F-35 as air defence interceptor? F-35 as underrated all-rounder?

Member for

3 years 10 months

Posts: 1,081

[USER="37608"]JSR[/USER]
Those Brahmos specifications are 25 years old
It can't be since Brahmos only gone into service in 2006, besides your logic can be apply to Western missiles also
the only thing claimed was 9 times energy of Tomyhawk on target.
because they used this simple equation KE = 1/2*m*v^2 and therefore more speed = more energy, but they didn't care to take into account the differences in warhead mass
I am sure ALCM version will provide even more speed since much newer
Same goes for things like HSSW
when has F-35 6 1000km missile operationally carried.?
It can carry 4 LRASM (1000 km) + 2 JSM (550 km)
lower altitude does not help .
It does due to radar horizon + clutter.
nor slow moving profile change.
Whether you like it or not, it does help.

Member for

7 years 9 months

Posts: 4,165

Aren't we a bit far from interception?

Member for

1 year 5 months

Posts: 333

I'm going to go with the position that the F-35 is in fact a very good interceptor. And, over the long run, will outshine the greatest dedicated interceptor designs such as the Mig-31. Due to internal weaponry, it can be clean or nearly so far more often than legacy fighter/interceptor designs. So, kinematically, although it is not great, it certainly isn't poor. It is pretty good. But its real strength is in its sensors and networking capabilities. Unlike traditional interceptor designs, the F-35 can go a long ways to assisting other assets to intercept a target. Right now there aren't a whole lot of combat platforms that can interface with the F-35 to its fullest. But over the years with upgrades and new developments, that will change. The F-35 is a remarkably future oriented combat platform. The future networked battlespace will have synergies far beyond what exists today, and the F-35 will jumpstart that development. Similarly, I'm going to disagree with the original poster and say that the F-35 will also be a very good 'close' combat support aircraft. What I mean by that is that the F-35, with its survivability due to first rate sensors and stealth, can monitor battlespace developments like nothing prior to it and coordinate with other assets to direct ordinance in such a way that dangerous, close combat situations are minimized to begin with. As they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a whole lot of cure. The F-35 may not have the big gun of the venerable A-10, but single asset firepower is going to become less and less decisive as militaries transition to the integrated battlespace. The F-35 (and likely the Su-57 and J-20 as well) are going to unlock a whole lot of capabilities that has not existed in the past. Yeah, the F-35 is an underrated all rounder.
garryA
That doesn't matter when Tu-160 can stay at extreme extended range and launch cruise missiles Similarly, B-52 don't really care about Mig-31 when its own cruise missile like AGM-86, AGM-129 can fly 2400-3700 km Soon enough, with JASSM-XR then tactical multirole aircraft can launch missiles from 1900 km away.
That would depend on the profile and many other factors. Nonetheless, that would also apply to any fighter not just the F-35.

Member for

3 years 10 months

Posts: 1,081

That would depend on the profile and many other factors. Nonetheless, that would also apply to any fighter not just the F-35.
yes, that why i said speed and fast take off time is not as useful to interceptor is they used to be, since you can't catch the bomber before they launch their missiles
garryA
yes, that why i said speed and fast take off time is not as useful to interceptor is they used to be, since you can't catch the bomber before they launch their missiles
While, the Tu-160 is fast it's also very large and easy to detect and track. As a matter of fact the US and NATO would know the second they take off and track her the whole way. Which, means they're in a very good position to intercept them. While, the Russian Bomber is unaware....Especially, the farther they get from Mother Russia.....;)
As a matter of fact put a F-35A and a F-15C on the end of a runway. Both loaded for the Air Superiority Mission and the Lightning will eat the Eagle for lunch....:cool: You could do the same with the F-35A vs the F-15E in the Strike Mission and have the same result.

Member for

3 years 10 months

Posts: 1,081

the Tu-160 is fast it's also very large and easy to detect and track. As a matter of fact the US and NATO would know the second they take off and track her the whole way. Which, means they're in a very good position to intercept them. While, the Russian Bomber is unaware...
Irrelevant, since Kh-102 range is allegedly longer than combat radius of F-35, like i said, modern interceptor can't intercept bomber before they launch their missiles
Profile picture for user panzerfeist1

Member for

1 year 8 months

Posts: 376

So looking at the topic of decoys the only way you can discriminate them is by using either passive radars and OTH radars? I heard that passive sensors go through a variety of parameters to determine the size of the antenna that is either on a missile or an aircraft. This is also depends if its a high fidelity decoy(hard to tell apart) or low fidelity decoy(easy to sniff out) I believe the US and Israel will have better high fidelity decoys because the US bought the export version VERA radars from Czech Rep while Israel bought Kolchuga-M from Ukraine about a week or 2 ago. I think it can be possible for the newest passive radars like Moskva-1 to atleast tell apart what is a missile or an aircraft. But it would be very difficult to tell apart decoys from missiles which brings this next fancy toy into the discussion. http://www.deagel.com/Sensor-Systems...002916001.aspx The beauty of OTH radars is that they do not give a damn about what altitude you fly at because it uses HF waves that bounce off the ionosphere hence radar horizon does not apply. Decoys travel quite the distance but a radar such as this has quite the distance in detection. This radar's detection range exceeds the combat ranges of aircrafts. Missiles like JSM, JSOW, HARM missiles with explosives can be identified at closer ranges(glide bombs even more identifiable at closer ranges) because these missiles are to be used at close ranges. Decoys can be launches farther away but that will make it easier to identify as decoys than the use only in close range JSM, JSOW, HARM or glide bombs. So I am guessing the only way to fool OTH radars is to launch the decoys at a closer range(which might be a bad idea since your making life more easier for fire control radars or not if your stealth), I have taken a look into these decoys and realize(correct me if I am wrong) they are released at higher altitudes and have a high altitude profile which suggests the decoys can be told apart from JSM missiles since there ranges have suggested high altitude release at 500km but goes at a lower altitude down the road, low altitude release at 185kms for low altitude flight, so if there are missiles that have the option to have a low altitude release can be identifiable by OTH radars than told apart what they are. So with the usage of passive radars and OTH radars my conclusion is that decoys are only hard to tell apart from missiles(with high altitude profiles) at closer range high altitude releases. So how much of my assessment here is correct? And are passive radars and OTH radars the only defense against discriminating targets?

Member for

3 years 10 months

Posts: 1,081

So looking at the topic of decoys the only way you can discriminate them is by using either passive radars and OTH radars? So how much of my assessment here is correct? And are passive radars and OTH radars the only defense against discriminating targets?
Not only that you were completely wrong, but your conclusion is also completely opposite from reality, it feel like you try to come up with a "theory" that suit your agenda then cherry-pick information that sound like they support your theory passive radar and OTH are the literally the worst way to discriminate decoys from missiles/aircraft, their resolution are the worst out of all kind of radars
The beauty of OTH radars is that they do not give a damn about what altitude you fly at because it uses HF waves that bounce off the ionosphere hence radar horizon does not apply. Decoys travel quite the distance but a radar such as this has quite the distance in detection
The ugly part is 1) You can't determine altitude so OTH is useless for firing solution 2) Because OTH-B radars have to bounce off the ion sphere, they have a blind range of around 800-1000 km in front of them. If you paid attention, their coverage always show that. [ATTACH=JSON]{"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\tJORN.OTHR-Operating-Principles.RAAF_.jpg Views:\t1 Size:\t55.8 KB ID:\t3846981","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"3846981","data-size":"medium"}[/ATTACH][ATTACH=JSON]{"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\tOTH Graphic from Project 2049 ASBM Monograph.jpg Views:\t1 Size:\t34.5 KB ID:\t3846982","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"3846982","data-size":"medium"}[/ATTACH]
Missiles like JSM, JSOW, HARM missiles with explosives can be identified at closer ranges(glide bombs even more identifiable at closer ranges) because these missiles are to be used at close ranges. Decoys can be launches farther away but that will make it easier to identify as decoys than the use only in close range JSM, JSOW, HARM or glide bombs. So I am guessing the only way to fool OTH radars is to launch the decoys at a closer range(which might be a bad idea since your making life more easier for fire control radars or not if your stealth), I have taken a look into these decoys and realize(correct me if I am wrong) they are released at higher altitudes and have a high altitude profile which suggests the decoys can be told apart from JSM missiles since there ranges have suggested high altitude release at 500km but goes at a lower altitude down the road, low altitude release at 185kms for low altitude flight
JSOW-ER range is 550 km JSM range is 550 km AARGM-ER range is 300 km LRASM range is 1000 km MALD range is 900 km ITALD range is 370 km None of them are particularly close range, and MALD, ITALD are practically subsonic cruise missiles without a warhead, they can fly both at high and low altitude like any normal cruise missile with the same speed, the same limitation.

Member for

8 years 2 months

Posts: 4,731

Those Brahmos specifications are 25 years old

It can't be since Brahmos only gone into service in 2006, besides your logic can be apply to Western missiles also

the only thing claimed was 9 times energy of Tomyhawk on target.

because they used this simple equation

KE = 1/2*m*v^2

and therefore more speed = more energy, but they didn't care to take into account the differences in warhead mass

I am sure ALCM version will provide even more speed since much newer

Same goes for things like HSSW

when has F-35 6 1000km missile operationally carried.?

It can carry 4 LRASM (1000 km) + 2 JSM (550 km)

lower altitude does not help .

It does due to radar horizon + clutter.

nor slow moving profile change.

Whether you like it or not, it does help.

I am surprised you reply as more reply show limited knowledge. If subsonic missiles are such effective than why double the warhead weight?
http://tass.com/defense/1039123 "It will be much larger, the weight of its warhead will approach 1 tonne," he noted.
its world largest missile export project.
http://www.npomash.ru/cooperation/en/brahmos.htm?prn=y BrahMos project has allowed us to revive old ties between subcontractors (more than 40 enterprises, about 20 thousand employees), to ensure their upgrading with high technologies; to put into operation new production facilities, to master new methods for designing and production of missile complexes and their components; ;
what formula they using it here? [quote] https://indianexpress.com/article/in...-know-4951050/

The kinetic energy impact of such an upgrade will be huge. For instance, the destruction caused by the missile due to kinetic energy at mach 6 will be 36 times than the destruction caused if the missile hit the target at mach 1[/quote]

kh-31AD is 700kg missile with speed of Mach 3.3 range upto 250km. there is no counterpart in weight and speed in West. http://ktrv.ru/news/Podgotovka_k_Mez...hina_2018.html big nose of fighter radar can find slow moving fighter and missile release out from a distance and alert airdefence. it conserve the energy of airdefence. all new missiles are from mach 4 to all the way to mach 10. and only hypersonic research is worth spending on critical scientific manpower. Only China and India has surplus labor to be involved in every project.

Member for

3 years 10 months

Posts: 1,081

I am surprised you reply as more reply show limited knowledge.
Talking to you is like play chess with a pigeon
If subsonic missiles are such effective than why double the warhead weight?
Because they can, when they don't have to speed a large part of the missile for fuel.
It will be much larger, the weight of its warhead will approach 1 tonne," he noted. its world largest missile export project.
So now you compare a land launched cruise missile to an air-launched one? what next? do you want to point out that R-36 has bigger warhead than Hydra 70?
what formula they using it here? For instance, the destruction caused by the missile due to kinetic energy at mach 6 will be 36 times than the destruction caused if the missile hit the target at mach 1
I can understand if English isn't your strong suit but how come you are also terrible at Maths? KE= 1/2*m*v^2 if your v is 6 times bigger while others part remain the same 6*6 =36 How hard to grasp that?
kh-31AD is 700kg missile with speed of Mach 3.3 range upto 250km. there is no counterpart in weight and speed in West.
Except for ASM-3, ASMP, Rampage, AARGM-ER, AGM-69, Black Sparrow, Blue Sparrow, Silver Sparrow
big nose of fighter radar can find slow moving fighter and missile release out from a distance and alert airdefence
Unless if these missiles are stealthy, besides, you won't be able to do sh*t against your opponents if they released their missiles from 1000-2000 km away, your air defense can't touch the carrier, your chance of shooting the carrier down is exactly 0 On the other hand, if they close in with 3000 kg missile under their belly, there are a lot of things you can do
all new missiles are from mach 4 to all the way to mach 10. and only hypersonic research is worth spending on
Seem like Russian hasn't got that memo, you should tell them [ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"medium","data-attachmentid":3846995}[/ATTACH]
Attachment Size
Capture.PNG 1.09 MB
Profile picture for user panzerfeist1

Member for

1 year 8 months

Posts: 376

"Not only that you were completely wrong, but your conclusion is also completely opposite from reality, it feel like you try to come up with a "theory" that suit your agenda then cherry-pick " Dude relax its a question about passive radars and OTH radars. 1) "You can't determine altitude so OTH is useless for firing solution" I got atleast 100 sources that I can point out to you that talk about the direction, height, velocity and position a target is. Sure its not used used as a firing solution but the information provided from OTH radars can be provided for classification purposes. 2) "Because OTH radars have to bounce off the ion sphere, they have a blind range of around 800-1000 km in front of them. If you paid attention, their coverage always show that." True that there is a blind range but there are multiple hops at different angles that will provide coverage for those blind spots. See attachment. "

MALD, ITALD are practically subsonic cruise missiles without a warhead, they can fly both at high and low altitude like any normal cruise missile with the same speed, the same limitation." Provide me a source that shows the MALD has low altitude capabilities like the Tomahawk. Your telling me high and low altitude like """"""any"""""" cruise missile is also wrong. The Delilah missile is considered a cruise missile but has absolutely no characteristics of it being low altitude.

Attachment Size
sky-wave_propagation.jpg 38.52 KB

Member for

3 years 10 months

Posts: 1,081

Sure its not used used as a firing solution but the information provided from OTH radars can be provided for classification purposes
. The point is the resolution of OTH is simply too low, you can't even distinguish individual aircraft in a formation, let alone classify individual missiles/decoys even with a beam width of only 2.5 degrees, at 2000 km, your resolution cell is a circle with 87 km in diameter, pretty much only useful for early warning
True that there is a blind range but there are multiple hops at different angles that will provide coverage for those blind spots. See attachment.
. There is a limit to how close you can hop (because otherwise your wave can't bounce back), it called the skip zone, when you have a blind spot 800-2700 km in front of you, even if you magically classify and distinguish decoys and missiles before that, it is pointless. [ATTACH=JSON]{"alt":"Click image for larger version Name:\tOTH radar.PNG Views:\t1 Size:\t164.4 KB ID:\t3847005","data-align":"none","data-attachmentid":"3847005","data-size":"full"}[/ATTACH]
Provide me a source that shows the MALD has low altitude capabilities like the Tomahawk. Your telling me high and low altitude like """"""any"""""" cruise missile is also wrong. The Delilah missile is considered a cruise missile but has absolutely no characteristics of it being low altitude..
. Do you understand why Tomahawk fly at very low altitude while Delihah doesn't? It has nothing to do with the aerodynamic or engine of either missiles but rather the fact that they added an altimeter on Tomahawk so that it won't fly into terrain while fly hugging the terrain while Delilah is a search and destroys loiter munition so flying extremely low doesn't benefit it, because you want sensor coverage. As for source on low altitude flight and MALD
.MALD-X is a new version of the MALD-J missile developed by Raytheon. The collaborative project aims to demonstrate an improved electronic warfare payload, low-altitude flight and a datalink that will allow the weapon to communicate with other net-enabled systems.
. https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/d...d-x-completed/
. the MALD-X will have an improved electronic warfare payload, the ability to carry out low-altitude flight and an enhanced net-enabled datalink. Raytheon was awarded $34.8 million by the USAF to develop a new version in 2016. SCO says it plans to conduct additional tests on other enhancements to the MALD-X next year.
. https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...l-flig-451403/
The Navy said in April it is aiming for early operational capability of the MALD-N on the Boeing F/A-18E/F in 2021, and initial operational capability in 2022. The turbojet-powered, jammer-equipped decoy is able to fly for 90 min. or 500 mi. after launch to draw fire away from the fighter and suppress air defenses. MALD-N is expected to have some or all of the advanced capabilities demonstrated in two flights of the MALD-X conducted in August by the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO). The flights tested an improved, modular electronic-warfare payload, data link and low-altitude flight capability
. http://aviationweek.com/electronic-w...jammer-us-navy Even original basic MALD can fly down altitude of only 600 meters above the surface [ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"large","data-attachmentid":3847007}[/ATTACH]
Attachment Size
OTH radar.PNG 164.43 KB
Capture.PNG 209 KB

Member for

7 years 9 months

Posts: 4,165

TBH, i do not know about F-22 or 35, but F-117 was PERFECTLY visible and trackable from Evreyx afb 19 cms radar ADN from OTH radar during balkans war
Profile picture for user Marcellogo

Member for

5 years 5 months

Posts: 1,758

It seems me that this thread have derailed great time in meantime I was away. Above all it became, thanks to someone to the usual "Us against you".between RussiaSTRONK-ist and That's'Murica-ist involving also persons that were until now reasoning in a rational way. So let'me reply just to the posts that kept themselves on the old track. On this a particular mention to XB-70 #43 post that explain how state-ot-the-art avionics of F-35 with its emphasis on sensor- and data-fusion can be a real help in many scenarios involving both A2A than A2G. Above all because he IMHO correctly point how this capability is not exclusive to it but can involve all planes of the same gen (and I would add also other planes actually in production/deep modernization process). I would put a less emphasis on internal carrying of weapons, planes like Mig-31 or Typhoon carry their missiles in semi conformal recesses and also in other planes designed for aerial combat there is always been the research of the least possible impact of weaponry to general performances, so an advantage exist but is not so decisive. . .
Profile picture for user FBW

Member for

7 years 10 months

Posts: 3,104

TBH, i do not know about F-22 or 35, but F-117 was PERFECTLY visible and trackable from Evreyx afb 19 cms radar ADN from OTH radar during balkans war
Why wouldn't they be detectable by a OTH radar like Nostradamus? "Perfectly trackable"- to hundreds or perhaps dozens of meters accuracy. I don't think anyone would argue that OTH radars can't detect LO targets (aircraft, cruise missiles) at long range. Does that have tactical implications? Does it negate the employment of LO aircraft? In other words "who cares?"

Member for

7 years 9 months

Posts: 4,165

IO was just tellin yuo a story i lived. "la bite du géant vert" a Evreux isn't nortradamus (which, it is weell known, do not exist of course!)
Profile picture for user panzerfeist1

Member for

1 year 8 months

Posts: 376

"

The point is the resolution of OTH is simply too low, you can't even distinguish individual aircraft in a formation, let alone classify individual missiles/decoys

even with a beam width of only 2.5 degrees, at 2000 km, your resolution cell is a circle with 87 km in diameter, pretty much only useful for early warning" poor resolution of course.

https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandav...ountermeasure/ " but the main purpose is to get coordinates and movement parameters from a formation of targets be it ships, drones and aircrafts. Also the nice Ventral area aircrafts have in comparison to missiles is drastic. I don't think there are any airborne jammers as far as I know on aircrafts that can jam HF or stealth material that can absorb HF. I am sure the readings of an aircraft and missile to the amount of surface area they have can be measured out.

"There is a limit to how close you can hop (because otherwise your wave can't bounce back), it called the skip zone, when you have a blind spot 800-2700 km in front of you,"

OTH radars provide multiple skip zones to cover for those blind areas. I don't know the exact time intervals it would take for HF waves to reach back to the receivers before sending the next hop to cover the next blind spot. "

Do you understand why Tomahawk fly at very low altitude while Delihah doesn't?" I am going to repeat what you said. ", they can fly both at high and low altitude like any normal cruise missile " you made a general statement saying "any normal" cruise missiles can fly both high and low I point out some cruise missiles that don't. What I am saying is be careful what you say.

The new MALD decoys that are not out yet or soon will be have low altitude profiles or say they do but do not give an estimation yet as to their altitude height. One more thing where in the image does it show it can fly 600 meters(I must be blind)? I looked at the aviation source above as well and cant find it. Is it on the part where it says MSL and AGL if so simply what the means to me? But if that is as how low it can fly you can still distinguish it from a tomahawks 30-50 meter altitude estimation. Although I wonder what the US considers as low, mid and high altitude in estimations regarding flight profiles of missiles.