S-400 and F-35

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

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post05 Jan 2021, 21:36

jessmo112 wrote:I dont get it. There are F-35s flying combat missions as we speak over Syria. The Russian point defenses have been out classed in every way.
Even out classed by UAVs in some
Cases.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 6680258808



Exactly! Those Russian Air Defense systems can't even seem to be able to successfully engage slow and loitering UAVs let alone successfully engage faster and smaller PGMs.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

michaelemouse

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 92
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2017, 10:29

Unread post06 Jan 2021, 02:41

hornetfinn wrote:
hocum wrote:The question of prices is very interesting too.
Pantsir's rocket costs about 22 000 -25 000$, Thor's rocket about 40 000$. I don't know how much costs Buk's modern 9K317 missile, but even if it costs more than 1 order


CLOS missiles like used in Pantsir and Thor are really cheap as they don't have expensive seeker and guidance systems. Semi-active missiles like used in Buk are a lot more expensive as they have those components. But the launch platforms do have a lot of expensive systems in both.


For roughly equivalent levels of tech and sophistication, what tends to be more expensive, the seeker/sensors or the guidance/processing components? E.g.: How much is the main radar aboard the F-35 or other platforms and how much is the main computer? How about other platforms like the E-2, destroyers? Has there been a trend in the relative proportion?

I'm wondering because if the tendency is for processing to cost significantly more than sensing, then it may make sense to use a more centralized system with 1 main brain and many eyes. But is that the case?


Pantsir and Thor are both cheap because they're command guidance, right? Is accuracy at long range highest with active guidance, lowest with command guidance and semi-active guidance in the middle?
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3316
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post07 Jan 2021, 08:34

michaelemouse wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
hocum wrote:The question of prices is very interesting too.
Pantsir's rocket costs about 22 000 -25 000$, Thor's rocket about 40 000$. I don't know how much costs Buk's modern 9K317 missile, but even if it costs more than 1 order


CLOS missiles like used in Pantsir and Thor are really cheap as they don't have expensive seeker and guidance systems. Semi-active missiles like used in Buk are a lot more expensive as they have those components. But the launch platforms do have a lot of expensive systems in both.


For roughly equivalent levels of tech and sophistication, what tends to be more expensive, the seeker/sensors or the guidance/processing components? E.g.: How much is the main radar aboard the F-35 or other platforms and how much is the main computer? How about other platforms like the E-2, destroyers? Has there been a trend in the relative proportion?

I'm wondering because if the tendency is for processing to cost significantly more than sensing, then it may make sense to use a more centralized system with 1 main brain and many eyes. But is that the case?


It's really dificult to say as every system is different and have differing operating principles. For example in F-35 the integrated core processor handles the data from all the sensors the aircraft has and is not tied to any one sensor. Processing is also very important part of the sensing and can not really be separated in modern systems.

michaelemouse wrote:Pantsir and Thor are both cheap because they're command guidance, right? Is accuracy at long range highest with active guidance, lowest with command guidance and semi-active guidance in the middle?


Basically yes. Command guidance is the cheapest guidance method for a missile and is good for SHORAD applications. It requires only a small amount of inexpensive components in a missile for the guidance with no seeker and associated computing system. All that is done in the launching system, which carries the sensors and computing systems. It has many advantages besides allowing cheap missiles. However it does also have several disadvantages which is the reason why it has been replaced with other guidance methods in newest SAM systems. One of those is that the accuracy goes down with the range. They also require constant and accurate target and missile tracking during the whole engagement which can take 20-30 seconds or even more and makes them targets for counterattacks. It also places restrictions on how many targets the system can engage simultaneously and what engagement geometries are possible.

Longer range systems require other guidance methods with active guidance being the best for longest range systems. Semi-active guidance can achieve good accuracy, but has other limitations that lower effectiveness in long range engagements. That's why all longer range systems are going for active guidance missiles, including S-400. Active guidance systems are also getting cheaper. For example the new LOWER-AD interceptor with active radar guidance system costs about $150k. Israel also has several relatively cheap interceptors with active guidance.
Offline

michaelemouse

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 92
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2017, 10:29

Unread post07 Jan 2021, 21:12

hornetfinn wrote:Longer range systems require other guidance methods with active guidance being the best for longest range systems. Semi-active guidance can achieve good accuracy, but has other limitations that lower effectiveness in long range engagements. That's why all longer range systems are going for active guidance missiles, including S-400. Active guidance systems are also getting cheaper. For example the new LOWER-AD interceptor with active radar guidance system costs about $150k. Israel also has several relatively cheap interceptors with active guidance.


It sounds like semi-active guidance has some of the disadvantages of command (illuminating platform must emit and maintain LoS with target) with those of active guidance (sensors and processors) yet it's still quite common and not just in air-to-air. In what use-cases is semi-active guidance preferable?
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post07 Jan 2021, 23:18

michaelemouse wrote:It sounds like semi-active guidance has some of the disadvantages of command (illuminating platform must emit and maintain LoS with target) with those of active guidance (sensors and processors) yet it's still quite common and not just in air-to-air. In what use-cases is semi-active guidance preferable?


While semi-active guidance may be a bit more complex than command guidance in terms on equipment onboard missiles but active guidance is way and much more complex than semi-active guidance since and for example with active guidance, missiles need to have their own onboard active radar while with semi-active guidance missiles only need to have much less complex radar signal passive detectors.
This of course reflects in both development and manufacture costs with semi-active guidance being likely much cheaper. There's also technological challenges with active guidance which means that you need to master technology at a very miniaturized level in order to succeed in the development of such (active guidance) systems. For instance the first successful active guided missile that I remember was the AIM-54 Phoenix which was a very large missile (for an air-to-air missile) developed in the 1970's. Before that during the 1950's the Americans and Canadians tried to develop the Sparrow II missile which was to be an active guided missile but failed since the technology wasn't sufficiently mature at that time.
Later and after the Phoenix the next successful active guided missile that I remember was the AMRAAM, namely the AIM-120A which entered in service only in the early 1990's or almost 20 years after the Phoenix.
Then we have the Russian R-77 never-ending 'saga' which together with the above proves that developing active radar guidance missiles is very far from being an easy task (being much harder then semi-active guidance) and that's the reason why in the past you had semi-active guidance instead of active guidance and why it's still used today.
Last edited by ricnunes on 07 Jan 2021, 23:50, edited 1 time in total.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

tequilashooter

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 16
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2020, 18:11

Unread post07 Jan 2021, 23:23

jessmo112 wrote:I dont get it. There are F-35s flying combat missions as we speak over Syria. The Russian point defenses have been out classed in every way.
Even out classed by UAVs in some
Cases.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_ ... 6680258808


Syria is not the size of Diego Garcia. Most of those F-35s strikes from Israel as an example are aimed at Damascus and air defenses like the S-400 is all the way in Latakia. Latakia is located approximately 230kms away from Damascus and with weapons included F-35s from Israel can use Lebanon to launch their weapons so the S-400's target engagement is more than 230kms which basically means that most of the S-400s arsenal cant target aircrafts that far away and I take it that the 40N6 is for targets like AWACs.

There were some reports that pantsirs got damaged but than brought back into service few weeks later. I would also be careful with what Turkey claims they say sh*t like, having Som-Js get 1000kms+ ranges later for F-35s, taking credit for destroy Armenia's s-300 when it was a Israeli kamikaze drone and claiming 100+ Syrian tanks destroyed for a very small city when they got their asses kicked to sign a ceasefire agreement. Any articles in military related matters regarding Turkey are as good as reading articles from the onion. Pantsirs cost like 13 million + and TB2s cost like 5 million dollars. And regarding all the images I have of TB2s being destroyed in different location with Syrian militants posting selfies. Based on what my account response limit with image limit is all the images I have of TB2s getting destroyed would not be enough for today if I wanted to post them or get in trouble here for spamming too many images per post. I am also sure that most of the pantsirs destroyed did not have any long range air defense coverage depending where they got destroyed like your source bringing up a different country from Syria.

Russia claimed 14 out of 16 Delilah drones got intercepted in a Christmas attack that occurred in 2018, while Israel with their reports on that same day said that most did not reach their targets until a 2nd wave attack of F-35s were successful with glide bombs. So to some degree the pantsir-s1s did their jobs but a pantsir-sm with claims of loitering ammunitions to engage as a standalone system has yet to be proven. Unless anyone disagrees with Israel to say otherwise here.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2885
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post07 Jan 2021, 23:49

tequilashooter wrote:Syria is not the size of Diego Garcia. Most of those F-35s strikes from Israel as an example are aimed at Damascus and air defenses like the S-400 is all the way in Latakia. Latakia is located approximately 230kms away from Damascus and with weapons included F-35s from Israel can use Lebanon to launch their weapons so the S-400's target engagement is more than 230kms which basically means that most of the S-400s arsenal cant target aircrafts that far away and I take it that the 40N6 is for targets like AWACs.


And yet, Syrian Air Defense Forces operates the S-300 which isn't that much inferior compared to the S-400 (actually the S-400 is a basically a more modern variant of the S-300, if you will) and as such Syrian S-300s aren't restricted to Latakia. And the result (against the F-35) is still the same.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

marauder2048

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1489
  • Joined: 14 Mar 2012, 06:46

Unread post08 Jan 2021, 05:02

michaelemouse wrote:It sounds like semi-active guidance has some of the disadvantages of command (illuminating platform must emit and maintain LoS with target) with those of active guidance (sensors and processors) yet it's still quite common and not just in air-to-air. In what use-cases is semi-active guidance preferable?


Track-via-missile still has some advantages in certain jamming and target presentation scenarios since
the interceptor and ground radar get different looks at the target.

And illuminators are still useful where target presentation to the active seeker is
unfavorable like in intercepting a high-diver; SM-6, ESSM Blk II and presumably SM-2 Blk IIIC all
retain illuminator compatibility in part for this reason.

The typical argument for semi-active was that is was a good balance between
missile inert mass (transmitters can be relatively heavy) and cost/capability.
And with say, midcourse -+ ICWI ,you have less vulnerability to saturation.

But the flexibility of active seekers (over-the-horizon, launch-and-leave, quick reaction time etc)
is such that it's carrying the day.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3316
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post08 Jan 2021, 08:08

marauder2048 wrote:
michaelemouse wrote:It sounds like semi-active guidance has some of the disadvantages of command (illuminating platform must emit and maintain LoS with target) with those of active guidance (sensors and processors) yet it's still quite common and not just in air-to-air. In what use-cases is semi-active guidance preferable?


Track-via-missile still has some advantages in certain jamming and target presentation scenarios since
the interceptor and ground radar get different looks at the target.

And illuminators are still useful where target presentation to the active seeker is
unfavorable like in intercepting a high-diver; SM-6, ESSM Blk II and presumably SM-2 Blk IIIC all
retain illuminator compatibility in part for this reason.

The typical argument for semi-active was that is was a good balance between
missile inert mass (transmitters can be relatively heavy) and cost/capability.
And with say, midcourse -+ ICWI ,you have less vulnerability to saturation.

But the flexibility of active seekers (over-the-horizon, launch-and-leave, quick reaction time etc)
is such that it's carrying the day.


Very good answer. Track-via-missile was also popular in past decades in SAMs as it allowed using far more powerful and faster computing systems on the ground for more capable missile guidance, ECCM and target discrimination. This was important in 1970s to 1990s when equivalent processing systems were tens of thousands of times slower than they are now. However TVM added complexity and cost for the whole system and has thus been used only in large long-range systems like Patriot and S-300. This is why basic semi-active guidance was popular in lower cost medium-range SAM systems like Hawk, SA-6 and SA-11. SARH was also better than command guidance at longer ranges as accuracy does not deteriorate at longer range. Thus traditionally command guidance has been popular in SHORAD systems, semi-active guidance in medium-range systems and TVM guidance in long-range systems. Like you said, nowadays ARH is popular in almost all systems with some systems also using imaging infrared seekers. ARH with two-way data link could combine all the performance advantages of all different RF guidance methods.
Offline

jessmo112

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 337
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post08 Jan 2021, 14:53

ricnunes wrote:
tequilashooter wrote:Syria is not the size of Diego Garcia. Most of those F-35s strikes from Israel as an example are aimed at Damascus and air defenses like the S-400 is all the way in Latakia. Latakia is located approximately 230kms away from Damascus and with weapons included F-35s from Israel can use Lebanon to launch their weapons so the S-400's target engagement is more than 230kms which basically means that most of the S-400s arsenal cant target aircrafts that far away and I take it that the 40N6 is for targets like AWACs.


And yet, Syrian Air Defense Forces operates the S-300 which isn't that much inferior compared to the S-400 (actually the S-400 is a basically a more modern variant of the S-300, if you will) and as such Syrian S-300s aren't restricted to Latakia. And the result (against the F-35) is still the same.


Exactly my point! We are talking as if the F-22 and F-35 havent been flying circles over Syrian defenses for years.
Israel even went as far as taking picture over Lebanon.
If any F-35 wants to hit any target in Syria, there is nothing that can be done. The F-35 and what ever country owns them has total impunity!
Offline

hocum

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2020, 09:37

Unread post09 Jan 2021, 11:45

eloise wrote:So it is exactly what I talked about earlier, they claimed that 70% missiles were downed, without any video evidences (which is very big contrast from when Israel or Nato claimed they destroy somethin

The Russian position on the other hand is that several others target were attacked and a bunch of missiles were shot down; there is no actual evidences that others location were also attacked. The Russians are claiming that 71 of missiles were shot down - with short range SAM over an urban area, I might add - without any photos or video of it compare that to the photo below of couple of missiles shot down in Saudi Arabia

Osa-AKM has an optical tracker so if they indeed shoot down that many missiles, we should have some video by now, even if the operator doesn't record any kill, given that that many missiles were shot down, we should have seen some video from local people living at the area.

What were on the tables there, in front of army general Rudskoy? A lot of debris, full of shrapnel's holes. :? Unexploded warhead was on the photo on the screen. What kind video evidence you need? Where can you see shoot from complex's position and destroyed target, and both are recognizable? It is impossible even for extreme closer ranges as 2-3km at daytime. Strike was at 4 a.m. local time, as usually at night. There are tons videos with night AAA shooting and missiles launching from Mddle East, possibly from Sirya, but without any time and place confirmations usually. Just bookmarks in videos' name/description, often is Arabian language or/and Arabian language speaking, by the way. For me is totally impossible to find such proves, I can just offer it for you, if you know Arabian, of course.
How can you prove that your photo from that place, and that time, and for that kind of missiles? We had seen the same already: georgian Grads shooted on Zhinval, but "video evidences" tried to tell us that it was russian artillery shooted on Georgia.
Almost all missiles was shooted down outside urban areas (in video was a special map), used all kind of syrian air defence complexes (not short range only), even S-200 (but S-200 without sucsess, that isn't wonder). So stops your manipulation again - all Syria didn't sleep at 4.00 morning and waited with cameras for video record to convince you personaly. :) When peoples awaked, when grab some cameras - in this lockal place all could end, even if it was visible/listenable. Even if something was recorded, and was published too, we can't find and prove it.
Old optical tracking channels looks like a tank's scope - without any screens, just oculars for operator and nothing more. Let's record video from this.
Does Minisrty of Defence need to prove something to persons like you, especially by your rules?

eloise wrote:Secondly, 150 m *70 m is about 10500 square meters, with 71 missiles then by average each missile destroy an area of 147 square meters. The thing is if these missiles are highly accurate and hit the same location then they just crack the building fragments to even smaller pieces, they won't extending the damaged area.

Man, this counts differently. For collapsing 3 civilian 3-stages non-large concrete buildings you need 3 150-200kg high-explosive warheads at all. For guarantee 6-7 missiles need. Rudskoy as told about 6-7 craters, as I remember...
76 cruise missiles can do the same on the photo even without any warheads. Just honeycomb all 3 buildings to collapse. In fact they destroyed empty buildings, without any chemical weapons, and even without any precursors for chemical weapon or just toxic chemistry. Because object places right among civilian quarters and we didn't see mobs of poisoned civilians, and injured/killed security guards on such kind of object - it is obvious.
So, it was awesome. Great sucsess. For how many hundred millions of $ - who knows. US with allies may pay 1% of this money for syrians silently, and siryans would disassemble all that buildings by theyself immediatly. ;)
US version of strike was total insolvent in fact - because unexploded warhead's photo and claimed missiles' outfit by one target. And it is even we will try to suppose that syrians/russians gathered debris from missiles and drilled holes in these by hands. ;)
Offline

hocum

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2020, 09:37

Unread post09 Jan 2021, 11:46

eloise wrote:Firstly, sound like you just make that up, if you EXACTLY KNOW then it should be easy for you to prove. Secondly, LPI characteristic of different radars aren't equal

Well, if you would know my language, it would be some about true. But this... I will give some material, but in cyrillic, so would it be prove? Or you again will be require impossible "video evidences"...
Of course aren't equal. S-300: 1023 bits of spread spectrum band and 15 bits of base-polinomial structure. AN/APG-77 (on the cry): 127 bits of spread spectrum band and 7 bits of base-polinomial structure.

eloise wrote: I'm sure Zolt?n Dani being the undisputed commander of the battery will know more about the system he used than you.

I just remind that Yugoslavia couldn't recieve even original documentaion on AK rifles, and all their Zastavas is the result of reverse ingeneering. In case of such technic - imagine by yourself.

eloise wrote:In mole cricket operation, a force of about 90 Israel aircraft destroyed 29 SAM batteries and shot down 82 aircraft from Syrian side

And you modestly didn't show with tons of image what was air defence technics in Sirya that time. But I am writing: outdated old and stationary S-75 and S-125, some Kvadrats (in 1973 debuted very well, but after 10 years hadn't the best), and some Shilkas, Strela-1s and Osa-As/OsaAKs (even weren't AKM modification) for a change. There weren't any core complexes, there weren't S-200 (arrived only in 1984), there weren't Krugs (2K11), there weren't more modern Buks instead of Kvadrats, there weren't newest S-300PT... :? There weren't newest Tunguskas and Thors. All as I told - most modern F-15/F-16 under Boeing-707 Arava ECM coverage against S-75, S-125 and Kvadrat can't destroy syrian air defence fully.

eloise wrote:In the Flanklan conflict, Super Etendard has very great success sinking ship with anti ship missile even though these ship has their own air defense

There wasn't system air defence of ship order - wasn't any air defence stuff for fleet. Seawolf was nothing more that one big mistake instead of mid-range air defence complex. Battle survival of english ships was zero - even unexploded Exocet burned and destroyed english destroyer. And last, but not least - ships onboard ECM inflied on english satellite links, and they turned it off when used link with London. Guess when wwere they speaking with London? Unorganized... no, totally unoraganized and undisciplined.

eloise wrote:Recently in Armenia and Azerbaijan war, plenty of SAM vehicle got destroyed by simple propeller UCAV

Are you kidding me? Do you see what were in armenian air defence? There was a victory parade in Baku.
Again: Osa-AKMs, Strela-10Ms, Shilkas, Kubs, some Buk-M1 and S-300PT (36D6 was only there). Even in USSR in 1991 it wasn't the best. ONE BATTERY of modern Thors, acted separetly. Nothing more. Again modern Byraktars and some jewish Hermeses/Harops was against... total trash 40-60 years old. But Azerbaijan had more than 90 MLRS systems, so those pathetic some UСAVs inflied on nothing, and we can't recognize what kind of weapon hits that Thor-M2KM or 36D6.
When both Alievs had armed all this millenium, attract allies, fought resolve and hard - armenians don't include Karabah and its defence border into country, didn't enter own armenian army and chewed slobber until the end.
Reverse technic, give Nagorniy Karabah's Army of Defence magic UСAVs and give Azerbaijan's army with Turkey behind so outdated air defence - result would be the same: all magic UCAVs would be destroyed into [s]barns[/s]hangars on airfield. Too large force advantage at all.
Manned azerbaijan aircrafts left on bases all time of conflict, by the way - again, even so outdated air defence wasn't been total overhelmed and fully destroyed.
But you can try to show us all the reverse situation anytime.
Offline

hocum

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2020, 09:37

Unread post09 Jan 2021, 11:48

look at S-300V4 and S-400's radars. Is 9S19 a digital beam forming array? No it isn't. Is 64N6E a digital beam forming array? No it isn't. Is 91N6 a digital beam forming array? No it isn't. I can go on and on, but like I said before, digital beam forming at higher frequency is extremely rare because the element spacing limit is dictated by the operating frequency, this is the same whether your system is airborne or on the ground

Nebo has, Protivnk-G has, Gamma-D has, Kasta... possible. May be something more. It is all military air defence ground radars, which will be additional forces for S-300/400 in potential conflict.
Theory, technology had desighed already, question is just in antenna's module. When it will produced - immediatly all ground/naval fire batteries recieve this technology. But aviation still will not: beacuse cooling, power supply and weight. I consider that my thesis about ground/naval systems' technological superiority had proved at all. Next your attempts to manipulate in this direction I will ignore.

eloise wrote:Nonsense. AESA design suffer much less internal noise, making them a lot more well suited against low RCS target

And more well suited for enemy jams too. This is the result of extereme sensitive reciever without extreme powerful transmitter against serious enemy. If it isn't extreme sensitive - it would give nothing above PESA as I told.
And a potential more power is just potential, espesially on the fighter plane, because it tends to extreme problems with cooling for so small and density antenna array. And some stabuility problems, requires shedule prescise calibrations. Well, this tends us to offtopic.

eloise wrote:
hocum wrote:And when air defence had been antenna arrays, plains had been just pulse-doppler radars.

What the ** does that even mean?
electronic scanned array whether they are AESA or PESA are still Pulse Doppler radar. Pulse Doppler only mean your radar send signal in pulse and take advantage of Doppler effect to measure target speed. How the beam is steered is irrelevant

May be difference in terminology again. You are some right, but in my language previous radar generation names as I wrote (and I meant that English language too). Does "slot array" more correct?

eloise wrote:What do you think the first air strike into a country look like? With stealth fighter carrying bomb into enemy air space mindlessly wondering around until a SAM shot them down?. No, the first strike always happen with a bunch of long range cruise missile such as JASSM-XR, JASSM-ER, Tomahawk, AGM-86 attacking vital stationary targets such as OTH-B, OTH-SW radar station, air field, Command center.

No, man, it is you don't know how the "air strike" on formidable air defence looks like in reality. ;) In this case some overdemocracy states and fighters for "human rigths" just simply refuse from attacks. Strategic result as is.
Venezuela - two Antey-2500 divisions and some export wheeled Buks and Thors for spicing. From 2019 till today there isn't any democratic bombardment and non-flyable areas, bunches of cruise missiles and loitering garbage. Just inspirated financial crysis, attempts to infiltrate agents through the border and screaming in UN. No any more.
Iran? The same, from S-300PMU1 divisions was been deployed there.
Nothern Korea? KN-06 is ready and was deployed, but it is less earnestly because they have nuke too.
Launching "bunch of long range ..." requires a bunch of launching platforms, its deployment and concentration in such numbers almost impossible to hide, and it is always possible to recieve pre-emptive strike to all this bunch. It isn't chess, when white starts first always.

eloise wrote:Yes it is, already done controlled flight test in 2017, the concept isn't so complex in fact. The main purpose of it is to surveillance RF source and report back to mother aircraft and also to bait out missiles.

Tests are just tests. Where is official report abouts tests' finishing, purchasing contracts, photos with this from regular troops? I don't tell about S-500 or 42S6 Morphey, for example. Or something like this - https://bmpd.livejournal.com/3820848.html
Offline

hocum

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2020, 09:37

Unread post09 Jan 2021, 11:50

eloise wrote:The accuracy of cannon isn't very high. We also see how Armenia struggle to shot down slow flying drone

[facepalm again]
Armenia hasn't anymore that old garbage.
Pantsir on goverment tests, 2007 (in stardart ECM surrounding, by the way), target - E95 (subsonic cruise missile/drone's imitator). One cannons' burst and target shooted down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=255&v=u ... e=youtu.be

Pantsirs' battery on exersises (in ECM surrounding too), target - couple of "Saman" training targets, which is refubricated Osa-AKM's missiles (anti-radar missile's imitator). Supersonic, highly maneuvrable, with very low RCS. Two launches, showed one hit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=1249&v= ... e=youtu.be

Tunguska against E95 again (suppose black sky, because TV Zvezda channel's exclusive show) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=255&v=u ... e=youtu.be
One burst and hit.

Pantsir tracks small quadrocopter, firstly demonstrate fire and then shoots it down by cannons, some small range because without video editing, by one videosequence (especial for persons who likes video evidences):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=754&v=D ... e=youtu.be

Thor tracks the same quadrocopter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=860&v=O ... e=youtu.be

Well, let's tell us more about how hard is to find and to shoot down slowly UAVs, loitering garbage, and evven mighty cruise missiles. ;)
And I still don't tell something about ECM measures against UAVs and loitering staff, because it is some difficult for me. It isn't my speciality, I will force to use just common words, as all we know who.


eloise wrote:If no air defense emit or attack, they stay silent. Your air defense have two choices:
1- You emit or attack these first groups of cruise missiles, decoys and basically let the enemy know where you are and they can attack you
2- Your air defense stay silent and the important infrastructure such as OTH-B stations, air field, weapon storages warehouse got wrecked.
If you choose the second option, you probably safe from the first attack but not for long, because there are air droppable loitering drones such as DASH-X, Atilus -900, specifically designed to autonomously loitering for 10 hours to find and report the location of SAM back to the mother aircraft.

Kindergarden again. 2 choises... Enemy has infinite number of choises always, and it never acts as you want to be.
Just few advanced forward radar-imitate decoys with simplest AAA batteries will mutiply by zero all your "cheap" loitering garbage easily. Even modernized Shilkas/ZSU-23-2s is acceptable. Even Kornet-D is acceptable for such targets. And you even know nothing without additional recon by serious UAVs/planes/satellites.
What if air defence side simply calls battle helicopters like interceptors against your loitering garbage, and makes some massager?
2 choices... Let's clean your mind from stupidly jewish advertizing, maked for children with Down synrdome.
How can you sinchronize loitering garbage with speeds about 100-200 km/h and cruise missiles with 900-1000 km/h? Would cruise missiles circle around a lot of time untill loitering garbage would crawl to pretended defence area? For which line/time it would need for? In practize air defence will chew both waves separetly.
And this is just planning, you know just position of surveylance radar and may be forward advanced [s]decoys[/s]sources. You can plan nothing without reckon, that is the main problem. But all loitering mution designed to avoid reckon at all and time/link for striking. As a result it has a lack cabuilities both reckon and damage. Huge barrage time requires economy at fuel/battery as much as possible, as a result for air defence such munitions become sitting ducks. For operational scale it requires to spend hours of time to reach operational area and catch pre-eptive strike after its launched, but before it can reach targets' area. Little sizes UAV almost hasn't sustainability against enemy ECM forces: overhelms or GPS for self-giuded, or backlink to operator for remote guided variants. Or both, if it is so unlucky.


eloise wrote:No it isn't, otherwise, there is no point for Russia to develop the 9M730 Burevestnik, 3M-54 Kalibr, Iskander-K, Kh-101/102, Kh-59MK2, Kh-35UE. For your information all of them are subsonic missiles

It is left to prove that any of this missiles design to break through formidable air defence, or russian military hopes for this. Every this missile is easy target for organized air defence too. Iskander-K is a cheap variant of true, quasy-ballistic Iskander, Kalibr/Ha-35 is the same for Onix/Granit/Bazalt. Burevestnik/Ha-102 is for finishing off after full-scale nuke and nuclear deterrence. But for hard air defence russian military plans to use Ha-22/32 missiles, or Ha-15 airballistic missile, or new Kinjal airborn quasy-ballistic missile, or new Zirkon anti-ship missile - agianst Aegis and Aegis-ashore systems.

eloise wrote:Secondly, no, NEBO can not operate in HF-band, not in a million years, HF frequency range from 3-30 MHz and the wavelength is from 10-100 meters. Ironically, Nebo antenna is simply too tiny to use HF

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-618.html
Wavelength range - meter (13 operating points, VHF / HF)

Tell us more about original Nebo.

eloise wrote:TALD was used with great success in the opening stages of Operation Desert Storm in 1991, with the first being deployed in combat by Lt. Jeff Greer. More than 100 were launched on the opening night of the war. This prompted the Iraqi air defense to activate many of its radars, most of which were then destroyed by anti-radiation missiles. So yes, decoys like this are very popular in combat

Aaa, en wiki... Well, it have accepted.
Offline

hocum

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 26 Oct 2020, 09:37

Unread post09 Jan 2021, 11:52

eloise wrote:And decoy such as MALD-J, MALD-X, MALD-N, SPEAR-EW doesn't need to carry powerful jammer, because they are all stand in jammer that mean they are much closer to the threat than the aircraft launching them. Radar return reduced with forth root of distance.Jammer on these small decoys are not limited to simple noise jammer, there are a wide variety from noise jamming to deceptive DRFM jamming
Secondly, when you are jammed, you can't determine true range, so in fact you can't blank a small part of range, you can blank a direction but that also mean not detecting stealth aircraft in the same direction as the decoy

Well, In your personal radiophisics again. So, jammer recieved radar's signal and got it back. But radar signal is short - what will jammer do when back-signal ends? Countinue transmitting? It will be simple countinius jam, so radar's auto-compensator starts working and neglates back-signal after minor time. So, instead of infinite cone behind jammer we recieve very limited cone. Also, radar knows how long is its own signal and can control this by in-signal DSS coding.
So, jammer must delay repeating back-signal. By which time? By twice duration of original signal plus some delay, or it would be continious jam again. As a result, we will recieve instead of continous cone behind jammer the chain of cones with "empty" places. So, defended plane must be into one of this cones, or radar can observe plain.
In every case, plane must stay at cone behind the jammer, into angles that less then radar's resolving capacity by azimuth and local angle. It require to precision plane's placing, which require to know PRECISION COORDINATES OF MALD OWN. How it can be? By plane's radar working? Hello, enemy ECM-forces, bye-bye stealth. By NAVSTAR on MALD? Foreget about that, it was left behind. Every run off from strictly cone will fail jamming defence.
Which power jammer may have? About dozens watts? Grownd radar is more powerful by at least 4 orders.
So little jammer can't have directional antenna, so its anttenna's gain is no more than 2 (in practize about 1 - undirectional antenna). All S-300's radars has precision directional antennas, whith gain more than hundred (sidelobs is lower than main beam 100 times and more), and antenna's gain has second degree in formula. Another more 4 order in power advantage by radar.
DSS can discover signal below noise if it is no less then Lg(N), when N - binary sequence length. For N=1023 it means that radar can discover signal 1000 times lower than noise - again addtitional 3 order advantage. By the way, imitate long random bit-sequence by limited computing power by onboard stuff on 136kg midget is very dangerous - if one bit stay uncovered, jam will brake (in theory, because also reciever's own noise is in practize). For avoid this, "covered" jam uses in practize - back-signal has little more bits (and little more duration than original signal), but this little distorts back-signal anymore, and with every repeating places between cones grows too.
Summ result is ELEVEN ORDERS of power (110db), so if jammer is far - radar can breakthrow the jam just by power/brutforce (depends of defended plane's RSC, of course). For avoid this, jammer must be much closer to the radar than plane. For plane's RSC about 0.01sq.m. and jammer's power 100W result ratio will be 10:1 - jammer must be at least 10 times closer to radar than plane, or jam will brake.
When another radar with another band will turn on (tracking radar for example), jam by one MALD will breake immediatly, and plane must to act another jammer for another radar (and stay at both cones already, or both MALDs must stay in one course to facilitate this all). If another complex (placed another) will turn on - the same again, third jammer and now 3 cones cross-section. Deploy against every radar one MALD is possible, but stays in result cross-section - :) Somebody will discover plane anyway out of cone of defence.
Resume: for counter-jamming one powerful jammer is 100 times dangerous than 10 weak jammers. It can work only if jammer stay much closer to reciever (GPS satellites, for example - satellite's orbit is 20 000km, jammer places at range about dozens/hunreds km to reciever). In another case weak jammers is good for imitational jamming, but almost useless for counter-jamming. Even with imitational (DRFM) jams. And you again don't know rightful battle tactic for staff which you declare.
And don't forget that air-defence side will use counter-jams too, and much more successfully that airborn side (by power, antennas and computing and without circus juggling in flight). For example, 1RL257 Krasuha-4.


eloise wrote:9M83 top speed is 1.7 km per second, so if it is about 3 seconds from detection to hit, you must be within 5 km radius from the fighter

Just like that, just like that. Before this would be only pulses from survelance radar and some random pulses from tracking radars, some warnings. Before some seconds from hit illuminating from launcher/missile begins, and that will be total alarlm already, but it is almost too late to do something. Main problem is so many random pulses come to plane in battlefield: reflections, beams switching, pulses from outstanding complexes, if it surveylance radar - it emits all in the area by very wide beam. You can't react on every this kind of situation. So you don't know exactly - do enemy see you? Have it been launched missile already or haven't been? You can react immediatly just for short range missiles' launches.

eloise wrote:Fortunately, stealth aircraft doesn't have big RCS and the so called anti stealth low frequency radar doesn't have any where near enough resolution to see the small detail to distinguish a decoy and a stealth plane, especially at long range.

Fortunatly, in real battle for UHF-band RCS of stealth planes will be much higher that RSC of so little lens, as I calculated previous. So even nothing similar will be - 0.0*sq.m for lenses, 0.*sq.m for stealth planes.

eloise wrote:9M83 has much shorter range than 9M82, and even with 4 missiles per TEL that still very small number given that a single F-35 can carry 24 SPEAR-EW

Firstly, let's prove that SPEAR is in regular troops.
Secondly, 1 S-300V** division has up to 192 missiles ready to launch. Tell us more how 24 SPEARs can drain it all (and where will be all countless MALDs).
eloise wrote:already done various flight test since 2016, if you count on it not being produced then you gonna have a bad time

I will mean that it isn't in mass produce. Why you would be better than me?

eloise wrote:hocum wrote:JSM is a another kind of JSOW? And of course it isn't ready yet?
It is very different from JSOW. Already done various flight test since 2015 and entered production phase in 2019

And what is the "very difference"? More higher price, as usual, but what will be better compare to JSOW?
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Tiger05 and 11 guests