S-400 and F-35

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

jessmo112

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post26 Jan 2021, 17:51

ricnunes wrote:Good "catch" jessmo!

Regarding your question, that should be an "absolute yes".

In theory they (F-35's over Lebanon/Beirut) should be "within range" of S-300s and namely S-400s based on Latakia granted that the F-35s could be detected by these systems (which seems obviously that they can't) because Latakia is located at around 187 km from Beirut in a straight line, something that you can watch in the picture that I'll share below.

In the same picture you can also see that for example Damascus is much closer to Beirut than Latakia.

Image

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QSzzQ1 ... sp=sharing


Im sure its more of a Question of the peace loving and Patient Syrians, sparing the Israeli AF from losing there greatest asset. Im sure that they detect the F-35 all the time, but because of Assads Kind heart, he will only shoot at F-16s (And Russian planes) to avoid hurting IAF feelings. But a warning to you infidels, WE KNOW your there and we aren't shooting at you on purpose.
Offline

jessmo112

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post26 Jan 2021, 17:55

The Russian take

1. Its the export S-300 that cant detect the F-35. The Russian version detected the F-35 while Taxiing.

2. The Syrians are not trained as well as the Russian techs. Our Russian operated S-400s would have detected them right away.

Am I doing it right? I just couldn't help but take a few Jabs.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3219
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post26 Jan 2021, 18:06

jessmo112 wrote:Im sure its more of a Question of the peace loving and Patient Syrians, sparing the Israeli AF from losing there greatest asset. Im sure that they detect the F-35 all the time, but because of Assads Kind heart, he will only shoot at F-16s (And Russian planes) to avoid hurting IAF feelings. But a warning to you infidels, WE KNOW your there and we aren't shooting at you on purpose.


You're obviously right! What was I thinking of! :wink:

The real fact that the S-300 can obviously detect the F-35 without any problems and at very long ranges reminded me a picture that I took from the following real bird:
Image
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

jessmo112

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post28 Jan 2021, 09:18

THE U.S. HAS ITS HANDS ON PANSTIR

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... bya-report

Now all we need is to smuggle an S-400.
And HQ-9, and all non-western IADS will be compromised.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1307
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post29 Jan 2021, 03:35

milosh wrote:
Also with new modules AESA are better and better but saying just because it is PESA it isn't good is nonsense.


The FACT is that AESA radars will always have better performance than PESA radars. It has been discussed many times here in the past on how AESA radar capabilities surpass PESA radars.
AESA radars have over PESA radars...
> higher resolution
> better LPI/LPD capability
> better SAR imagery
> wider band width
> faster search while track and scan modes
> more resistant to jamming
> tighter and more varied beam control

Russian state controlled media (propaganda) tries so hard to claim that because their PESA radars are larger and have a higher output power, their radars are just as good if not better than western AESA radars of similar size and power.

@jessmo112
Yeah, that must have been one serious covert op...
https://www.overtdefense.com/2021/01/28 ... any-by-us/
Also I am pretty sure the US and NATO now have some valuable SIGINT stuff on Russian and Chinese systems. F-22s, F-35s, and other SIGINT assets have been soaking up a lot of stuff in and around Syria. The F-22's RWR (AN/ALR-94) is nothing to sneeze at...
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3551
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post29 Jan 2021, 07:37

charlielima223 wrote:
milosh wrote:
Also with new modules AESA are better and better but saying just because it is PESA it isn't good is nonsense.


The FACT is that AESA radars will always have better performance than PESA radars. It has been discussed many times here in the past on how AESA radar capabilities surpass PESA radars.
AESA radars have over PESA radars...
> higher resolution
> better LPI/LPD capability
> better SAR imagery
> wider band width
> faster search while track and scan modes
> more resistant to jamming
> tighter and more varied beam control


I'd like to add:
>longer range (roughly 50-100% with GaAs modules, much more with GaN modules)
>higher number of simultaneous tracks
>higher reliability (yes, modern PESAs are very reliable, but AESA even more)
>can also operate as very high gain ESM, EW and high-speed communications system simultaneously with radar functions
>much better clutter rejection (superior in detecting small RCS objects in ground/sea clutter or in jammed environment)

Downside is that AESAs require a LOT of computing power and software to get all these benefits.
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 381
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2019, 03:26

Unread post10 Feb 2021, 08:13

Stumbled across these and hadn't seen them posted on here anywhere. With the reference to NTTR, I imagine this is being used for IADS simulation at events like Red Flag:

Image

Image

https://twitter.com/MIL_STD/status/1353375089715159048

EDIT: Found the original source of the slides above:

http://www.itea.org/images/pdf/conferen ... May%202015).pdf
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1064
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post13 Feb 2021, 04:45

jessmo112 wrote:The Russian take

1. Its the export S-300 that cant detect the F-35. The Russian version detected the F-35 while Taxiing.

2. The Syrians are not trained as well as the Russian techs. Our Russian operated S-400s would have detected them right away.

Am I doing it right? I just couldn't help but take a few Jabs.


I heard the Russians detected them, while they were still in their hangars and the pilots in the briefing rooms...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 25879
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Feb 2021, 13:06

Pantsir-S1M [2 page PDF of article/ADVERTORIAL attached]
Short-Range Air Defence Missile and Gun System
ADVERTORIAL Aug 2019

"The Pantsir-S1 air defence missile and gun system (ADMGS) provides short-range, last-ditch protection against airborne threats. Which features should be inherent for such a weapon system?

Primarily - the versatility of effect against all types of targets able to reach the last defensive line of an objective.

The major design criterion of the system is countering high-precision weapons, above all, cruise missiles and weapons launched from manned aircraft. The Pantsir-S1 ADMGS successfully fulfils this task due to its missile and gun armament with a solid engagement area of 20km in range and 15km altitude, plus radar-optical target detection and weapon guidance systems. The weapon system carries a considerable ammunition load: 12 surface-to-air missiles and 1,400 rounds of 30mm ammunition. And all this is installed on a single truck chassis with a capacity of around 20 tons. The weapon system allows engagement of targets while on the move, providing air defence of both stationary objectives as well as mobile units. ...

...This advertorial is based on an article by V.G. Slugin, P. V. Filin and N. A. Grigorieva."

Source: AirForces Monthly Magazine August 2019 #377
Attachments
Pantsir-S1M AirForces Monthly Aug 2019 pp2.pdf
(294.63 KiB) Downloaded 88 times
Pantsir-S1M.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

hocum

Banned

  • Posts: 47
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2020, 09:37

Unread post18 Mar 2021, 12:03

eloise wrote:There are very big different between the Reaction control system which can change the lateral position by dozens meters at most and the aerodynamic maneuver of boost glider which can literally change the lateral position by hundred - thousand of km.

If RCS would give full possible pulse still 2 stage lift off, or from apogee, the result changing of trajectory would be the same hundreds of km. So, if glider would start to maneuver right at the end of trajectory, it woudn't fly even to dozens km as well. It is just the matter of flight program.
Again your demagogy looks pathetic and nothing more. Let me give you advice, kid. If you defifnitly failed somewhere, it is much better to calmly admit your mistake, it looks much better. For me it isn't a problem, as I had shown earlier.

eloise wrote:Are you seriously comparing the shotdown of a civilian aircraft without any ECM capability , RCS of a barn, no maneuver ability with military aircraft?
Secondly, air plane aren't vaporized immediately once they are hit, if they are only damaged , they can still glide for a while before hitting the surface, nevermind that the airplane hit the sea surface so fragments can be carried by the waves as well
The plane was about 270 km from the site when it was hit though.

I showed for you what's happening when Soviet/Russian complex works in 'black sky', so that you can see result of 'standard ECM surrounding' used in tests, and can estimate REAL maximum range of missiles.
No-no-no, kid, you shall not be able to dodge this time too, with so easy checkable facts. https://www.google.com/maps/place/42%C2 ... 11!4d37.37
Google maps measure: right click on the tip of our coordinates, and after that left click near Yakovenkovo in Crimea (Opuk Reserve as orientir). At least 338km, and in this case S-200 must stay on a shore, and debris must fall vertically. Airliner flied from Tel-Aviv to Novosibirsk, so missile went TOWARDS, and plane debris after hit continue to fly north, reduce actual range hit.
Resume: as I told previous, Tu-154M was hit at range about 360-380km. And you stooped down to cheat with certain numbers, my dear.

eloise wrote:Well, it is very simple: extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidences.
US and NATO claimed they attacked X - number of targets, the evidences is that all X targets were destroyed. There is no way to argue against that.

It is 'extraordinary' only for persons wich is totally blinded by own military [propaganda]advertise. Single Tomahawks were shooted down even in Iraq 1991 by Osa-AKMs and in Serbia 1999 by S-125. Do you mean that 30-40 years old kind of weapon is unvulnerable untill now, and nobody hasn't any countermeasures against it even now?
Well, if it is so brilliant with US and allies military reports, let's prove this claims for me, for example:
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/a-b ... -1.6074544
A Blow to Assad: Israeli Strike Destroyed Five Syrian Anti-aircraft Batteries

With tons of evidences, for every vehicle in every battery, of course - on your own rules. This is the way to argue for so extraordinary claims that allegedly US and allies report truth and only the truth always.

eloise wrote:Israel force at that time include Scout UAV, F-4, F-15, F-16, Boeing 707. Israel F-15 and F-16 at that time weren't modern, and F-16 didn't even have ability to use AIM-7. Neither of them have ability to use AGM-88 at that time and Israel F-16A don't have HTS so they can't track SAM location either. These SAM were attacked by F-4 using ancient AGM-78 and AGM-45 while F-15 and F-16A used purely against enemy fighter

Well, didn't F-15/F-16 have new generation of radars that time too, new onboard jam systems too, new guided bombs as well too? Didn't have "best operational evidence" (or what that time was fashion)? Did Sirians ask - purely its were or not? Didn't IAF use new special designed composite drones too (like Mastiff/Scout) against export complex from 1965 year? Pay attention - without capability [b]to get actual recon data online[b] all operation becomes impossible.
Offline

hocum

Banned

  • Posts: 47
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2020, 09:37

Unread post18 Mar 2021, 12:05

eloise wrote:the sharp corner of the tracks has quite a bit different signature from the inflated decoys though and I don't think that balloons decoys can spin its radar either

Let's show us in detail - how much difference it will be as a result. Don't forget about range from small munition seeker at least in theory can select this. Instead of common words.
About spinning we had told already, my forgetful kid.
So, there aren't inflatable decoys only. For example, there are chinese shield-gathering decoys:
Image
Image
And look here, what I found suddenly. I wanted to find image of inflatable Buk decoy
Image
but also found this -
https://www.mk.ru/politics/2018/03/15/n ... retit.html
I know that there aren't technic characteristics of such decoys everywhere in open sources, but simple news report from exersises:
As a result, the spy satellite sees from orbit quite a heat-contrast tank or a radio-emitting anti-aircraft complex

Didn't you think that inflatable decoys has radiotransmitters, did you? Let's try to reject it by more demagogy, it will be very funny. :) Some more:
https://ria.ru/20180121/1512965981.html
It is also possible to present an object as a full-fledged vehicle by changing the position of the model from traveling to combat. For example, the turret of a tank turns and hatches open. Many layouts are modular. On one of the tanks, for example, you can inflate the fuel tank, but not on the other. This helps to avoid stereotypes - "inflatable" armored vehicles, like real ones, look different, which can further confuse an outside observer.

So, without exellent CLOSE reckon what aviation side can do? Nothing. Even number and details of attacking forces is impossible to define. Pay attenttion that even colors, camouflage and emblems of decoys are rightly the same that on real vehicles. It isn't MALD that must image strategic bombers in A-band, my dear kid. It is very serious question, even crew radioconversations imitate, for example.

eloise wrote:the tiring excuse again, every time a Russian equipment get destroyed, it either the system is the "export" model or "too old". Yet before the system were destroyed, we always hear about how it will lock up the air space or how even the most modern Western weapon is nothing against it.
and as modern as these drone are, they have less speed, less agility, less sensor range, much shorter weapon range than an aircraft and they don't have their own jammer either. Their main advantage over normal fighter is endurance and cost, but they should be much easier to shot down

Who told you that S-300PT from 1980 without modernization can defeat all outnumbered and most modern aviation threats today? Who even told for you personally about the Armenian air defense before 2020, can you show me?
Well, does S-300PT become more modern after this demagogy, and do Byracrtars and Harops become older? As there were 30-40 years of advantages for aviation, it remains, all as I told. For example, in Iran-Iraq war, where both sides had similar aviation and air defence - there wasn't brave victories, just years of massager.
But main problem for Armenina was that the SYSTEM of air defence forces was absent. Armenia had some kinds of different complexes, but without any organization. At least I can't see any kind of such interaction and organization in last war.
When airmenian air defence forces, on real war, didn't get out the division from its headquarter (we can see military barracks, military fence and paved parade ground in your images/videos) - it was tiring excuse too, wasn't it?
If export Iskander, for example, has max range just 290km because RF obey MTCR (but native has 490km max range) it is tiring excuse too, isn't it?
But when US ambassador in UN (not ostentatious politician like Trump/Hrushev, not military general - professional diplomat) let yourself something like this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpVUkeqnOyI - and you try to tell us right here that US don't interesting to change the goverment of Venezuela by every kind - it isn't tiring excuse, is it? But I see just Aesop's 'The fox and the grapes' fable.
And when almost hundred of 'mighty' cruise missile could destroy just few empty unprotected civilian barns - it wasn't tiring excuse, it was great success, wasn't it? Well, I have understand you well.

eloise wrote:36D6 radar was tracked by a drone camera for very long time from close range, we see the view get closer and closer before the video cut. When the view get closer, you can see various people running across the view. From another video, presumably a camera at the site, you can the same people running just before the radar is destroyed.

So what? It could destroy by artillery too. 36D6 has blind zone 3.5km/7.5km around radar depends of scan mode. I saw that antenna dealed about 6 turns/min, so it was long range scan mode with 10s period and 7.5km blind zone. Was the drone more than 7.5 km away? Surely no. Running people (they must be in cabins even in 'middle alert' situation), location (Kahnut settlement, the headquarter of air defence division since USSR), launcher vehicle in march mode - it is obvious that armenian division was sure that on armenian own therritory it was totally safe. If I will post here tons of photo with planes destroyed on airfields, would it be prove of aviation total useless? No, it woudn't.
Why can that drone could reach this blind zone unharmed? Trough iranian therritory, of course. Where was inner circle of defence? There wasn't, and not because armenian side hadn't any troops for this - just because disorganization and indicipline. Look here
https://informburo.kz/stati/kak-nesut-s ... rtazh.html
Kazakstan air defence even on exercises had inner perimeter of defence. Yes, that ZU-23s little can do in real combat, but it is better than nothing in every case. And they were comply with the elementary combat regulations. But armenians, on real war, after some years of growing tensions on the border - hadn't and weren't comply... For this perfect results armenians must thank american underlay and idiot Pashinyan and his new military leaders. Do you recognize another Batono Mishiko, the tie-eater? When US searchs to give power somebody, he always appears idiot, scum and traitor to his own people everywhere, brings only fails - in Kirgizia, in Georgia, in Ukrain, and here is in Armenia too.
Also armenians had a lot of its own produce UAVs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krunk_UAV
So why they didn't hits any azerbaijanian air defence forces too, can you explain me? Especially if is it too simple by 'simple UCAVs'?
And even in such circumstances, you all don't see another side of the conflict - how many loitering garbages were lost in mountains. But I have some information before conflict: https://ru.armeniasputnik.am/armenia/20 ... zhana.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip0G94nR6kc
Do you recognize?
Resume: I am not a career officer, I just 'officer of reserve' in retire. I wasn't trained to command S-300 division, I was just technical specialist. But indiscipline and gross disregard for the elementary requirements of the air defence combat manual of armenian air defence is obvious even for me.
Offline

hocum

Banned

  • Posts: 47
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2020, 09:37

Unread post18 Mar 2021, 12:07

eloise wrote:Firstly, the top speed of E-95 is only 200-300 km/h so it is actually significantly slower than cruise missile which often move at Mach 0.8-0.9, it also doesn't have any stealth quality. In addition it also didn't make any maneuver in these video.
...
In addition, in that video, Osa literally just fly in straight line , there is nothing highly maneuver in that video.

But I told mostly about UAVs. So you want to jump to cruise missiles? All right. There are tons of another training targets, for every taste - http://www.rusarmy.com/pvo/mk.html
For example, 'Dan' has speed and size like cruise missile. If Lockheed or somebody else don't put its trademark it doesn't mean that targets have large sizes or/and non-composite hulls.
By the way, since 2020 new hypersonic target 'Favorit-RM' started to use: https://ria.ru/20191002/1559351988.html
It is refabricated 5V55 missile from my S-300PT/PS. And existing S-400 can shoot down it well. Let's await reports with S-300V*.
How can you see maneuvers, if video operator is holding target in the center of the frame, and sky is clear? You havn't any orientirs for your eyes. But look video with Saman shooting again. Do you see that target engine is blinking? Do you mean that is because solid-fuel engine surging? No, it is because tail stabilizers work like crazy. So, in the matter of air defence you like every another civilian - you can see image, but you can't recognize what's happening absolutly, and somebody need to explain you what's happening...

eloise wrote:Secondly, sure you can shot down loitering UAV, but at what distance?, and how far will your air defense detect it without knowledge before hand.

Such simple targets - on full official distance even for simplest Tunguska/Pantsir missiles without second stage or marching engine, or 2S38 rounds. It just can't keep up to evade before missile will reach it.

eloise wrote:Iskander-K is not the cheap version of Iskander, it is a different missiles that served a different purpose, namely attacking from much greater distance
Burevestnik isn't for finishing off after a full scale nuke, ballistic missiles will do that much faster and simpler. If subsonic missiles are as easy to stopped as you like to think then Burevestnik will never be made, since it is basically just a very expensive long range subsonic missile.

I see that you don't understand purpose of Iskander-K and Burevestnik both, and I will not educate you more this way, it should be offtopic.

eloise wrote:Element spacing is often around 1/2 wavelength, that mean even at highest HF frequency, the spacing is 5 meters, at max HF frequency the spacing is 50 meters
Look at this photo, the spacing between individual T/R modules isn't even as long as the guy. So once again, Nebo doesn't use HF frequency, not in a million year.

Why it can't combine couples, or quarters, or octals elements into one quasy-element (with degrade of prescision, of course)? You try to argue in area when you don't know anything again.


eloise wrote:A radar know distance to target by sending a pulse, then measure the time it take for that pulse to be send back. For example, for a target at 400 km the signal need about 0.0026 seconds to return. For a target at 20 km, the signal will take 0.00013 seconds to return. The radar don't know how far target is located from it, then how can it neglect the signal after a specific amount of time?

Radar knows how long was its own pulse one. Even with DRFM - in every case, it is almost impossible to imitate complicated signal by midget with 20-30kg payload WELL ENOUGH IMMEDIATLY for response jam. Main problem is that in my language there are tons of termins for every kind of jam, but in your - just DRFM, and that's all. Do you mean counter or imitating jams? Pulse, repeating or continious? Answering, self-covering, aiming, fencing/barrage, unsichronized pulse, and so on? Flying midgets like SPEAR-EW or MALDs - just imitating jams against enemy radiosurvelance forces firstly. It isn't for counter jams agianst powerful radars from extreme distance. Of cause, if technical level is the same, without 30-40 years of advantage for aviation side. Otherwise I suppose to discuss the opposite situation: (1978-30=1948) F-86s and B-36/50s try to attack S-300PT division.
Offline

hocum

Banned

  • Posts: 47
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2020, 09:37

Unread post18 Mar 2021, 12:09

eloise wrote:Secondly, plane does not need to stay inside the cone behind the jammer, if what you said was the case, then standoff jamming would never work, since it is literally mean the jamming support aircraft are far behind the aircraft they supposed to protect....

In this case I say that you don't know difference between jamming in main beam and jamming through radar sidelobes. For complexes with 20-30db sidelobes from 198* it require enormous power for standoff jamming, or very close range. (By the way, most modern complexes has 35-40db sidelobs on the cry). So I duscuss mostly about real things - jamming in main beam.
By the way, I didn't tell last time about tricks with polarization, or phase coding, because I wasn't sure that its is somewhere in open sourses. Even simple changing direction of radar signal polarization shall brake jam immediatly. For example, even earliest Kupol radar (Buk-M1, 1983) can work with polarization.
Here is one quote instead of endless flood:
http://pvo.guns.ru/buk/buk_12.htm
To protect against aiming interference, we used the tuning of the carrier frequency from pulse to pulse, from the response - the same and blanking of range intervals along the autorecording channel, from asynchronous pulse - changing the slope of the linear-frequency modulation and blanking of the range sections. With noise barrage interference of self-cover and external cover of given levels, the detection and target designation station provided the detection of a fighter aircraft at a distance of at least 50 km. The station provided target tracking with a probability of at least 0.5 against the background of local objects and in passive interference using a moving target selection scheme with automatic compensation of wind speed. The station was protected from proto-radar missiles by implementing a programmed tuning of the carrier frequency in 1.3 s, transition to circular polarization of sounding signals or to intermittent radiation (blinking) mode.

Do you remeber what I told earlier about possibility to blank part of distance? So, never tell me again what air defence radars can do and what can't do, because I did it by my own.
You don't understand even 1983 ground radar capabuilitues. Export modifications made by simplify such tricks usually on firmware level (and of cause changing friend-or-foe systems).
'Response interference' - it is your DRFM, nobody would response by noise, it doesn't make sense. DRFM, especially by light midgets, compute incoming signal with simple filters, wich loose all information about polarisation, phase or another complicated parameters. I exactly know that radiosurveylance forces can select even SAME TYPE of transmitters, working on the same letter band and coding etc., by individual signatures of signal. So it is a matter of signal recieving and simulation accuracy. Let's give us definite numbers of this for midgets, or for Growlers, or for anything else.
And of cause small undirectional antenna can't make any rightful polarisation/phase for backsignal. Pay attention that 'mighty' HARM block A (same 1983 year) even can't to be launched on such target...
Well, I tell about old trash (because modern complexes is under secret) but you - about most modern staff. Need I add something to show advantage of ground/naval air defence better?

eloise wrote:MALD-N and SPEAR-EW both have datalink to communicate with each others and with the aircraft that launched them.

With own aircraft of course, but with each other plane with UNDIRECTIONAL link antennas on midgets - all scheme shall betray by radiosurvelance forces. And don't forget about collision hazard - to launch dozens cruise missiles to point target immediatly or to laucnh dozens midgets around single plane in one time is almost impossible in practize.

eloise wrote:And no, jamming won’t break if a single bit is uncovered, the processing gain is just proportional to the number of bit

I wrote 'in theory', read carefully. So, if midget spend (or mistake) 10 bits from few thousands, the signal for radar will be ln(10) times higher, jam shall broken in every range.

eloise wrote:1 F-35 can carry 24 SPEAR-EW or 10 MALD-N and these decoys are much cheaper than deploying an additional ground based radar.

It had deployed already, as a part of every air defence complex. F-35 can carry 24 SPEAR-EWs only with external points, so farewell stealth, and all strike capabuilities too (exept cannon and kamikadze :) ). In inner bays just 8. Now I am seeing clearly that SPEAR is just subsonic munition and easy target even for cannons too, nothing about 3-4M speed. And last - if every F-35 carry 4 decoys (it isn't enough even for imaginary selfdefence from single division of modern Buk - 1 Kupol + 1 2S36 + 4 9A317), just 4 places for small munitions shall left or 1 (ONE, my dear kid) for long range JSOW-kind cruise missile. Your [propaganda]advertising claims is ridiculously outnumbered again.

eloise wrote:Firstly, it will be mass produced
Secondly, do you seriously think a whole division of S-300 is attacked by a single F-35?

Lucky you, kid. But we know both that contract was signed only in january this year, and previously you had nothing, when you advertized your SPEARs. So, first munitions will be in regular troops no early than 2023. But all right, it have accepted.
So, how many F-35 must attack single division without casualties? It doesn't matter how many F-35 will be, price shall pay even if division would be destroyed totally. A2/AD isn't soviet/russian termin, and it explains all this awesome.

eloise wrote:Much faster, much longer range, much better agility

How much? It is just 'my father stronger than your father', kid. Total unserious. If I can't prove something even, I use certain numbers at least. Compare with you. Of cause you want to say at least something, but this... :)

eloise wrote:And all you showed were the shot down of individual slow moving targets and 1 supersonic target, but they weren't stealth, they weren't coming from multiple direction, they didn't make any maneuver, there wasn't any jamming

Let's find news reports from air defence exersises by yourself. With numbers of spended targets, with target circumstances and so on. But all this is impossible to prove for you by video evidences, so will you cheat about 'extraordinary claims' again? About stealth, maneuver and jam you are wrong right here.

eloise wrote:There is quite a bit of different from standard ECM used in exercrise and what the enemy will use in the battlefield

Let's show us what exactly is bit different, kid. 'Standart ECM surround' from 36D6 goverment tests:
jam power - no less than 10W/MHz in the place of radar;
jam sources - no less than 3, with around placing;
jam band - more than band of radar retune capabuility;
chaff - one heavy chaff pack every 200-300m of trajectory;
target - unmanned Mig-21;
false targets - unguided targets with transmitters/lenses at least 3:1;
parachute low power jammers - there wasn't, it started to use for S-300V and PM/PMU modifications.
The result you can see in this sourse - http://library.voenmeh.ru/jirbis2/files ... /17.19.htm
How you told earlier? 'Parroting old and debunked long ago sthereotypes'? Let's our readers will decide by themselves, who parroting old sthereotypes, uses demagogy and imitate memory losses here, when he has nothing to argue.

eloise wrote:Yeah sure, only Russian know how to design their weapons for battle, everyone else haven't got a clue what they are doing

So why your favorite SPEAR with turbojet (sic!) claims max.range just 140km, when gliding SDB with the same weight and similar aerodinamic claims as much as 110km range? Just adds 27%? From what drop altitudes and aircraft speeds such a range was obtained for glider? Why did such funny pictures about MALDs appear? I sure that you didn't make that picture, it was advertizing from military show.

eloise wrote:So where did you got that magical 5-7% efficiency data from? your behind?

From air strike against Syria in april 2018 against protected targets, my dear forgetful kid. Most fresh example of massive air strike as you ecribed that I have. Rejection -> anger -> trade -> depression -> adoption. You are at the start of this road. :)

eloise wrote:Helicopter doesn't have the speed to intercept cruise missiles, they are faster than loitering drone but not by much and most helicopter doesn't have radar so it need highly coordinated guidance from ground to intercept these loitering munition.Secondly, helicopter are only hard to detect when they are low and slow, so sending them to get loitering target will make them juicy targets because they must fly fast and high

Coordination isn't a problem. Even ukrainians with old Mi-24V can success - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znBWSjUgCYk
Helicopter/interceptors would be on its own therritory, under real coverage (not like S-200/Kub simple semi-active complexes). Who can make them juicy targets? Firstly it must come to death zone itself. For cruise missile the same, but with fighter planes or specialized interceptors.
Offline

hocum

Banned

  • Posts: 47
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2020, 09:37

Unread post18 Mar 2021, 12:12

eloise wrote:Anti jam GPS have existed for quite a while, also, if you transmit trying to take over the control of the loitering drone, then you also let the enemy know the location of your jamming station.

Unfortunatly, 'anti jam GPS' is nothing more than another advertize - because ranges ratio between satellite and jammer shall be 20 000km/200km - 1:100 (and may be even 1:1000). Also satellite transmitter hasn't power of hundreds kW. Some ground station upgrading is nothing compare to upgrading all satellite constellation and all stockpile of munitions too. In this case initentional jams usually mean. For GLONASS, and Beidou, and Gallileo is the same story.
Does enemy know? So what? There is such 'station' - https://kbradar.by/products/radioelektr ... onass/118/
Does enemy want to destroy every such 'station' remote antenna by long range cruise missile, or AARGM, or SPEAR? You are welcome!

eloise wrote:That is for 1 aircraft and 1 decoy in separate resolution cell, who say several decoys can’t be in the same cell?
...
then in most case your radar doesn't have the resolution to distinguish between decoys and plane. The most common way to distinguish them would be to base on jet engine modulation.

I say. One collision, and bye-bye every protection at all. For unlucky case bye-bye plane too. And such cell could be smaller than you suppose easily. I just hint you: for example most modern Obzor-3 and Imbir radars from S-300V* could be linked by fiber optic. Guess why. :)
Modulation of engine is common and it is relict like dinosaurs too.

eloise wrote:Then you clearly forget the objective of strike aircraft, the main target of fighters are not the air defense, the main targets of fighter are the infrastructures. If your air defense can't protect the infrastructure then they already failed their main objective, even if they survive.

Well, I thought than you can't guess. :) It seems that I argue not with you - firstly you write stupid stereotypes, then I break it, than you go to somebody for advice and start write something more rightful. Call this person here, I don't need any kind of mediators.
I know it much better than you, kid. Ground air defense created to protects important objects, territory, military troops, not yourself firstly. But if some western 'forum users' mean that it like naval air defence must protect ship and itself, and want to destroy ground air defence first - why not? I will not prompt all you rightful tactic. Sure, it is impossible to cover every household. But all important and military targets usually protected, and what will left? Again limited munitions spend for empty civilian building with 'chemical weapon' and another chinese ambassys? Great strategy. :) But it leads to heavy political casualties, and don't forget where the persons usually abuse by destruction of civilian objects shall end up:

hal_080.jpg


eloise wrote:I said it before, tracking purely by electric optical system without a radar is extremely slow. To be able to identify small munition and UAV, you need very narrow FoV (very high zoom) on the order of 0.5*0.5 degrees. Let say your 2S38 Derivatsiya has to track a sector of 180 degrees in azimuth, and 90 degree in elevation. We can say he have to look through 64800 little square of that sector to fully scan the sector for target. Even if the operator only need 0.5 seconds to look in each square, he will need 9 hours to fully scan the sector. Wider FoV can be used but then in that case the detection range is much lower and you are much more likely to miss target

Are you trying to imitate me and using some calculations for more science discussion? It's too late. I will say goodbye to you in every case.
Unfortunately for you, if you would right, F-35 pilots would have absolutely the same problem with its EOTS. It was right in the middle of 20th century, but since 197*-198* even fighter plane optic stations with automatic observe and locations (at least air target) exist. For Su-27 and Mig-29 at least. So think again, and try to argue imaginary slowness of optic observing better, not by simple optic tubes for human eyes and nothing more.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3219
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post18 Mar 2021, 14:48

hocum wrote:Well, if nobody knows a destiny of damaged israelian F-35, I will consider that it was decomissioned because damage. Untill new facts wouldn't appear.


It's well known that Israeli F-35 wasn't damaged by enemy fire and instead was damaged by a bird strike. Stop trolling and spreading Russian propaganda BULLSHIT!

Bird strikes damage (and sometimes severely) several aircraft including fighter aircraft every year.


hocum wrote:Even smallest damage can lead plane to junkyard without technologies of stealth coverage repairing on airbases.


More Bullshit and trolling! :roll:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests