Forum: Program and politics

SpudmanWP wrote:

The F-35s can have one of their group blaring away with its -81 and sharing info with its wingmates without giving its position away (MADL). Since the -81 will see the SH long before the -79 sees the F-35. This gives the F-35 first shot (which the SH will not see due to no MAWS). The SH will only get a few seconds warning when the AMRAAM goes active.

Without a MAWS, the SH will not get a missile launch warning as the AMRAAM does not go active till it is very close.

As soon as a hostile AA radar is detected, the SHs go hot, and ECM goes active. IRST has a comparable search volume to a radar, so when the another member of the F-35 division launches, the missile plume gets detected, tracked and shared with other SHs. The SHs alter course. The F-35 attempts to update the AIM-120 through the jamming and now the shooter gets detected. The missile is evaded.

F-16.net Sponsor

maus92 wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

The F-35s can have one of their group blaring away with its -81 and sharing info with its wingmates without giving its position away (MADL). Since the -81 will see the SH long before the -79 sees the F-35. This gives the F-35 first shot (which the SH will not see due to no MAWS). The SH will only get a few seconds warning when the AMRAAM goes active.

Without a MAWS, the SH will not get a missile launch warning as the AMRAAM does not go active till it is very close.

As soon as a hostile AA radar is detected, the SHs go hot, and ECM goes active. IRST has a comparable search volume to a radar, so when the another member of the F-35 division launches, the missile plume gets detected, tracked and shared with other SHs. The SHs alter course. The F-35 attempts to update the AIM-120 through the jamming and now the shooter gets detected. The missile is evaded.

Um... no. Just no. IRST's always have a shorter range than comparable radars. Blame the physical laws of the universe.

Mid-course updates are probably too directional to take advantage of, and are short to boot.

ECM isn't an on/off thing, it's about very specific counters to very specific signals. Frequency hopping AESA's are very, very hard to jam effectively.

You under some misinterpretations

1. An IRST cannot see a launch plume unless it is looking directly at it at launch time and is limited to the front of the SH. If the AMRAAM is coming in from the side or rear, the SH is even more SOL.

2. It is not easy to jam a datalink as it is pulse based (not always on) and frequency hopping.

m wrote:

Surely not, specifically when build in Korea.

They are not asking for the license production of the winner. It is a straight import deal. The offset compensation would be tech transfer. They don't need the offset workshare contracts from this contest's winner to sustain their domestic aerospace industry until 2020.

Quote:

Typhoon cheaper than $8.5 million? That’s $141 million per jet.

This is why I said it was up to the EADS Cassidian to decide if it was possible to bid at $8.5 billion or not. For F-35, we already know the answer.

Quote:

The Typhoon, Swiss offer, was more expensive than the Rafale. Rafale some $160 million per jet.

This is a 60 jet deal, not an 18~22 jet deal.

Quote:

The Rafale, Indian offer $158 million ($20 billion, 126 jets), the Typhoon was more expensive.

The Indian deal is a license production deal. The Korean deal is a straight import deal. The unit cost will be upto 30% cheaper than the Indian deal.

Quote:

Why sticking to 4th generation jets

To replace aging F-4s ASAP and to obtain missing technology for the KFX.

Quote:

The F16 was quite a simple jet at that time, with only a few sidewinders.

And the F-35 that the US government is trying to unload to foreign customers is worse than the F-16A Block 5/10s of its time. Only two AMRAAMs.

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

Um... no. Just no. IRST's always have a shorter range than comparable radars. Blame the physical laws of the universe.

Umm, maybe yes.

"According to the manufacturer data, the IRST scan volume is comparable to radar, with selectable scan volumes in azimuth and elevation. It can operate in either track-while-scan or single-target-track modes. Additionally, IRST provides autonomous, passive range on targets to develop a weapon-quality solution, as well as track data to enhance target engagement. "

http://defense-update.com/20110721_supe ... pment.html

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

ECM isn't an on/off thing, it's about very specific counters to very specific signals. Frequency hopping AESA's are very, very hard to jam effectively.

ECM is by nature active, and selective. Is it always blaring? No. Agreed that frequency hopping is difficult to counter.

SpudmanWP wrote:

You under some misinterpretations

1. An IRST cannot see a launch plume unless it is looking directly at it at launch time and is limited to the front of the SH. If the AMRAAM is coming in from the side or rear, the SH is even more SOL.

2. It is not easy to jam a datalink as it is pulse based (not always on) and frequency hopping.

Head-on encounter was the scenario - as it is the most likely. I will agree that the data squirt would be hard to detect/counter... But the Super could have launched AIM-120s based on their IR track, so... it wil be an interesting encounter, and not a slam-dunk for the F-35.

Head on is how it starts, but a smart F-35 wing will split up and come in from different angles once it get's an idea of where the SHs are.

The IRST on the SH (if it get's one) has a very limited range (as laser range finders only have range of 20nm or so).

SpudmanWP wrote:

Head on is how it starts, but a smart F-35 wing will split up and come in from different angles once it get's an idea of where the SHs are.

The IRST on the SH (if it get's one) has a very limited range (as laser range finders only have range of 20nm or so).

It will have one, and it will have a range greater than 20 nm.

arkadyrenko wrote:

If this article is correct, then South Korea is essentially writing the rules to exclude or substantially hinder the F-35. No one knows why they want to do that.

If they wanted a:
A) pure interceptor
B) fighter plane tomorrow
the requirements could be structured differently.

One possibility is that South Korea is trying to extract concessions from the US and Lockheed before they sign onto the program. I think this is the likeliest explanation; but no one knows. Perhaps they want the same level of industrial deals as the Japanese? Maybe the South Koreans think that they need to justify not selecting the F-35 immediately? Its an odd situation.

I think they've stated that they are seeking maximal technology transfer as a primary requirement to help benefit their next-gen indigenous aeronautical projects. Perhaps there was some legit concern about cost overruns, more than advertised, and concerns about not getting sufficient tech transfer with respect to the F-35?

maus92 wrote:

SpudmanWP wrote:

Head on is how it starts, but a smart F-35 wing will split up and come in from different angles once it get's an idea of where the SHs are.

The IRST on the SH (if it get's one) has a very limited range (as laser range finders only have range of 20nm or so).

It will have one, and it will have a range greater than 20 nm.

I would agree with that assessment.

First of all, any F-35 hitting it's afterburner (with a 60' torch out it's tail) trying to go supersonic into an offensive launch profile will light up like a Christmas tree to any dedicated large aperture IRST in the area 100s of km away. So right off the F-35 is stuck in a mil power and subsonic launch profile if trying to remain undetected still 100km out. However, the trade-off is this will also likely close the engagement range to a point where each side can get a mutually offsetting launch capability.

And apparently the Lantirn pod used on the ABL test platform would get an active range find of the missile 100s of km away.

There will always be more to actual combat and modern capabilities then will be assumed by the official conventional thinking of the day. Surprise, surprise.

You are making assumptions again to try and give the SH it's best chance. F-35's don't need to go supersonic to push the AMRAAM that far due to it setting up the engagement to it's own advantage. Besides, going AB only gives the best advantage if the IRST is behind you, not to the front (and especially if the F-35 is coming in from the .side)

The ABL did not use the IRST to get range, only to point the nose.

All the IRSTs so far that went up against the F-22 did not help, so I do not expect there to be any significant difference when up against the F-35 (which has better SA and its own IRST).

lamoey wrote:

slowman2 wrote:

Quote:

The F16 was quite a simple jet at that time, with only a few sidewinders.

And the F-35 that the US government is trying to unload to foreign customers is worse than the F-16A Block 5/10s of its time. Only two AMRAAMs.

Guys, ignore this fool. He is either as slow as his name indicate or he is being paid to write all his nonsense

yep your just wasting your breath on this troll

meatshield wrote:

lamoey wrote:

slowman2 wrote:

Quote:

The F16 was quite a simple jet at that time, with only a few sidewinders.

And the F-35 that the US government is trying to unload to foreign customers is worse than the F-16A Block 5/10s of its time. Only two AMRAAMs.

Guys, ignore this fool. He is either as slow as his name indicate or he is being paid to write all his nonsense

yep your just wasting your breath on this troll

I checked Google Images for slowman2 and brain. I didn't find a photograph of his brain. By his own stated standards of proof (this thread, 05:27PM 03/02/2012) for his ridiculous and multiply debunked <=2 AMRAAMs claim, we can safely conclude slowman2's brain doesn't exist.

Or, his standards of proof are those of a fool, and the F-35 can carry 4 AMRAAMS internally, with plans for slight modifications to the launch rails and software to expand that to 6. It's just that the plane is needed more urgently as a bomber, so clearing it for bombs and 2 AMRAAMs is a priority; clearing it for 4 and 6 can wait.

Quote:

It's just that the plane is needed more urgently as a bomber, so clearing it for bombs and 2 AMRAAMs is a priority; clearing it for 4 and 6 can wait.

So you admit that the F-35 won't be able to carry four AMRAAMs internally for customers who need early delivery. Thank you for admitting what is obvious.

I admit quite freely it's not cleared to carry four AMRAAMs right this moment. Hence, no photos exist of it doing what it isn't allowed to yet, while the available airframes are busy clearing more important capabilities. However, no new modification to the aircraft is required for it to do so. The same plane that could be delivered today is able to carry four. It's just not allowed to right this moment. Big difference. That you don't grasp this is only further evidence of the above to add to the lack of a photo. Laughing

Geo:

Here is the info on the ABL's IRST usage

Quote:

Firing Sequence
1. The ALTB uses one of its six infrared sensors to detect the exhaust plume of a boosting missile.
2. A kilowatt-class solid state laser, the Track Illuminator, tracks the missile and determines a precise aim point.

http://www.mda.mil/system/altb.html

So the IRST provides the cue and the laser tracks.

The IRST installation on the Super Hornet - a development of the earlier AN/AAS-42 installed on F-14Ds - does not require a laser to develop and maintain tracks. It is a totally passive system.

Forum: Program and politics

Will South Korea reject the F-35 ?