2019 F-35 News and Discussion

Read the forum code of contact

Profile picture for user panzerfeist1

Member for

3 years

Posts: 376

I got another question on the F-35s EW systems. https://breakingdefense.com/2016/07/bae-systems-inches-out-in-public-on-electronic-warfare/ "

“While F-35 is capable of stand-off jamming for other aircraft — providing 10 times the effective radiated power of any legacy fighter — F-35s can also operate in closer proximity to the threat (‘stand-in’) to provide jamming power many multiples that of any legacy fighter.”

I am very sure the AN/ALR-94 is an old system to be labeled as legacy in comparison to the ASQ-239. Lets just say for the sake of argument that both the F-22 and F-35 have had an RCS of .0001m2. But because the radiated power of the F-35 has 10 times the power to further suppress the F-22s radar than the F-22's EW system does to the F-35s radar would this put the F-35 at a .00001m2 RCS? If you got 10 times the jamming power would this cause a 1/10th reduction in RCS or there is another way to calculate jamming power to RCS reduction?

Profile picture for user SpudmanWP

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 5,197

Despite what members of the Gripen/Rafale fanboi club tell you, EW does not reduce the RCS of the fighter.

A jammer only works in proportion to its ability to detect and mimic the adversary's radar signal.

For instance, the radar of an F-4 should be relatively easy to jam with an 80's 4th gen jammer but that same jammer would have extreme difficulty even identifying a modern AESA signal let alone the LPI versions found on the F-22/35.

Member for

8 years 8 months

Posts: 999

A jammer can't reduce RCS of fighter, but SNR is proportional to RCS, so having 1/100 RCS is the same as having a jammer 100 times more powerful

Member for

2 years 9 months

Posts: 333

...

but SNR is proportional to RCS..

Related...and actually inversely so for jamming, and so the return signal is masked similarly to how it would have been with a lower RCS asset. The difference is that, by raising the noise level up instead of dragging the echo signal down, you eliminate the 'unaware that anyone is there' factor. So it is similar...not identical!

Member for

9 years

Posts: 4,168


Despite what members of the Gripen/Rafale fanboi club tell you, EW does not reduce the RCS of the fighter.

A jammer only works in proportion to its ability to detect and mimic the adversary's radar signal.

For instance, the radar of an F-4 should be relatively easy to jam with an 80's 4th gen jammer but that same jammer would have extreme difficulty even identifying a modern AESA signal let alone the LPI versions found on the F-22/35.

µpure blah blah without any substance. Arguement if you want to be understood. Of course it soesnt change the physics of signal teturn. However in=t can inject in data.
SPectra have three main goals : detect incomin wave (planeform will guide them to hotspots), than injec directionnally low level and extremely short signals. The idea is not to stay undetected, but to break kill chain.

Member for

3 years 1 month

Posts: 550

µpure blah blah without any substance. Arguement if you want to be understood. Of course it soesnt change the physics of signal teturn. However in=t can inject in data.
SPectra have three main goals : detect incomin wave (planeform will guide them to hotspots), than injec directionnally low level and extremely short signals. The idea is not to stay undetected, but to break kill chain.


Hang on, hang on. I thought the active cancellation thing was supposed to make you undetected but now you're just talking about breaking the kill chain, which is what any jamming system does.
Profile picture for user panzerfeist1

Member for

3 years

Posts: 376

Thank you guys for the responses.

Member for

8 years 8 months

Posts: 999


Related...and actually inversely so for jamming, and so the return signal is masked similarly to how it would have been with a lower RCS asset. The difference is that, by raising the noise level up instead of dragging the echo signal down, you eliminate the 'unaware that anyone is there' factor. So it is similar...not identical!

You are correct, i should have said the ratio is the same in both case.

Member for

9 years 2 months

Posts: 5,903

8 in 2020 and up to 80 in the next 5 years.
I am not sure this is a good news for the Eurocanards, invariably lowering the cost and increasing the attractiveness of their major competitor.

Member for

9 years

Posts: 4,168

Ah forgot. Trump signed a bill to prevent sales of F-35 to Turkey.

Ah forgot. Trump signed a bill to prevent sales of F-35 to Turkey.

It's called "politics" and in the end Turkey will get the F-35. (and the Patriot) ;)

8 in 2020 and up to 80 in the next 5 years.
I am not sure this is a good news for the Eurocanards, invariably lowering the cost and increasing the attractiveness of their major competitor.

Never going to happen....:cool:

Member for

9 years

Posts: 4,168

It is probably going to happen because in several area the F-15 is still a beast and can, for example, lift very large ammos (such as hypersonic missiles). It ca also be much faster for a "push". So why not?

Profile picture for user SpudmanWP

Member for

12 years 1 month

Posts: 5,197

"Why not" because it's more expensive and you don't buy a fighter and then come up with a mission, you define the mission and then buy the aircraft.

The "mission" is to replace CONUS ANG F-15Cs that will never need to haul a hypersonic missile, never carry more than 4 AMRAAMs, never go above mach 1.2 in combat, etc.

Stop trying to excuse what is so obviously a Corporate Welfare buy that the USAF has repeatedly said that they do not have a mission for and do not want.

Member for

3 years 1 month

Posts: 550

The Boeing lobby is strong.

Member for

9 years 10 months

Posts: 203

If the USAF has to get some F-15Xs they'd be better off with two-seaters to supplement the F-15E fleet. The F-35A is a great aircraft but it doesn't have quite the same legs. Had they the money I imagine the USAF would want a new design to replace the F-15E and it would probably be the size of the F-111 if not slightly larger.

If the DoD was serious about getting some new thoroughbred air-superiority fighters to replace aging F-15s then we should cough up the cash and pay to restart production of an updated F-22. Yet I don't think it is being taken that seriously. This F-15X order is just about keeping Boeing's military division busy and the production line running. It's quite unfortunate some short-sighted individuals prevented the same from being done with the the F-22, which the USAF actually wanted more of.

Member for

3 years 1 month

Posts: 550

If the USAF has to get some F-15Xs they'd be better off with two-seaters to supplement the F-15E fleet. The F-35A is a great aircraft but it doesn't have quite the same legs. Had they the money I imagine the USAF would want a new design to replace the F-15E and it would probably be the size of the F-111 if not slightly larger.

If the DoD was serious about getting some new thoroughbred air-superiority fighters to replace aging F-15 then we should cough up the cash and pay to restart production of an updated F-22. Yet I don't think it is being taken that seriously. This F-15X order is just about keeping Boeing's military division busy and the production line running. It's quite unfortunate some short-sighted individuals prevented the same from being done with the the F-22, which the USAF actually wanted more of.


I agree, the F-22 was originally planned to replace the F-15C/D, and that's exactly what it should have done. Cutting production short just led to a ridiculously high unit price.