Stealth Necessary But Not Sufficient: Add EW, Intel, Tactics

alloycowboy · by **alloycowboy** » 03 Aug 2017, 18:42

The only problem with the simulator philosphy is it can only simulate known equipment and it can give you a false sense of security when suprise suprise a new or modified piece of equipment shows up with unexpected capabilities. (Ie. A mig 21 Bision with an Isreali jamming pod and a helmet mounted queuing system.)

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 03 Aug 2017, 21:15

eloise wrote:I mean look at this top notch comment from one of those new member when he tried to argue that OLS-35 detection range is bigger than 35 km
wewuzkangz wrote:
arrows point away from a number like this, "< 35 with equal below that arrow,MEANS "is equal or greater than
basic 4th grade arithmetic you cant seem to understand

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=52962&start=90

LOL, LOL, LOL :mrgreen:

Human intelligence (or the lack of it) never seizes to amaze me! :roll:

I guess you could have kindly provided him (wewuzkangz) with links such as this:
https://www.mathsisfun.com/equal-less-greater.html

The link above is clearly made for elementary school students so this could be his last chance to learn about "greater than" or "less than" signs.
Heck, my 8 year old daughter learned this subject this year (she just ended 2nd grade passed to the 3rd grade). I guess that wewuzkangz could take lessons from my 8 year old daughter about the subject as well...

Worse even: we have guys like that commenting on advanced subject such as military aviation :doh:

southernphantom · by **southernphantom** » 03 Aug 2017, 21:33

eloise wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Indeed! I also noticed that.
Since you guys have far more experience here at F-16.net than I, why do you think this is happening?:D

Summer holiday for kids

I think that you may be onto something with that.

pmi · by **pmi** » 04 Aug 2017, 00:19

eloise wrote:I mean look at this top notch comment from one of those new member when he tried to argue that OLS-35 detection range is bigger than 35 km
wewuzkangz wrote:
arrows point away from a number like this, "< 35 with equal below that arrow,MEANS "is equal or greater than
basic 4th grade arithmetic you cant seem to understand

Good god.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 04 Aug 2017, 01:27

alloycowboy wrote:The only problem with the simulator philosphy is it can only simulate known equipment and it can give you a false sense of security when suprise suprise a new or modified piece of equipment shows up with unexpected capabilities. (Ie. A mig 21 Bision with an Isreali jamming pod and a helmet mounted queuing system.)

WOT?! How about simulate 'unexpected equipment' that is thunked up for the simulator from good intelligence and other sources? Sure the simulator can only do so much with HUMAN intervention and whilst the real world may always have surprises - what else is there? Then there is how to use all this new gear co-operatively with other F-35s and other own & allied assets. No small task it would appear - the F-35 pilot needs a good brain/head on well trained shoulders.

gc · by gc » 04 Aug 2017, 02:35

Good read. Good to see that the cost difference between stealth and non-stealth platforms being reduced dramatically over the years while the cost it imposes on any adversary is tremendous and growing. The addition of new types of sensors and the drive to increase the sensitivity of existing ones in order to detect stealthy targets will give us more opportunities to insert false targets and employ deception tactics to overwhelm and confuse the enemy.

Imagine USAF announcing the presence of a Rapid Raptor package somewhere in the region within striking distance of an adversary. Couple this with cyber and EW techniques to constantly trigger false alarms as the adversary search high and low for any clue of stealth fighters approaching their territory. In no time their fighter units and SAM batteries will be driven to wits end responding to endless false alerts.

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 04 Aug 2017, 02:38

Bizzaro...

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 04 Aug 2017, 08:43

spazsinbad wrote:
alloycowboy wrote:The only problem with the simulator philosphy is it can only simulate known equipment and it can give you a false sense of security when suprise suprise a new or modified piece of equipment shows up with unexpected capabilities. (Ie. A mig 21 Bision with an Isreali jamming pod and a helmet mounted queuing system.)

WOT?! How about simulate 'unexpected equipment' that is thunked up for the simulator from good intelligence and other sources? Sure the simulator can only do so much with HUMAN intervention and whilst the real world may always have surprises - what else is there? Then there is how to use all this new gear co-operatively with other F-35s and other own & allied assets. No small task it would appear - the F-35 pilot needs a good brain/head on well trained shoulders.

Agreed. Simulating unexpected or non-existing equipment is not a problem and can be done in all simulators and simulator architectures I've ever seen. Basically each simulated entity is represented with huge number of parameters that can be changed to almost anything. Want Mach 20 aircraft with 900G turning capability and radar system more powerful than in AEGIS cruiser and EW system more powerful than in whole Growler fleet and RCS of zero and physical size of mosquito and neverending array of missiles with intercontinental reach? Not a big problem in simulator world, but might be "slightly" difficult to achieve in physical world. Anything imaginable can be done in simulators as there are no boundaries like laws of physics there. I've seen simulated entities (in real military simulators) do some really wild stuff either accidentally or to test something or just for fun.

Usually simulated entities try to mimic real world equipment, but there is really nothing preventing from simulating any kind of system. Of course modern simulators can also simulate insane amounts of entities (like aircraft, ships or tanks) that would never be possible in real life.