S-400 and F-35

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

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1979
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post19 Mar 2021, 16:49

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

Even a massive airliner can suffered significant damage due to bird strike, let alone a small fighter aircraft, but I love how Syrian propaganda channel can turn this into a story of F-35 getting damaged after suffered a direct hit from S-200 200 kg warhead
ad_199723638.jpg



hocum wrote:That's about I told. 'What is this', 'I can't remember something', 'it isn't work', 'I can't download', and so on. Main problem is that everybody can simply reject ALL things here, on forum. Let's PROVE that it isn't working firstly. Or resolve it, because here it works well, both Win10 and Win7.
Image
Your appetite grows up more and more in time, kid. Why do you need command post? :) You even don't know how it's look like inside, you couldn't separate it from civilian airport control room.

Firstly, I said it didn't work because it didn't work, I have no reason to lie about something like a photo.
Secondly, what exactly you think you can prove by posting the photo? If you want to prove that you work on S-300, then it is very simple, go inside the command post, and take photo of a piece off paper with your name, you can erase the sensitive part. Just like how we both did with the degree certificate. It is that simple.


hocum wrote:Wow, wow, easy, kid! Is it demand or offer? In both cases, it will be some much honour for 'forum users' like you, but let it be. I had written enough here, everybody can estimate my knowledges and profession, but I will do last attempt. And this time you shall not able to dodge.
2 diiferent sources for avoid 'I can't download' and so on.
https://ufile.io/a1givg1i
https://transfiles.ru/a078a
Time limit for every hosting is, so if you don't keep up - its your problem. Another users will be witness.
Baby evading like 'it just signs instead of bookmarks' shoudn't succed - resolve problems with text coding by yourself if it would be, I am not your nurse. Or another problems. Do you understand me well?.

Firstly, you are giving material in cyrillic, 31 pages of it, which you know people can't translate without putting the image in google translate, so to prove your point, you should at least post the picture of the paragraph where you got your information from. Otherwise, it would be quite similar to post a 100 pages manual in Chinese and telling people the information is in there, knowing full well they can't check. Furthermore, the the document you just given is only about the hydraulic aspect of S-300 system and mention nothing about its LPI characteristic. In your previous paragraph, you said " S-300 has 1023 bits of spread spectrum band and 15 bits of base-polinomial structure for LPI". Now prove it.
Secondly, in previous paragraph you also said: "APG-77 has 127 bits of spread spectrum band and 7 bits of base-polinomial structure". I haven't seen you post any APG-77 manual to prove this either.


hocum wrote:Just bla-bla-bla and manipulations again. Is it your words, my little demagoue?
So prove it! Let's show us offical sourse that last M82/M83 modifications have semiactive seekers as well. It isn't fact, it just your words personaly - words of forum anonimus, who supposed that every S-300V has only ballistic capabuilities. Sure, if you can. If you can't - let's keep silence instead your demagogy, and don't evade into evidence of non-existing thing. It is all about this question.

Again, the burden of proof is on whoever made the positive claim, so you have to prove a positive statement. I don't have to prove a negative statement. This is why I brought up Russell's teapot is an analogy for you. If you are not familiar with it, here is the analogy:
russell_s_teapot_by_mitchelllazear_d2xmx17-fullview.jpg


In short, if you want to prove that any version of 9M82, 9M83, 9M82M, 9M83M, 9M83MD has active radar seeker, then you should provide evidence to prove that statement, not me. Currently, all available information point to all version of 9M82 and 9M83 still use semi active radar homing
9m82..png

9M83..png


And let be frank, if your statement that "9M83 and 9M82 has active seeker" can be treated as fact without any evidences, then by the same logic. I can also claim that F-35 has HPM system developed from CHAMP and HIJENK program that instantly fry any S-300,S-400,S-500 missiles that came close to it . You know, since your statement doesn't need evidence, my statement doesn't need evidence either
HIJENK.jpg

p/s: a bit busy now, so I will answer the rest later
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1979
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post20 Mar 2021, 20:22

hocum wrote: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.

Nice try, but you are very disingenuously trying to compare apple to orange :wink: The ability to change direction of ballistic missile with reaction control system (rcs) is not even remotely close comparable to a hypersonic boost glider or scramjet missiles in any sense.
The only stage where side thruster of ballistic missile can really change the direction of the missile is when the booster of the missile still running which even for long range ICBM, only last for about 3-5 minutes. This because the side thruster doesn't actually change the direction of travel, it only change the nose pointing. Once the booster stages are dropped with only the warhead bus left and the warhead escaped the atmosphere, all the RCS on the warhead bus can do is change the lateral position by dozens meters at least. In short, once the ballistic missile escape the atmosphere, it follow pretty much predictable ballistic trajectory. Until the warhead entered the atmosphere again. This is why it possible to intercept ballistic missile with interceptor missile travelling slower than the ballistic missile itself
By contrast, both hypersonic boost glider and scramjet missile can change direction of travel all the way to target, because they fly inside the atmosphere, so the aerodynamic force allow them to not only change the nose pointing, but also the direction of travel. Which make the interception much harder due to the uncertainty of flight path. There is pretty good reason why boost glider and scramjet missile are very hot right now even though we already developed weapons that can travel at hypersonic speed in the form of ballistic missiles decades ago :wink:
hypersonic.PNG




hocum wrote:Seriously, my dear kid. 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.

You know, I actually didn't pay a lot of attention to this Tu-154 example of your since after all, it literally just a passanger aircraft with no mean to defense itself, neither jamming nor agility, not even chaff. But know that I look more carefully at that accident, seem like it is not at all so simple like you are claiming
5. Steel balls and holes similar in size to the striking elements of the S-200 missile were found in the wreckage of the aircraft. This prompted the Ukrainian authorities to accept responsibility for the incident. Examination questioned the weight of evidence
In the fragments of Tu-154 raised from the sea, five balls and 460 holes were found, the size of which approximately corresponds to the diameter (9-12 mm) of the striking elements of the warhead of the missile launched by the Ukrainian military on October 4, 2001.

However, during the consideration of the case in the courts, it was established:

the warhead of such a rocket is loaded with steel balls; they are used in bearings and are sold freely;
traces of TNT alone were found on the balls, although the explosive of the missile warhead is 20% of it, and 80% of RDX;
the fragments of the aircraft have circular holes smaller in diameter than the shrapnel of the missile;
in the ceiling elements, among others, there are holes formed by a ball hit from inside the cabin, from bottom to top.

6. Not found: missile fragments, aircraft outer skin, black boxes
During the search in the Black Sea, no fragments of an 11-meter rocket were found, although a significant part of it was made of floating materials

7. The Russian radar complex in Gelendzhik, 30 seconds before the explosion, recorded an unknown object at a distance of 50 kilometers from the Tu-154. If it was a Ukrainian missile, it could not reach the plane
At a distance of more than 150-200 kilometers from the launch site, after running out of fuel, the speed of the 5V28 rocket drops to 1 km / s, and at a distance of 250 kilometers - to 870 m / s. The plane crashed 240 kilometers from the missile launch point. That is, a segment of 50 kilometers, it would have flown in at least 50 seconds.

9. The point of detonation of the missile determined by the Interstate Aviation Committee - behind, on the left and 15 meters above the aircraft body - does not correspond to the principle of guidance of the S-200 missile
The computing unit guides the 5V28 missile with a lead to the point of the intended meeting in the direction of the target. Therefore, the detonation occurs in the area of \u200b\u200bthe nose of the aircraft.

10. The guilt of Ukraine has not been proven, recognized and is not confirmed by payments to the families of the deceased passengers
In October 2001, Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma apologized for the incident and fired Defense Minister Kuzmuk. He was guided by the conclusions of the commission to investigate the disaster, headed by the Secretary of the Russian Security Council Vladimir Rushailo, but continued to call the disaster a consequence of "a fatal coincidence."

$ 200 thousand for each dead passenger was paid to Israel and Russia according to the ex gratia formula - for humanitarian reasons, without admitting guilt. No claims were made against Ukraine at the interstate level.

In 2007, the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine finally closed the criminal case over the crash, finding no evidence that the Tu-154 was shot down by a Ukrainian missile.

In 2008, the Pechersky District Court of Kiev denied compensation for moral damage to the head of the "Fund for Assistance to the Families of the Dead" Boris Kalinovsky and the Belonogov family, who refused to receive $ 200,000. They did not appeal.


In 2011, after seven years of consideration, the claim for damages was denied to Siberia Airlines. The Supreme Economic Court of Ukraine upheld the decision. The airline announced its intention to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, but did not use this opportunity.

Against the backdrop of an endless and fruitless investigation into the crash of the Malaysian Boeing, the death of a Russian Tu-154 aircraft over the Black Sea in 2001 by a Ukrainian missile, notes Alexander Khrolenko.

https://samorez-shop.ru/en/interesting- ... d-chernym/
In short, it was not even clear that the aircraft was indeed shot down by the S-200 as the direction of the shrapnel coming from inside the aircraft itself and also the hole on the fuselage recovered are filled by holes with smaller diameter than the steel bearing shrapnel used in S-200. So come to think of it, it is actually a lot more likely that the airline were brought down by terrorist attack :wink:
But of course, if you don't like the terrorist hypothesis, there is something else that are important :wink:
At the same time, an alternative version of the plane crash appeared. On the day of the tragedy, during the exercises, 23 missiles were fired from Ukrainian and Russian anti-aircraft missile systems, including the Russian S-300 air defense systems. According to the control of the Russian Gelendzhik radar, 30 seconds before the explosion, the Ukrainian missile was observed at a distance of 50 kilometers from the crash site. That is, in 30 seconds, according to its capabilities, it could not be at the point of contact with the aircraft. The maximum distance that the missile of the Ukrainian S-200 air defense missile system could fly during this time is 36 km. But the Russian S-300 air defense system at the same time was 11 kilometers closer to the plane's route than the Ukrainian one. And his rocket, in terms of its tactical and technical characteristics and speed, could well cover a distance of 50 kilometers during this time. But this version has remained alternative. The then Ukrainian leadership did not want to spoil relations with either Israel or Russia, and therefore made a gesture of goodwill by paying compensation to the relatives of the victims without admitting their guilt.

The courts have repeatedly considered the claims of relatives and the Russian airline "Siberia" against Ukraine and all the courts, after examining the evidence, refused to admit that the plane was shot down by a Ukrainian missile, for the simple reason that the Ukrainian missile could not do it, which was confirmed by the relevant examinations.

But no one has ever considered the question of which missile shot down the plane.

All the ships and launchers participating in the exercises were not examined officially. This is not even in the materials of the court decisions.

But what is there is the Conclusion of the Kiev Research Institute of Forensic Examinations. Since I once served as an operational officer of the Special Department of the KGB of the USSR and served part of the air defense, with the S-300, S-200 and S-75 complexes, incl. with nuclear warheads, then I completely agree with this conclusion.

First, the rocket that hit the plane exploded on top of the plane, at a height of about 15 meters, one and a half meters to the left of the middle of the rear passenger compartment. You see, from above !! Over the plane! By the way, nobody saw the upper part of the plane. (see clauses 1, 17 of the Expert Visnovka KNDI Sudovikh Expertise, below)

Do you know which rocket attacks the plane from above? S-300. And who fired the S-300 missile? The S-300 missile was fired at the same time by air defense units of the Russian Federation. Simultaneously with ours.

And how fast is the S-300 rocket flying? 2000 m / s, that is, one and a half times faster than the S-200 missile, and the S-300 can fly 50 km in 30 seconds, which coincides with the data on the Gelendzhik radar station of an object 50 km from the Tu-154 in 30 seconds before the disaster (see paragraph 5 of the Expert Visnovka KNDI Sudovikh Expertise)


https://parki-himki.ru/en/rossiiskii-tu ... -nebe-nad/

hocum wrote: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.

No, I have never said Tomahawk is invulnerable, of course it can be shoot down. And it can be shoot down much easier compared to more modern missiles such as JASSM, KEPD-350 or Storm shadow. However, the fact remain, extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidences. They claimed they shoot down 71 out of 103 missiles without any video graphic evidences, not even a single video then that is dubious at best. While from NATO side, they have undeniable proof to show, which is all the infrastructure which they said they attack are actually destroyed.
Regarding the Israel claims about destroyed Syrian SAM batteries, I haven't look in details of that exact case but basically it come down to two factors:
1) did Syrian deny Israel claims? If they don't then we can take Israel claim as truth
2) Did Israel delivered any evidences? if not , then obviously, just like Russia story, their claims are dubious.


hocum wrote: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 capabuility [b]to get actual recon data online[b] all operation becomes impossible.

What exactly new generation of radar , jammer and guided bomb that Israel F-15 and F-16 have at that time?
The radar of F-16, F-15 at that time didn't have enough resolution for them to find ground SAM, and they were not equipped with dedicated RWR that can geolocate SAM location like HTS. Neither F-15 or F-16 had an internal jammer by that time either.

p/s: unfortunately due to how much work I have at the moment, I only have enough time to write 1 post a day :doh:
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1979
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post22 Mar 2021, 19:22

hocum wrote:Let's show us in detail - how much difference it will be as a result.[...]

Firstly, having a random radar transmitter inside an inflatable decoy doesn't mean you can automatically fool a ELINT system on fighter aircraft. This has been proven in test as US military tried to use SA-6 with additional emitters and receivers to look more like an advanced integrated air defense system, but F-35 rejected that as bad data and correctly identify the system as the SA-6
F-35 target identification.PNG

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2014/12 ... important/
Secondly, there are decoys with rigid shape and engine allow them to move around like the Chinese one, but they are much less popular compared to the inflatable one and also more time consuming to set up. Besides, when you start to put in engine to make it moves, heater to make it attractive to IR sensor, and dedicated radio transmitter to emulate modern radar. Then the decoy is no longer cheap anymore.
Thirdly, you know what neither the inflatable decoy and the rigid decoy with engine can do?. Attack targets. That the most important part. As I said earlier, the goal of ground base air defense is not to protect themselves, but to protect other valuable targets. If they hide and never emit or attack, then sure, it probably very hard to find and kill them. But then in that case, you can say good bye to important stationary infrastructure such as over horizon radar, air base, bunker, power plant, hydropower plant...etc. So eventually, the real air defense vehicle will have to emit, and they will have to attack. At which point, the task of finding them is much easier.

hocum wrote: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?

Firstly, Azerbaijani Air Forces is not even remotely close to be the top 10 airforce today, so they are not the most modern aviation threat by any mean. The most modern aircraft in their airforce is only JF-17 and Mig-29S
Secondly,Bayraktar TB2 and Harops are not becoming older. But by definition, they are cheap expandable assets, in short , they are designed to be cheap to operate and cheap to produce, so that their lost doesn't matter. Neither have the speed or agility or jamming power or decoys to defend themselves, they aren't designed to be VLO either. Also, being more recently developed or "modern" doesn't necessary mean harder to destroy. Take for example: the Super Tucano is a lot more recently developed compared to SR-71 or F-117. But Super tucano is a lot easier to shot down. Similarly just because Bayraktar TB2 is recently made doesn't mean it is harder to shot down compared to normal fighter aircraft

hocum wrote: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.

How ironic, at first, you claimed that Syrian air defense had shot down 71 out of 103 missiles. But now that you can't provide any video evidence, you suddenly changed the story to almost 100 cruise missile destroy empty civilian barns?. So which is it? was these "barn" protected by air defense or not?.

hocum wrote: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

Firstly, like I said before, you don't get to just throw random number around then act like that the truth. At least try to find reference to your number. For example, radar blind zone is often equal to its pulse length, so if you want to say 36D6 blind zone in this case is 7.5 km , then you should give us either the manual of 36D6 show a scan mode with such limitation or information about its pulse width
Secondly, the video was in very narrow FoV, so it wouldn't be possible for you to even conclude whether there is any other short range anti air cannon close to the 36D6 or not
Thirdly, Krunk UAV is purely a recon UAV and unarmed, so Armenia couldn't possibly use it to attack azerbaijanian air defence forces. Besides, what UAV that Armenia produced in large number?

hocum wrote: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.

Look, I don't care who you pretend to be. It is irrelevant, because you are on Internet. Unless you have a way to prove beyond reasonable doubt regarding your occupation, then no one care. And the field of military isn't exactly something you can use "appeal to authority" style of argument.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1979
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post22 Mar 2021, 20:26

hocum wrote: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.

Yeah, so many different training target, and yet, not even a single one of them with stealth principles such as elimination of cylindrical body and right angle created by fins. And no, making their shell from composite isn't enough, since the majority of stealth came from shape rather than material. At least, try to find me training target that look like this:
e40c8032b7715e2f0760.jpg



hocum wrote: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*.

Let analyze that
The hypersonic target missiles of the Favorit-RM family will prepare the calculations of the Buk-M3, S-350 Vityaz and S-400 Triumph air defense systems to repulse massive strikes by the Deep Strike tactical ballistic missiles and AGM-183A aeroballistic missiles

The answer to this question is more than obvious: being a modification of the 5V55P anti-aircraft guided missile S-300PS anti-aircraft missile system, the Favorit-RM target missile retained the entire spectrum of flight technical qualities of the first.

In particular, the maximum flight speed of this product at the time of burning out the charge of a solid rocket engine reaches hypersonic values of 6650–7200 km / h (6.25–6.75 M), while on a descending branch of the trajectory (during diving at angles of 70 —80) Favorit-RM speed can reach 4.5-4M in the stratospheric and 3.5-2.5M in the tropospheric sections of the trajectory.


https://topwar.ru/164483-neozvuchennye- ... it-rm.html
The top speed of that Favorit-RM reach at burn out is 7200 km/h, keep in mind that this is the burn out speed, after burn out the missile reduce speed very rapidly.
For comparison, a boost glider such as AGM-183 can fly 1000 miles in 10-12 minutes, so average speed of 8000-9600 km/h.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... 12-minutes
Also, while on descending branch in the stratospheric, Favorite-FM also slower than scramjet missiles
5.png


hocum wrote: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...


It is very simple, the operator can hold target at the center of the frame, but he can't change the orientation of the frame to follow with the missile, in short, if the missile pitch up or down, then it will be very obvious on the screen, as the horizontal of the missile is no longer the same of the horizontal of the frame. If instead, the missile was pitching toward or away from the camera, then you will also see it get bigger or smaller and the length/diameter ratio of the missile on the screen will also change.
Time for you to stop your nonsense :wink:

hocum wrote: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.

The problem with engaging loitering target are not their agility or speed. The problem with engaging them is how far can you detect them in the first place, and how to filter out birds since they effectively move at very similar speed


hocum wrote: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.

No, you didn't want to discuss Iskander-K and Burevestnik simply because you already made statement that subsonic missile are useless garbage and you can't think of a good argument to support Iskander-K and Burevestnik without contradicting yourself


hocum wrote: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.

Alright, "expert" do you know how long is HF wavelength?. The shortest HF wavelength is 10 meters, the longest is 100 meters. So how big is the whole antenna array of your Nebo relative to the HF frequency that you want it to operate at? :doh: 1-2 wavelength? :roll: are you pretending a dipole is a radar now?
hocum wrote: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.

No, it isn't impossible or even hard to imitate complex signal by DRFM jammer. In fact, that exactly what the DRFM technique was designed to do. It literally record and make a digital copy of the signal that the receiver received.
DRFM by itself isnot a jamming technique, it stand for Digital Radio Frequency Memory, which is a method to digitally duplicate signal. That signal then can be duplicate to be used in various jamming techniques.
And actually, for self defense jamming, long distance is better since it mean the radar signal degrade at much more rapid rate compared to jamming signal. Secondly, the extremely small RCS of stealth aircraft also reduced the jamming output required significantly
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1979
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post25 Mar 2021, 11:10

hocum wrote: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.

Firstly, you are confusing between stand off jammer and side lobes jammer. Stand off support jammer can be used from side lobes, but they don't have to jam from side lobes. Especially if they are within the same beam width coverage as the target, then they will be jamming from main lobes as well. In addition, side lobe jamming is not something that only stand off jammer can do, even stand in jammer can do that.
Secondly, target with lower RCS require significantly less effective jamming power to shield themselves from radar. Jamming signal required to shield something like an F-35 or F-22 will need 10,000-100,000 (40-50 dB) less power than jamming signal required to shield something like Su-35 or F-15
1-9.png


hocum wrote: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)

Firstly, phase coded is literally just one class of pulse compression method, pulse compression is literally the reason why DRFM was made in the first place. There is nothing so uncounterable about phase coded
Image
phase coding.PNG

Secondly, polarization is basically just the orientation of the electric field (radio wave is made up of magnetic and electric field component), and it depend on the orientation and the design of the antenna. Every single radars have to work with polarization, not just Kupol radar (Buk-M1). In addition, mismatch in polarization doesn't break the jamming process like you put it, but rather that when there is a polarization mismatch, then there is less energy entered the radar receiver. The greatest loss is between vertical and horizontal polarization mismatch but there is nothing stopping the jammer from having having 2 transmitting antenna one with horizontal polarization and one at vertical polarization
type of polarization.png

polarization loss.PNG

Thirdly, the blanker of Kupol radar (Buk-M1) doesn't just randomly blank a range section and make jamming ineffective. It is a side lobes blanker which consist of additional unidirectional antenna (auxiliary channel) along with its main antenna (main channel). When the power from the auxiliary channel is greater than from the main channel, then the radar know it is being jammed from side lobes and blank that section. But if the jamming is continuous then you will ended up blanking all and can't detect true target. It also doesn't work if the jammer is within main lobe.
side lobe blanker.PNG

side lobe blanker 2.PNG
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1979
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post25 Mar 2021, 12:23

hocum wrote:'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?

Now you are speaking nonsense again.
DRFM doesn't lose information about phase, it is the most basic part of pulse compression which DRFM technology are designed to counter. The directivity of the antenna have nothing to do with whether it can accurately transmit the phase of signal. And exact polarization of radio wave are very easy to detect as power reduce when there is a mismatch and there isn't that many type of polarization anyway
DRFM1.PNG



hocum wrote: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.

They are expandable decoys, they are designed to let enemy know they are there, so that they attract the missiles from enemy force. So a decoy doesn't care that it show up on ELINT system when it uses its datalink, it already show up on ELINT system when it transmit jamming signal.
The decoys doesn't have to be launch at one time since they can fly almost 420 km, and they all have datalink guidance


hocum wrote: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.

ln(10) = 2.3 just saying. Which is negligible when compared to the effect of distance and RCS reduction

hocum wrote: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.

:lol: Do you seriously think a single F-35 will attack a whole division of various type of short and long range air defense??
Obviously not. Just like air defense can have multiple vehicle and multiple type of SAM for different tasks. The F-35 strike force will also include multiple F-35, each for different tasks. Some will have the task of releasing decoys from extended range (since SPEAR-EW have 3 times the range of SPEAR), and therefore, they won't need stealth and can carry SPEAR-EW with external weapon station. Some F-35 are attack force and stay in stealth configuration.
And you don't have to mix SPEAR-ER with JSOW, you can mix it with common SPEAR since they are the same size and with the same type of launcher, so internally, F-35 can carry 4 decoys and 4 cruise missiles. In addition, Buk doesn't outrange SPEAR or SPEAR-EW, so if we go down the road of 1 F-35 vs 1 Buk battery, there is no need to carry missile internally either


hocum wrote: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... :)

Firstly, JSOW is a gliding munition without engine, JSM is a cruise missile with turbojet engine that can give it 1:1 ratio of thrust/weight. Even JSOW-ER only use TJ-150 engine (the same one used on SPEAR) which has 337 lbs of thrust, which mean JSOW-ER thrust/weight is only 0.3
Secondly, JSOW is not designed to perform terminal maneuver while JSM is designed to perform maneuver to reduce the effectiveness of CIWS system. And the thin high aspect ratio wing of JSOW is also less well suited for maneuver compared to the thick short wing of JSM
JSM.png

Thirdly, JSOW is a glider vehicle so its speed is only the same as glider bomb. JSOW-ER also have very limited speed at around 550 km/h. By contrast, JSM speed is around Mach 0.9-0.95

hocum wrote: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.

Coordination is a problem in war, especially when you are under attack.
There is a massive different between intercepting Orlan-10 drone which move at 110-150 km/h and cruise missile which move at Mach 0.8-0.9. And quantity also matter. Sending a whole helicopter and only intercept 1 loitering drone can hardly be called a success when something like a single C-130 can drop thousand of them


eloise wrote: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.

SDB and SPEAR doesn't have the same weight, SDB is 129 kg and SDB II is 93 kg while SPEAR is 100 kg. Secondly, SDB II range against moving target is only 72 km. So about half that of SPEAR




hocum wrote: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. :)

Even in the Russia propaganda version, air defense only shoot down 70 out of 103 missiles, which mean old subsonic and non stealthy cruise missile is still 30% effective but of course, you just have to pull the 5-7% value from your behind and pretend like that the truth. Nevermind that there is no video evidence to prove the the air defense actually shot down that many missile either. :) I know what you are trying to do "repeating one lie until it become accepted " :wink:

hocum wrote: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.

Firstly in the link, the detection range against Mig-21 target without interference is
detection range without jamming.PNG


The detection range against Mig-21 with jamming is:
detection range with jamming.PNG


At lower altitude, as expected, the detection range is shorter due to radar horizon limitation
Also, at low altitude, the detection with and without jamming aren't very different, but that is also as expected. Because the radar horizon cutdown the detection range to very short range, and at short range the advantage is in the radar side while at long range the advantage is in jammer side. Because radar signal have to travel out then back.
jamming.png


But at altitude from 500m -6000 m, there is a clear distinction.
In the without jamming they mentioned the range can get as far as 175 km
But in the with jamming case they only say the range is not less than 80 km :wink: Do you really think that is a coincidence? or they are trying to hide the effect that jamming will have on radar at long range? :drool:

Secondly, jammers are not created equal. Without DRFM technique from the jammer side, then the pulse compression filter applied by the radar can easily reduce the jamming signal that get into the receiver by 30-40 dB :wink: Did they use DRFM jammer in that test?. I don't think they did

Thirdly, not all target need the same level of jamming power to be protected. Mig-21 frontal RCS can be as high as 8 m2 so compared to a VLO aircraft such as F-35, then the jamming power needed to protect the Mig-21 needed to be 8000 times more powerful
Mig-21.jpg
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1979
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post15 Apr 2021, 20:26

Finally have some free time to write my answer:
hocum wrote: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!

:roll: With a few sentences you just demonstrated that you don't know sh*t about how anti jam GPS work, or even how radar reject jamming signal coming from its sidelobes.
The satellite are very high up in the sky whereas the GPS jammer are located on the ground. That mean the GPS jamming signal always come from the sidelobes of the GPS antenna. Because of that, there are many anti jamming techniques that can be used for the GPS guided system.
The most simple one are Fixed Radiation Pattern Antennas (FRPAs): they use antennas designed to have deep nulls in the horizons where the jamming signal come from.
This evolved into Multiple Element Fixed Radiation Pattern Antennas (MEFRPAs): which divided into 2 methods:
Switched Multiple Element FRPAs: Still very simple, the system has multiple antenna with different radiation pattern, aimed at different parts of the sky and null the rest, it switched between them until it receive the most stable GPS signal.
Multiple Element Canceller : This technique use 2 antennas, the auxiliary one directed at the jammer and the primary one directed at the direction of true GPS signal.Normally that mean the primary one will located on top of the aircraft or missiles whereas the auxiliary one will located at the bottom. The primary one will receive a mix of both real GPS signal and Jamming signal whereas the auxiliary one will only receive jamming signal. Then the received signal are combine to eliminate the jamming signal
1.PNG

2.PNG


The more recent GPS anti jam technique use Controlled Radiation Pattern Antennas (CRPAs) . This is a group of several antennas with a beamforming system that combine signal received from each antennas, so it can create an adjustable radiation pattern. In shorts, it can steer the null toward the direction of the jammer.
3.PNG

GPS anti jam technique.PNG

Because antenna doesn't listen to signal from the null, anti jam GPS has very significant anti jamming capability, as much as +125 dB improvement
Capture.PNG



hocum wrote: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.

The resolution cells are several km wide, so it isn't small at all like you are trying to suggest. Secondly, identification by turbine blade modulation doesn't work if you can directly view the turbine blades, which if you pay attention, in both the F-35 and the Spear-Ew decoys, their engine blades are hidden inside their body, unlike a Su-27 or Kh-59MK


hocum wrote: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.

No, you only arguing with me, and no one else. There is no greater master mind behind all this.
Your arguing tactic is basically overwhelm people with a bunch of number that you made up along with some buzz words here and there, mixing ambiguous information with obvious fact to make yourself look like you are someone who has been there, done that. That will help you win many argument on Youtube or Facebook but doesn't work here.

[quote="hocum"
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.[/quote]
I'm not trying to imitate you, I have always use calculation and science discussion. But unlike you, I speak fact.
There is very good reason why the main sensor of fighters are still radar and not IRST/FLIR. Because IR system will take too long to scan at long range. Talking about F-35, at short range, it use a total of 6 IIR sensor (DAS) and these sensor only have to track fighter jet, missiles which are much easier task than 2S38 using 1 optical sensor to track tiny drone. Secondly, F-35 also has its radar and ESM system to cue its IIR sensor
a.jpg
Offline

boogieman

Senior member

Senior member

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

Unread post03 May 2021, 02:39

So it seems the USAF may be looking for its own Nebo-M/Nioby/JY-27 emulators:

https://beta.sam.gov/opp/38ce314d59bf41 ... rue&page=1

Surprised I haven't heard about this sooner TBH.
Attachments
Open+Release+AESA+RFI+V6+042221.docx
(111.8 KiB) Downloaded 40 times
Previous

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests