Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

Tatvamasi

Senior member
Jan 5, 2018
1,450
1,492
India
18b2db013138c98914c4d39f796f050b.jpg

This is like batman and robin against the world 🍿
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
19,297
14,031
India
The Israelis like to develop their own stuff anyway.

Of course, they do, when the OEM cannot meet their requirements.

I don't think you understand stealth properly. It doesn't just make the aircraft harder to detect, it makes EA a million times more effective. Much easier to hide a needle in a haystack than a cow/Rafale. Stealth also has range limits, you can't hover an F-35B directly in front of a huge radar and expect to remain undetected just because it's a stealth aircraft. A similar scenario could occur with a pop-up radar, although it's likely the F-35 would see it first, even if it was passive, unless it emerged from deep cover or underground.

You are simplifying it way too much. While EA is indeed benefited by stealth, but that's only relative to what a radar considers stealth according to its own technical parameters. An F-16 will be very stealthy against a radar used in WW2 for example. A Gripen E will be practically invisible from any meaningful range against such a radar.

If you have stealth and it works, then ECM will be extremely counterproductive in such a case. No F-35 in any mission ever will use EA if stealth works. But if stealth fails, that's a different story. Now claiming greater efficiency of the ECM because of a low RCS is meaningless since said low RCS has already failed against that radar.

Take India's BMD radars for example. One of them can detect a 0.01m2 target from 1500+Km away. Which would mean a 0.0001m2 target will theoretically be detectable from 400+ Km away. The F-35 in theory is not stealthy against such a radar, hence would require the use of EA to beat it. Now this BMD radar is to the F-35 what a regular more conventional radar is to the F-16, as long as the radar can detect the F-16 from 400Km away as well. So the effectiveness of the EA is not very different even though the F-35 has a much smaller RCS. So your argument is only relative to a particular radar in question rather than the overall radar capabilities of a country.

Your entire argument is based on the premise that the F-35's stealth does not work, hence the need for 4th gen levels of counterproductive EA capability. Hell, even the USAF has argued against the use of EA during stealth missions.

In fact, even I prefer the Rafale with the new towed decoy. It will allow IAF jets to perform EA without putting the main platform at risk. So this way, the Rafale can perform active cancellation using its own emitters to hide itself, while using the towed decoy for electronic attack. The other main benefit being the antennas of the towed decoy can be upgraded even faster than the fighter jet. It's like every half a decade you can bring in a new antenna/TRM design versus 15+ years for a fighter jet.
 

Innominate

Senior member
Jun 23, 2021
2,223
1,514
California
Nellis Aggressor Nation, F-35 pilots ‘punish’ blue air to develop unstoppable force
03 Aug 2021 Christie Vanover, 57th Wing Public Affairs

"NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. -- At Red Flag-Nellis, blue air pilots climb into their jets, don their helmets, buckle in and take off into the wild blue yonder.

They’ve conducted their intel and mission planning, but when their wheels lift up from the flight line and the friendly view of the Las Vegas Strip fades away as they reach the Nevada Test and Training Range, it’s game on. The aggressors are waiting.

During Red Flag-Nellis 21-3, blue air participants will for the first time go head-to-head with F-35 Lightning II aggressor pilots, making already daunting training scenarios all that more difficult to successfully overcome.

The power of Nellis’ Aggressor Nation
Col. Scott Mills, commander of the 57th Operations Group and an F-35 aggressor pilot, said Red Flag originated as an air-to-air fight of blue players against red players, but it has advanced in every domain....

...F-35 aggressor pilots join fight
Lt. Col. Chris Finkenstadt, commander of the 64th Aggressor Squadron, said F-35s are being introduced this Red Flag to expand upon the F-16 aggressors’ threat capabilities. He said this changes the scenario so it more accurately represents advanced enemy fighters. While F-35s have augmented aggressors in previous Red Flag exercises, they have not been manned by dedicated aggressor pilots.

“What aggressors are able to present to them is a more challenging problem for blue air assault,” he said. “The aggressors know the threat replication a little bit better, and they have studied the adversary and the way that the adversary would actually react to a specific situation. Based on our focus toward great power competition, we need to make sure that those guys are ready, and we do that by presenting the best possible atmosphere we can.”

Mills said the addition of the F-35 will showcase what blue can do against low-observable type threats similar to what adversaries are developing.

“At the end of the day, my job is not to give blue an easy day. My job is to give blue the absolute toughest day that I can. And the way for me to do that is to bring the F-35 into the fight. And the F-35 is going to make it exceptionally difficult for blue to achieve their objectives. They're going to need to take every bit of capability they have, every bit of integration they can, to achieve their intent,” said Mills.

...Red air will win . . . at first...

...Blue air learns, adapts..."
Nellis Aggressor Nation, F-35 pilots ‘punish’ blue air to develop unstoppable force > Nellis Air Force Base > Article Display (af.mil)

That is how they will learn... Poor Blue air it's going to be not fun at first taking on aggressor F-35's.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
22,339
3,956
Of course, they do, when the OEM cannot meet their requirements.



You are simplifying it way too much. While EA is indeed benefited by stealth, but that's only relative to what a radar considers stealth according to its own technical parameters. An F-16 will be very stealthy against a radar used in WW2 for example. A Gripen E will be practically invisible from any meaningful range against such a radar.

If you have stealth and it works, then ECM will be extremely counterproductive in such a case. No F-35 in any mission ever will use EA if stealth works. But if stealth fails, that's a different story. Now claiming greater efficiency of the ECM because of a low RCS is meaningless since said low RCS has already failed against that radar.

Take India's BMD radars for example. One of them can detect a 0.01m2 target from 1500+Km away. Which would mean a 0.0001m2 target will theoretically be detectable from 400+ Km away. The F-35 in theory is not stealthy against such a radar, hence would require the use of EA to beat it. Now this BMD radar is to the F-35 what a regular more conventional radar is to the F-16, as long as the radar can detect the F-16 from 400Km away as well. So the effectiveness of the EA is not very different even though the F-35 has a much smaller RCS. So your argument is only relative to a particular radar in question rather than the overall radar capabilities of a country.

Your entire argument is based on the premise that the F-35's stealth does not work, hence the need for 4th gen levels of counterproductive EA capability. Hell, even the USAF has argued against the use of EA during stealth missions.

In fact, even I prefer the Rafale with the new towed decoy. It will allow IAF jets to perform EA without putting the main platform at risk. So this way, the Rafale can perform active cancellation using its own emitters to hide itself, while using the towed decoy for electronic attack. The other main benefit being the antennas of the towed decoy can be upgraded even faster than the fighter jet. It's like every half a decade you can bring in a new antenna/TRM design versus 15+ years for a fighter jet.
They do it anyway. It's not like their ABM systems are better than US ones.

EA will not be counterproductive if used properly and in a focused manner so that it only covers the threat radar and the closer you are before you need it, the more focused it will be. The beauty of the F-15EX though, is that a second aircraft can use EA from further away in an entirely different position. I think it's you that's simplifying it too much. No one said stealth had to exist in isolation.

There's detecting and there's tracking and targeting. With EA the stealth aircraft can disrupt even the detection, let alone the targeting. Stealth + EA can still be stealth. It's much easier to cancel the reflection of a very small clean object with no crap hanging off it compared to a large RCS with appendages. And theoretically detecting 0.0001m2 targets mean you're detecting birds and probably even atmospheric pollution particles as well. Good luck sorting that out.

The problem with TRDs is that you can't undeploy them, so usually you only deploy after a missile is fired, with the F-35 you are unlikely to reach that point, but it's still an option.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Innominate

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
19,297
14,031
India
They do it anyway. It's not like their ABM systems are better than US ones.

EA will not be counterproductive if used properly and in a focused manner so that it only covers the threat radar and the closer you are before you need it, the more focused it will be. The beauty of the F-15EX though, is that a second aircraft can use EA from further away in an entirely different position. I think it's you that's simplifying it too much. No one said stealth had to exist in isolation.

There's detecting and there's tracking and targeting. With EA the stealth aircraft can disrupt even the detection, let alone the targeting. Stealth + EA can still be stealth. It's much easier to cancel the reflection of a very small clean object with no crap hanging off it compared to a large RCS with appendages. And theoretically detecting 0.0001m2 targets mean you're detecting birds and probably even atmospheric pollution particles as well. Good luck sorting that out.

The problem with TRDs is that you can't undeploy them, so usually you only deploy after a missile is fired, with the F-35 you are unlikely to reach that point, but it's still an option.

When you have stealth, you shouldn't be using EA at all, period. Like, literally, period. No EA at all. You don't jam the enemy's radar and let them know you are attacking them even before the attack has commenced. You let the enemy know they are under attack when bombs are raining down on them.

There is no stealth with EA.

And yes, detecting small targets would mean clutter, but that's why you have multiple radars looking at the sky from different aspects for a multistatic effect. No bird flies at 800Kmph.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
22,339
3,956
When you have stealth, you shouldn't be using EA at all, period. Like, literally, period. No EA at all. You don't jam the enemy's radar and let them know you are attacking them even before the attack has commenced. You let the enemy know they are under attack when bombs are raining down on them.

There is no stealth with EA.

And yes, detecting small targets would mean clutter, but that's why you have multiple radars looking at the sky from different aspects for a multistatic effect. No bird flies at 800Kmph.
Ideally no, but you can't always guarantee an ideal world, they tried ideal world tactics with the F-117A and look what happened. You wouldn't jam upfront no, unless that was being done by offboard assets, and maybe not at all depending on scenario.

How do you know whether one bird has moved x, or whether it's another bird? There is such thing as noise threshold too. Maybe the birds are jamming, maybe one of them is doing Mach 3 towards your radar, who knows.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
19,297
14,031
India
Ideally no, but you can't always guarantee an ideal world, they tried ideal world tactics with the F-117A and look what happened. You wouldn't jam upfront no, unless that was being done by offboard assets, and maybe not at all depending on scenario.

Sure, then in such a scenario, using the towed decoy would still be a better option because such a situation will arise only if you have put yourself in danger, so you want all the danger focusing on the towed decoy.

The Israelis have to deal with a situation where, due to the complete lack of strategic depth, their enemies can position radars right next door, hence the need to employ both towed decoys and an all-aspect internal ECM capability once the decoys are expended. Hence the reason for their need to "modify" the F-35 for ECM. No one else is facing the same situation, not even the Koreans and Taiwanese.

So there is literally no need for a full-fledged, all-aspect ECM capability internally located inside a stealth jet when the towed decoy promises to do the exact same thing. You will merely end up paying a lot for a capability you are unlikely to use at all. So the F-35 gets standoff capability using the radar, and stand-in/escort capability using the decoy. And anything else can be delivered by EA-specific drones anyway, including escort jamming.

How do you know whether one bird has moved x, or whether it's another bird? There is such thing as noise threshold too. Maybe the birds are jamming, maybe one of them is doing Mach 3 towards your radar, who knows.

Speed gives it away.

It's interesting that you speak of an ideal world, but then bring up points that are relevant to said ideal world.

The actual argument against such a radar is you can't use it to employ weapons against such birds thereby breaking the kill chain. All you can do is use this sensor to get the early detection done so other sensors can be used to focus on such areas, including through physical patrols.
 

Innominate

Senior member
Jun 23, 2021
2,223
1,514
California
Advanced IADS were already doomed because of the F-35's superior SEAD capability with JSOW alone but this is just going to be overkill.

RIP S-400s/500s and Naval air defense systems.

Lab Work for AARGM-ER Integration on F-35A Slated for Next May​

-NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.—Northrop Grumman [NOC] is doing preliminary integration work for the company’s AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile Extended Range (AARGM-ER) on the Lockheed Martin [LMT] F-35A fighter in preparation for lab integration in May of 2022.
Lab Work for AARGM-ER Integration on F-35A Slated for Next May (defensedaily.com)

Few days ago it was live fire tested for the first time.

The-Navy-conducts-the-first-captive-carry-flight-test-of-an-AARGM-ER-missile-on-FA-18-Super-Ho...jpg

Northrop Grumman Completes First Successful AARGM-ER Missile Live Fire​

The U.S. Navy has successfully completed the first live fire of the Northrop Grumman AGM-88G Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile Extended Range (AARGM-ER) from a U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet.​


-Northtrop Grumman press release


The test was conducted on July 19 at the Point Mugu Sea Range off the coast of southern California. The missile successfully demonstrated the long range capability of the new missile design.


“The AARGM-ER was successfully launched from the F/A-18 aircraft and met the key test objectives of a first missile live fire event. The government and industry team had great focus and was able to conduct this test event three months earlier than originally envisioned,” said Captain A.C. “Count” Dutko, Navy Program Manager for Direct Time Sensitive Strike (PMA-242).


AARGM-ER leverages AARGM with significant improvements in some technology areas.

AARGM-ER is being integrated on the Navy F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft as well as the Air Force F-35A, Marine Corps F-35B, and Navy and Marine Corps F-35C aircraft.
Northrop Grumman Completes First Successful AARGM-ER Missile Live Fire - Naval News

Even 4th gen fighters doing SEAD with these will have no problem taking out advanced IADS with its 300km range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SammyBoi and BMD

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
22,339
3,956
Sure, then in such a scenario, using the towed decoy would still be a better option because such a situation will arise only if you have put yourself in danger, so you want all the danger focusing on the towed decoy.

The Israelis have to deal with a situation where, due to the complete lack of strategic depth, their enemies can position radars right next door, hence the need to employ both towed decoys and an all-aspect internal ECM capability once the decoys are expended. Hence the reason for their need to "modify" the F-35 for ECM. No one else is facing the same situation, not even the Koreans and Taiwanese.

So there is literally no need for a full-fledged, all-aspect ECM capability internally located inside a stealth jet when the towed decoy promises to do the exact same thing. You will merely end up paying a lot for a capability you are unlikely to use at all. So the F-35 gets standoff capability using the radar, and stand-in/escort capability using the decoy. And anything else can be delivered by EA-specific drones anyway, including escort jamming.



Speed gives it away.

It's interesting that you speak of an ideal world, but then bring up points that are relevant to said ideal world.

The actual argument against such a radar is you can't use it to employ weapons against such birds thereby breaking the kill chain. All you can do is use this sensor to get the early detection done so other sensors can be used to focus on such areas, including through physical patrols.
You don't use the TRD until a missile has been fired. The idea is to prevent the radar even getting a lock with EA. Once deployed, you either tow the turd for the rest of the mission or let it loose, then it's gone. It's a last resort. TRDs won't work head-to-head either.

The Israelis just like having their own stuff.

There probably isn't but it's a nice to have.

To measure speed you have to track the same target between two points. Has a crow in one place moved at 600mph or is it another crow? If the detection radar can't get a fix, then the sharper radars won't know where to look.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
19,297
14,031
India
You don't use the TRD until a missile has been fired. The idea is to prevent the radar even getting a lock with EA. Once deployed, you either tow the turd for the rest of the mission or let it loose, then it's gone. It's a last resort. TRDs won't work head-to-head either.

TRDs can be used anytime, not just when the jet is under attack. Also, it is retractable, it's not a one-use system. It's no different from how a refueller rolls out its hose. You have it confused with the Britecloud. :rolleyes:

It can work head to head, you have it confused with co-altitude. When the decoy is rolled out the separation between the two is more than sufficient.

The Israelis just like having their own stuff.

They are doing it right. They are of the belief that if stealth doesn't work, they will need EA. So the EA can even come from a podded ECM at that point.

One of the biggest drawbacks of the F-35's EA is the fact that it's not possible to manually intervene. So if the threat library does not have signal characteristics of the threat radar, then the F-35's EA capability is useless. The Israeli ECM should also help take care of that. The F-35 simply hasn't been designed for what you claim.
 

randomradio

Senior Member
Nov 30, 2017
19,297
14,031
India
So after one time use them DFRM needs to be replaced? Su30s used it during air engagement so they will be replaced?

Not at all. I actually have no idea how you came to this conclusion based on what you've quoted. There's no relation. Also, MKIs currently do not have towed decoys. MKI's EA comes from a pod currently.

BMD thinks towed decoys are one time use, after it's rolled out it needs to be discarded, which is not the case.
 

_Anonymous_

Senior Member
Dec 4, 2017
19,262
15,412
Mumbai
Once deployed, you either tow the turd for the rest of the mission or let it loose, then it's gone.
Was that deliberate or does autospellcheck in your PC automatically render TRD as turd, Paddy?

BTW - the whole sentence has a very good ring to it coming as it does from you. Very apt, I must say.
 

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
22,339
3,956
TRDs can be used anytime, not just when the jet is under attack. Also, it is retractable, it's not a one-use system. It's no different from how a refueller rolls out its hose. You have it confused with the Britecloud. :rolleyes:

It can work head to head, you have it confused with co-altitude. When the decoy is rolled out the separation between the two is more than sufficient.



They are doing it right. They are of the belief that if stealth doesn't work, they will need EA. So the EA can even come from a podded ECM at that point.

One of the biggest drawbacks of the F-35's EA is the fact that it's not possible to manually intervene. So if the threat library does not have signal characteristics of the threat radar, then the F-35's EA capability is useless. The Israeli ECM should also help take care of that. The F-35 simply hasn't been designed for what you claim.
TRDs can be destroyed though, as you mentioned, "once the TRDs are expended," in relation to the Israeli's ECM. Why would Typhoon have two plus onboard EA otherwise? But now you're arguing that TRDs can't be expended. You're contradicting yourself. The problem you have is that the TRD is not stealth and whilst it's towed, it's still near(ish) the aircraft. So if the enemy radar is that good that it can geolocate moving EA, the TRD can be used a marker flag to gauge where the aircraft is. It's far easier to track a non-stealth target emitting than a stealth target emitting. A stealth jet towing a TRD constantly is like a submarine towing a marking buoy.

Says who? I think you're making stuff up. It can adapt to threats.
 
Last edited:

BMD

Senior member
Dec 4, 2017
22,339
3,956
The whole purpose of a TRD is to defeat HOJ, which is a pretty poor method of homing anyway. Aircraft don't deploy TRDs until after a missile is fired, otherwise TRD-equipped aircraft wouldn't have onboard EA as well. And it's just as easy to destroy a TRD being towed by a stealth Aircraft as one being towed by another aircraft. A TRD is a TRD.