Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is up with the F-35? Part II

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "At close range or against targets using Jammers it is capable of narrowband interleaved search and track, which provides precise range and velocity that can then be used to shoot a missile without the need of the APG-81, allowing a 360 degree sphere of targeting other aircraft."

    This is a little hard to parse. I still took that to mean that the system is operating in a passive mode and that if two conditions are met - very close range (and presumably quick bearing changes to average out ambiguities) or active jamming (presumably a more powerful signal? Or else potentially using a false target jamming mode against it self for localization? Hard to say). To me that still implies a passive track, although I still don't see how you could establish range without target speed. Maybe the speed can be extrapolated from doppler shift of the carrier wave plus bearing change? I'd hate to have to make THAT calculation by hand.

    That said, that wouldn't exclude an active mode that created false targets (of F-35ish size) or other more specific push off/pull off deceptive modes, though in the case of the latter I'd expect the towed decoy to be the primary emitter as it implies a missile has a lock.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Josh View Post
      "At close range or against targets using Jammers it is capable of narrowband interleaved search and track, which provides precise range and velocity that can then be used to shoot a missile without the need of the APG-81, allowing a 360 degree sphere of targeting other aircraft."

      This is a little hard to parse. I still took that to mean that the system is operating in a passive mode and that if two conditions are met - very close range (and presumably quick bearing changes to average out ambiguities) or active jamming (presumably a more powerful signal? Or else potentially using a false target jamming mode against it self for localization? Hard to say). To me that still implies a passive track, although I still don't see how you could establish range without target speed. Maybe the speed can be extrapolated from doppler shift of the carrier wave plus bearing change? I'd hate to have to make THAT calculation by hand.

      That said, that wouldn't exclude an active mode that created false targets (of F-35ish size) or other more specific push off/pull off deceptive modes, though in the case of the latter I'd expect the towed decoy to be the primary emitter as it implies a missile has a lock.
      I interpreted "search and track" to mean actively radiating (at low power) to find and target objects at close range in areas the APG-81 doesn't cover. In which case radiating other signals for ECM purposes shouldn't present a challenge.

      If it's referring to a passive function that picks up and localizes emission sources such as hostile fighter radar, that wouldn't be a close range function. Detection and localization of hostile radar emissions looking for the F-35 should have a much greater effective range than even the APG-81's ability to find that target due to not requiring a return bounce. I would think an actively radiating target could be engaged at significant while the F-35 stays entirely passive by using a data link to guide the AIM-120 like an anti-radiation missile.

      I'm just not sure where the "close range" stipulation would come into play if the system is entirely passive.
      Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 18 Sep 18,, 18:20.

      Comment


      • Clearly the system can generate bearings of an active source at long range. What is interesting is that it credits it with being able to establish range in one of two conditions: close range or active jammer. The key phrase seems to be 'narrowband interleaved search and track', which honestly I don't know the meaning of. A google search did turn up a article reference on F-16.net:

        "High-priority emitters -- such as fighter aircraft at close range -- can be tracked in real time by the ALR-94. In this mode, called narrowband interleaved search and track (NBILST), the radar is used only to provide precise range and velocity data to set up a missile attack. If a hostile aircraft is injudicious in its use of radar, the ALR-94 may provide nearly all the information necessary to launch an AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile (AAM) and guide it to impact, making it virtually an anti-radiation AAM."

        http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9268

        So it looks like for the crucial range component something would have to be active...but since the bearing and azimuth have been determined, the frequency of the range measurement doesn't matter: you aren't attempting to localize the target, just get the ping return time to determine range. So I think your assessment that the antennas are low power emitters that could ping a target at close range probably is accurate from the open source descriptions I've seen.

        The other stipulation, that the aircraft is jamming, presumes long range detection is possible if there is an active ECM. That part I definitely don't understand - I would think ECM like active radar could be tracked by bearing but I don't see how you would get any range component without the fighter using its radar.

        Comment


        • It appears the Dutch are considering upping their F-35 buy from 37 to 67 jets.

          https://twitter.com/Rotorfocus/statu...40058118180866

          https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/2573...-aanschaf-f-35

          Comment


          • It appears the Dutch are considering upping their F-35 buy from 37 to 67 jets.
            But why? It's a total failure and will never amount to anything....

            Oh wait, I forgot, I'm not a paid Russian troll. Never mind! :-)
            “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by SteveDaPirate View Post
              It appears the Dutch are considering upping their F-35 buy from 37 to 67 jets.

              https://twitter.com/Rotorfocus/statu...40058118180866

              https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/2573...-aanschaf-f-35
              Really? So they want more F-35s than the current number of F-16s on stock?... Ambitious...

              Comment


              • According to wiki they have eight trainer F-16 a/c. Add in those planes and the buy would be almost one for one replacement.

                Comment


                • I'm pretty sure I just saw a F-35 in the landing pattern at MCAS Miramar, which would be a first for me. It didn't look like an F/A18, but it was rather hard to see (stealth!) as it was hazy this afternoon. I was on the I-15 and as I came in line with the runway, it looked like he executed a missed approach.

                  Anyways, thought it was rather cool to finally see one out here.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JCT View Post
                    I'm pretty sure I just saw a F-35 in the landing pattern at MCAS Miramar, which would be a first for me. It didn't look like an F/A18, but it was rather hard to see (stealth!) as it was hazy this afternoon. I was on the I-15 and as I came in line with the runway, it looked like he executed a missed approach.
                    Can't have been, they are stealthy.


                    (thank you, thank you, I'm here all week)

                    Comment


                    • Green Knights gives a flight demonstration at 2018 Iwakuni Friendship Day.

                      Notice the RAM tape has got a new color

                      Comment


                      • hi Josh and Steve, Turkey against Russia was a pain on South Western flank for Russia. If it is neutral it already eases a lot. This is why NATO needed their air bases and control of the straits.

                        off topic. Pictures of f22 on Optical devices of su35. They fly at visual range in small syrian sky
                        Attached Files

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
                          But why? It's a total failure and will never amount to anything....

                          Oh wait, I forgot, I'm not a paid Russian troll. Never mind! :-)
                          You don't have to be paid...
                          "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Garry View Post
                            hi Josh and Steve, Turkey against Russia was a pain on South Western flank for Russia. If it is neutral it already eases a lot. This is why NATO needed their air bases and control of the straits.

                            off topic. Pictures of f22 on Optical devices of su35. They fly at visual range in small syrian sky
                            That's why I think keeping Turkey on team NATO is more important than the question of whether or not to sell them the F-35. Russia doesn't have the industry to replicate the F-35 even if Lockheed sold them the blueprints and in 30 years, the F-35 will be upgraded so much that it's practically a different aircraft than what's flying today (see F-16 block evolution), but Turkey will still be an important ally due to it's control of the Bosporus, position relative to Russia, and influence in the Middle East.

                            The F-35 was also designed for export from the outset, so the amount of information to be gleaned from examination by Russians visiting Istanbul is going to be limited. Additionally the most sensitive aspect of the F-35 (the software code) isn't accessible outside the United States even by our closest allies.
                            Last edited by SteveDaPirate; 25 Sep 18,, 15:57.

                            Comment


                            • Marine F-35Bs Fly First-Ever Strike Missions Against 'Fixed Targets' in Afghanistan (Updated)

                              http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...in-afghanistan

                              a snipit from the article:

                              Update: 3:20pm EST—

                              U.S. Naval Forces Central Command has released an additional statement about the mission via U.S. Central Command, describing the strikes as "in support of ground clearance operations." It does not offer any additional detail about the target or targets the F-35Bs engaged in Afghanistan.

                              However, a U.S. Central Command public affairs officer told The War Zone in a phone call that the Marine jets flew "close air support" missions in support of personnel on the ground. American combat jets do strike fixed targets, such as emplaced heavy weapons or enemy forces situated inside a building, as part of close air support missions. In past, U.S. military officials have also used the separate and distinct terms "interdiction" and "close air support" interchangeably, despite the former referring to strikes against targets far removed from any immediate fighting on the ground.

                              It's also worth noting that official video of the F-35Bs taking off for the strikes shows that they were carrying 25mm gun pods, as well. We don't know if they conducted any strafing runs against Taliban targets.

                              Comment


                              • And we crashed one. The first ejection and total loss of the program.

                                This is why Marines can't have shiny new things. Nothing is Marine proof

                                http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...south-carolina


                                UPDATE 10:47am PDT: The aircraft belonged to the resident F-35B training squadron VMFAT-501 and the pilot did safely eject and is being treated for any injuries. The crash happened around five miles from the airfield.

                                This is the first total loss crash event—and possibly the first ejection—involving an F-35 in the program's history, which includes nearly 12 years of flying (18 years if you count the JSF X-plane fly-off).
                                Last edited by Gun Grape; 28 Sep 18,, 21:38.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X