notice that F-35 has been also designed to maximize effectiveness and survivability and that F-117 shootdown was definitely one good lesson in that.

Of course USAF knew exactly that F-117 had major shortcomings that could be overcome in next aircraft. They already had developed B-2 and F-22 well before this incident that made them far more survivable and effective. F-35 will take it even further in many ways. This shootdown would not have happened with F-35, F-22 or likely even B-2. F-35 would've known that there was S-125/SA-3 battallion and P-18 radar operational. It would've been able to jam at least the SNR-125 fire control radar to prevent being engaged with missiles. Even if missile was fired, it would've had the flight performace to have a chance of escaping it. Of course every other F-35 and other assets in the area would've instantly known about the threat and their coordinates. I know that SA-3 is old system and also has serious shortcomings. Modern AD systems are far more capable and present serious threat even for stealth aircraft. But I'm sure the combination of VLO stealth, sensors, sensor fusion, EW systems and networking along with modern weapons will have the upper hand in the foreseeable future.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2725
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 11:14

eloise wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Oh man, that was great find eloise! Very interesting to hear Zoltan Dani telling their side of that war and engagement. Also very interesting to hear about some technical details of F-117! Good thing that there was English translation available... :D

Do you or anyone here happen to know the cruising altitude of F-117 in these missions?, we can accurately estimate its rcs at 140 Mhz through that.


All the sources I could find say that the Zelko's F-117 was flying at about 8 km altitude, so that was not limiting factor. It seems like P-18 could see F-117 at about 23-30 km away which would mean the F-117 had RCS of less than 0.0025 square meters even in the VHF band if my calculations are correct. P-18 is good system for estimating RCS as it's completely analog and manual system. There was also no jamming, so the situation was very pure. It definitely seems like VLO stealth works very well even in VHF band as the detection range is reduced several times compared to regular aircraft. One notable thing what Dani said is that F-117 was really visible only in the lowest frequency setting they had and not so much in others.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2725
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 12:45

Another interesting thing about what Dani has stated is the odd radar returns from F-117. Since P-18 is analog and manual system without digital signal processing, the operators see the radar returns in very pure form compared to modern systems. I can easily see that effect from using quite analog and manual radar (although high-frequency one) against many kinds of targets. IMO, this also implies that both shaping and RAM/RAS also works pretty well in even VHF frequencies.

All in all, everything seems to point that even F-117 achieved VLO stealth over pretty much the whole frequency range. Lower part of VHF seems to be where Mie scattering is starting to be noticeable and RCS increases. Of course it's still far lower than in regular aircraft by possibly 3 orders of magnitude.

I don't think anybody who matters ever claimed that VLO stealth means invisibility or invincibility. But it sure gives advantages in so many ways. F-117 definitely validated the consept in real life and now F-35 is truly modern incarnation of that consept.
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1127
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 12:52

The B-21/PCA will just make it harder for VHF systems with their tail-less stealth broadband shapes. If LMT is achieving this type of low RCS with F-117 can anyone really doubt they exceeded this with F-22 and F-35 unless you are a Russian propagandist ? What will become the sheer numbers of F-35 in so many countries and on so many ships is the biggest shift in global air power since the F-14/F-15/F-16/F-18 were introduced in volume in the seventies and eighties. Flanker and Fulcrum helped the Russians to counter that but now they are on the strategic airpower backfoot again.
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 848
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 14:20

hornetfinn wrote:Another interesting thing about what Dani has stated is the odd radar returns from F-117. Since P-18 is analog and manual system without digital signal processing, the operators see the radar returns in very pure form compared to modern systems. I can easily see that effect from using quite analog and manual radar (although high-frequency one) against many kinds of targets. IMO, this also implies that both shaping and RAM/RAS also works pretty well in even VHF frequencies.

All in all, everything seems to point that even F-117 achieved VLO stealth over pretty much the whole frequency range. Lower part of VHF seems to be where Mie scattering is starting to be noticeable and RCS increases. Of course it's still far lower than in regular aircraft by possibly 3 orders of magnitude.

I don't think anybody who matters ever claimed that VLO stealth means invisibility or invincibility. But it sure gives advantages in so many ways. F-117 definitely validated the consept in real life and now F-35 is truly modern incarnation of that consept.


Looks like the idea of UHF/VHF band radar being a silver bullet solution against VLO platforms is total bollocks!!
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 848
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post14 Aug 2018, 15:38

marsavian wrote:The B-21/PCA will just make it harder for VHF systems with their tail-less stealth broadband shapes. If LMT is achieving this type of low RCS with F-117 can anyone really doubt they exceeded this with F-22 and F-35 unless you are a Russian propagandist ? What will become the sheer numbers of F-35 in so many countries and on so many ships is the biggest shift in global air power since the F-14/F-15/F-16/F-18 were introduced in volume in the seventies and eighties. Flanker and Fulcrum helped the Russians to counter that but now they are on the strategic airpower backfoot again.


Indeed! And that gap keeps growing bigger every year. Keep up or sink.......
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 708
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post17 Aug 2018, 18:16

eloise wrote:Do you or anyone here happen to know the cruising altitude of F-117 in these missions?, we can accurately estimate its rcs at 140 Mhz through that.
Image

Zoltán Dani said F-117 was around 6 km altitude and ascend to 8 km when he later got hit.
Rough extrapolate from the table
If radar height = 6.35 meters, P-18 will detect targets with RCS= 2.5 m2, cruising at 6km altitude from 132.5 km, reduce RCS by 10 times and we get 44% detection range reduction => F-117 RCS is smaller than 0.025m2 at frequencies >140 Mhz.
If radar height = 10.35 meters, P-18 will detect targets with RCS= 2.5 m2, cruising at 6km altitude from 180 km, reduce RCS by 10 times and we get 44% detection range reduction => F-117 RCS is smaller than 0.0025m2 at frequencies >140 Mhz.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: johnwill and 10 guests