S-400 and F-35

Of course fighter AESA radars are more dense then SAM aesa radars, you have luxury of space in case of ground radars, so you can make have more space between modules and much easier cooling solutions.
One TWT is passe. In Flanker and probable Foxhound BSM you have at least two TWTs, I except Foxound could have more then two if we look estimated radar peak power.
So if one tube fail you still have another, you lose radar power but still you have functional radar.
I would be quite suprise if modern Russian and western PESA ground radars still use just one TWT?

elements spacing on phased array are affected by wavelength. Secondly, on PESA, you rarely have more than 10 TWT, most of the time, you have 2-3 TWT. Whereas on AESA, you have at least 500-1000 T/R modules, it is more likely to have 1-2 TWT broken than to have 200-300 T/R modules broken

You wrote there is only one TWT, and now you see there is lot more.

Btw AESA radar which have 20% of modules broken can't work at least from what we read, 10% of broken modules are limit, probable when you have more then 10% that mean something really wrong is happening and system will turn whole radar off or very soon whole radar will be broken.

So even though it look like TWT are lot worse they have advantages, you can lose one TWT and other will still work without problem. Also TWT is very old tech and much more proven then AESA modules so I really doubt modern TWT are not reliable.

Problem with PESA to be really good it need to be big. You can fit excellent PESA radar in Flanker or Foxhound but in MiG-29 nope. This is why no PESA radar for MiG-29 even though Russia have quite good PESA tech.

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

Problem with PESA to be really good it need to be big. You can fit excellent PESA radar in Flanker or Foxhound but in MiG-29 nope. This is why no PESA radar for MiG-29 even though Russia have quite good PESA tech.

Dassault Rafale which is (also) a relatively small fighter aircraft (much smaller than Flankers or Foxhounds) and shorter in length and wingspan than the Mig-29 used a PESA radar for a considerable time until it was (recently) replaced by an AESA radar where basically the Rafale's radar had its PESA antenna traded by the AESA one.

The above kinda proves that Russian PESA tech isn't that or as good as you seem to claim/wish.

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

Again using the Rafale example, once its PESA radar was swapped by AESA - and again this trade was mostly done at the level of swapping the PESA antenna by an AESA one while the radar's backbone remained essentially the same - the Rafale's radar performance had a very big/huge increase in performance such as detection range (more than 50% and closer to 100% if my memory doesn't fail me).

Some more words about another kind of decoys.

It isn't towed decoy its can placed that all ARRGM/Daliah flies so far, that even terminal seeker can't find target.

That decoy work purely on passive RF sensor and have no effect on the GPS/INS , MMW radar seeker of AARGM-ER. It also won't work on the EO seeker of Delilah and Rocks

Isn't any strings, place don't limited, resulting jam is much more correct that towed decoys because it created not only by two sousces, but much more. It can deploy even multiply fantoms, this is almost impossibble by one/lined sourse in plane's case. Towed decoy can cover from behind only, but this can defend from all directions easily. And even switching off defended radar is unnesesary.
Do I need to add that such decoys are 2-3 orders cheaper that every airborn munition (exept dumb bombs)? Because airborn munitions fly to outplaced fantoms, this decoys don't destroyed anyway, instead of inflatable decoys.

Planes can also have multiple source of jamming and defend from multiple direction with self propelled decoys like MALD-N or SPEAR-EW, or if you want it cheap, they can also carry jammer that can fit in chaff dispenser

(can you show me bay for towed decoy on F-35?)

f-35.jpg

tM53GfQ.png

Thors M2-KM in 2013 costs about 370 mln.rub. for each combat vehicle. It is about 4-5 mln.$ for that times. Every Thor-M2 has 16 missiles instead of 8, and for overhelming 1 Thor you need more than 2 F-35 with 8 SDB each. It is more than 200mln$ with engines and armament. For one unlucky Thor's battery (4 vehicles) you must send more than 8 F-35. Your's military budget will collapse immediatly if you would do something like that - send almost billion dollars for saturation/overhelming every 10mln. Wasting 32*230 000$ for 32*40 000.

Firstly, that assuming that your Thor-M2 vehicle have perfect PK for its missiles. All missile once launched always hit target 100% percent of the time even when there is jamming and attack from multiple direction. That close to fairy land than reality
Secondly, even if assuming your Thors MK2 system have 100% PK, it still doesn't need 2 F-35 to overwhelmed 1 Thor MK2. Since even 1 F-35 with external hard point can carry 24 SPEAR/SPEAR-EW/SDB ,and that not even count its 2 AIM-9X at wing tip which can be used in air to ground mode as well. As your Thor-MK2 can only carry 16 missiles, even with 100% PK, it will be overwhelmed every time . And if one preferred long range attack, he can switch out for a load of 20 SPEAR-EW and 2 Rocks or HSWab and F-35 can attack from distance > 400 km with very high number of munitions

Full passive, it will shoot down all JSOWs/JASSMs by cost of one or few 57mm artillery rounds with programmable fuse. Let's drain this by "cheap" airborn munitions, or "cheap" UAVs/loitering garbage... Airborn side even don't understand what happens, why its all disappears like stones thrown into the river.

That thing doesn't even have a radar so it will have very hard time finding and tracking multiple target at the sametimes, then consider that it only have 148 rounds, it won't be able to fire for very long. Last but not least, cannon round are pretty inaccurate if target maneuver once the rounds are fired

I saw some marketing from Madl-J that it had capacity working from A to J bands. A band is VHF band. How is possible it can work on that band with litle aperure size? maybe working together other madl-J assets on same time?

I saw some marketing from Madl-J that it had capacity working from A to J bands. A band is VHF band. How is possible it can work on that band with litle aperure size? maybe working together other madl-J assets on same time?

A VHF 1/4-wave, 1/2 dipole will do it, with an antenna the length of that platform, or shorter. It just emits lower gain and is more polarized. Alternatively it trails a conductor that produces a much higher gain directional antenna. The highest gain is normal to the long-axis of the antenna. So stand-in circling of a target would deliver continuous VHF jamming coverage. With more gain from a longer trailing antenna, the radius to deliver the jamming to that target can be higher (inverse squares controlled illumination though, so non-linear gain changes with linear radial distance change limit the radial range increase possible).

You wrote there is only one TWT, and now you see there is lot more.

Btw AESA radar which have 20% of modules broken can't work at least from what we read, 10% of broken modules are limit, probable when you have more then 10% that mean something really wrong is happening and system will turn whole radar off or very soon whole radar will be broken.

So even though it look like TWT are lot worse they have advantages, you can lose one TWT and other will still work without problem. Also TWT is very old tech and much more proven then AESA modules so I really doubt modern TWT are not reliable.

Problem with PESA to be really good it need to be big. You can fit excellent PESA radar in Flanker or Foxhound but in MiG-29 nope. This is why no PESA radar for MiG-29 even though Russia have quite good PESA tech.

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

10% is not the limit, you can lose more than 10% of AESA model and the radar still keep working.
Secondly, even 10% is quite a lot, like on 2000 T/R APG-77 that about 200 modules stop working compared to like 2 TWT on Irbis-E
AESA are far more reliable

Do we have any source or article to post here that suggests a air to ground ammunition follows or even jams VHF radar sources? I am not going to call out any users but it reminds me of that one time where I have seen a bunch of users coming to a disagreement with one user here that kept trying to say the F-35 EW suite covers the VHF to low UHF range while he was not providing any sources for it, while another user did, making him flustered that it didn't reach his expectations. However there are sources that at least talk about the SPEAR frequency ranges which were easy to find.

I asked about that.

I saw some marketing from Madl-J that it had capacity working from A to J bands. A band is VHF band. How is possible it can work on that band with litle aperure size? maybe working together other madl-J assets on same time?

A VHF 1/4-wave, 1/2 dipole will do it, with an antenna the length of that platform, or shorter. It just emits lower gain and is more polarized. Alternatively it trails a conductor that produces a much higher gain directional antenna. The highest gain is normal to the long-axis of the antenna. So stand-in circling of a target would deliver continuous VHF jamming coverage. With more gain from a longer trailing antenna, the radius to deliver the jamming to that target can be higher (inverse squares controlled illumination though, so non-linear gain changes with linear radial distance change limit the radial range increase possible).

Thanks. Very interesting.

I saw some marketing from Madl-J that it had capacity working from A to J bands. A band is VHF band. How is possible it can work on that band with litle aperure size? maybe working together other madl-J assets on same time?

A VHF 1/4-wave, 1/2 dipole will do it, with an antenna the length of that platform, or shorter. It just emits lower gain and is more polarized. Alternatively it trails a conductor that produces a much higher gain directional antenna. The highest gain is normal to the long-axis of the antenna. So stand-in circling of a target would deliver continuous VHF jamming coverage. With more gain from a longer trailing antenna, the radius to deliver the jamming to that target can be higher (inverse squares controlled illumination though, so non-linear gain changes with linear radial distance change limit the radial range increase possible).

Definitely agree with this. However I think that MALD-J and SPEAR-EW likely are designed (at least initially) mostly higher frequency systems in mind as those are the most threatening systems to own aircraft. I think it would be pretty easy to make a workable VHF jammer inside MALD-J/X, although with low gain and comparatively low power (compared to radar). IMO, it would likely work well to protect VLO aircraft like F-35 but would likely not be good enough to protect 4th gen aircraft unless the MALD-J gets very close to the VHF radar or the distance between radar and aircraft is large. F-35 will definitely have much lower RCS even in VHF frequencies than any 4th gen aircraft. Thus the MALD-J/X would work better even with low-gain antenna.

Isnt it alot easier to just pulverize Low freq radars?
Most of them are rather large and cant be moved easily.
And if your moving them your not using them.
This ssd's sounds like TLAM work, or Jass-er work.
These should die at the opening Salvo.

Isnt it alot easier to just pulverize Low freq radars?
Most of them are rather large and cant be moved easily.
And if your moving them your not using them.
This ssd's sounds like TLAM work, or Jass-er work.
These should die at the opening Salvo.

It's not an either or proposition. The MALD-J/X only enhance the survivability of the weapons that would be taking out the UHF/VHF early warning systems. They'd also make it more difficult to detect F-22/35/NGAD/B-2/B-21.

I saw some marketing from Madl-J that it had capacity working from A to J bands. A band is VHF band. How is possible it can work on that band with litle aperure size? maybe working together other madl-J assets on same time?

A VHF 1/4-wave, 1/2 dipole will do it, with an antenna the length of that platform, or shorter. It just emits lower gain and is more polarized. Alternatively it trails a conductor that produces a much higher gain directional antenna. The highest gain is normal to the long-axis of the antenna. So stand-in circling of a target would deliver continuous VHF jamming coverage. With more gain from a longer trailing antenna, the radius to deliver the jamming to that target can be higher (inverse squares controlled illumination though, so non-linear gain changes with linear radial distance change limit the radial range increase possible).

Definitely agree with this. However I think that MALD-J and SPEAR-EW likely are designed (at least initially) mostly higher frequency systems in mind as those are the most threatening systems to own aircraft. I think it would be pretty easy to make a workable VHF jammer inside MALD-J/X, although with low gain and comparatively low power (compared to radar). IMO, it would likely work well to protect VLO aircraft like F-35 but would likely not be good enough to protect 4th gen aircraft unless the MALD-J gets very close to the VHF radar or the distance between radar and aircraft is large. F-35 will definitely have much lower RCS even in VHF frequencies than any 4th gen aircraft. Thus the MALD-J/X would work better even with low-gain antenna.

I agree with your general points about what it can do and for what, though it also comes down to how many watts it can pump out and for how long it can sustain them. It may be used to raise the noise-floor 10 db for 20 minutes to allow a flight of 5th gens to transit an area without the numbers or direction flown being known. Or it may raise the noise floor by 30 dB for 5 minutes for attack purposes, to prevent an effective intercept. Weapons and tactics will matter to VHF jamming effectiveness, even with a fairly low-gain polarized antenna. I think it'll be effective to help 4th gens also. Plus F-35 will be able to jam VHF when needed to help deny intercept vectors. As an information denial and delayed response tool it'll help the entire air force to attack.

OTHR and VHF early warning are initial targets but a loitering jammer will allow 4th-gen (RAF Eurofighter for instance) to pile in attacks earlier as well to kill peripheral long-range sensors that the F-35s bypassed to go for core IADS supports and enablers plus OCA, then long-range SAMs later which can be mostly ignored and bypassed by the VLO jets until they're ready to kill them as well.

Even a modest VHF jammer can help delay and confuse networked interceptors going after 4th-gens joining the fight, and those apparent 4th-gens may also be decoys. Even a modest loitering VHF jammer can have big effects to aid 4th gens to operate, especially with the associated standoff weapons, and then escape.

Agree with that element1loop. I think another thing often overlooked is that there will likely be several of these jammers along with more basic decoys in the air simultaneously. So instead of the traditional single high powered jammer far away doing stand-off jamming, there will be several low-powered decoy missile jammers doing stand-in jamming much closer to threat radars. I think this could create very challenging environment for low frequency radars.

If low frequency radars prove to be bigger problem, I see making something like a JASSM-ER (or -XR) based decoy jammer missile just to counter them. It would be a lot more expensive, but it could carry a lot more powerful high gain jammer and it could work for a long time. Just replace the warhead with the jammer system and reprogram the guidance system for jammer mission. Maybe retain a small warhead (and guidance section) so that the missile could attack targets itself if needed and/or when it's getting out of tuel. JASSM-ER would be perfect for this as it's stealthy meaning that it can get close to enemy without easily being shot down. It has a very long range and thus endurance for this mission. It's also large enough to carry effective low frequency EW suite and it has suitable terminal guidance system to attack low frequency radars. However I doubt the need for this kind of system and I think the problem can be tackled with other solutions.

F-35S SPOTTED over lebanon.
Hey is that within Syrian S-300 range?

https://theaviationist.com/2021/01/25/h ... -airspace/

F-35S SPOTTED over lebanon.
Hey is that within Syrian S-300 range?

https://theaviationist.com/2021/01/25/h ... -airspace/

With wingtip AIM-9x rails, no less. Unclear if it was carrying actual 9x's though. I suppose if you're going to mount the rails for it though, you might as well...

Looks beautiful in that belly shot IMO...

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.



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