F-22 / F-35 5th Generation jets | News & Discussions.

[randomradio]

You are talking about something that is at least a couple decades out of the laboratory. You are getting to be like the PDF Chinese where just because it can be done in the lab, it will be done tomorrow.

Let me know when you are back to reality.

So the Chinese launch an actual working communication system, but Russia, US etc are decades behind? How does that work? The Chinese will be releasing their first quantum computer in 2030 as well.

Even the British say a fully operational quantum radar is 15 years away. The French-Italians have already created a working prototype, not a simple lab test, but an actual prototype. Their project is called PHODIR.

You are the one as far from reality as possible. All that you see in the open source is lab tests, that's why you find it hard to believe. But considering you don't believe in the existence of something as obvious as passive radars, expecting you to believe in quantum radars is a bit too much to expect.

The misleading part of the 'passive' radar is OWNERSHIP. This guy just do not understand it.

A radar stands for RAdio Detection And Ranging. It can be of two types, active and passive. This has existed as a fact for decades now.

Here's a USAF Captain's thesis from 1985.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a163941.pdf

The idea of a passive radar excites the imagination of the Air Force information gathering community. if it vere possible to build a radar system which used separate transmitter and receiver locations, extra protection would be S--afforded to the radar receiver because the radar receiver would not broadcast its presence. Further, the passive radar receiver would be less vulnerable to classic anti-radar teclmiic es such as anti-radar missiles or electronic counter measures. A passive radar system would require the presence of -ý usable host signal. The host signal would be cooperative if the transmitteý and receiver were working together. A non-cooperative host would be a transmitter whose broadcast energy were being used without the transmitter's knowledge.

A reference book quoted in a USAF report.
"Passive Multistatic Radar: R&D Activity Summary,"
Company Report ATC:82:234, ITT-Gilfillan, ITT, Van Nuys CA, November 1982.

Another one, this time from the RAAF.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a557070.pdf

Passive radar is a type of bistatic radar. The primary difference is that in a basic bistatic radar system the transmitter and the receiver are synchronized in some manner and the signal is known and controlled within the same radar system. In passive radar, the illuminating source is transmitted by a third party

Now go ahead, say the USAF and RAAF pilots also don't understand. It will tell me I can't take you seriously anymore.

 

[gambit]

You are the one as far from reality as possible. All that you see in the open source is lab tests, that's why you find it hard to believe. But considering you don't believe in the existence of something as obvious as passive radars, expecting you to believe in quantum radars is a bit too much to expect.

It is that I have a better understanding of the subject better than you do.

A radar stands for RAdio Detection And Ranging. It can be of two types, active and passive. This has existed as a fact for decades now.

No such 'fact' existed.

Here's a USAF Captain's thesis from 1985.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a163941.pdf

A reference book quoted in a USAF report.
"Passive Multistatic Radar: R&D Activity Summary,"
Company Report ATC:82:234, ITT-Gilfillan, ITT, Van Nuys CA, November 1982.

Another one, this time from the RAAF.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a557070.pdf

Now go ahead, say the USAF and RAAF pilots also don't understand. It will tell me I can't take you seriously anymore.

So let us take a look at what you brought on...

...build a radar system which used separate transmitter and receiver locations,...

...In passive radar, the illuminating source is transmitted by a third party

This mean ownership. It does not detract from the basic principles of radar detection. It means instead of a single operator controlling the entire process in a unitary manner, the process is separated out into physically and geographically apart entities. The word 'passive' is conveniently used, but it does not mean there is a conceptual distinction.

I do not care if you take me seriously or not. The authors of the text Advances In Bistatic Radar called the label 'passive' a misnomer.

Here is the definition of 'misnomer'...

noun

1. a wrong or inaccurate name or designation.

I am a USAF veteran. F-111 and F-16. In flight, we often have a 4-ship formation.

https://www.ligainternational.org/Web/Formation/Pages/Welcome.asp

Pilots who are interested in formation flying can:

Attend a formation briefing;
Sit right seat with a qualified pilot for a practice ride;
Fly your plane with a qualified Safety Pilot site right seat in there aircraft in a 2-ship;
Graduate to independent 2-ship flight;
Hone formation station keeping thru a serious of exercises;
Graduate to a 4-ship formation and practice formation skills to earn your FFI Wingman Card.

The word 'ship' is conveniently used. On the other hand, if we call a helicopter an 'aircraft', we would be technically correct because a helo is an aircraft in every technical definitions of the word.

A 'passive' radar is a conveniently used label to denote an operation or mode of operation under the concept of radar.

 

[moon_light]

ECM signals is essentially a beacon telling everyone 'Here I am'. Pretty much defeats the purpose of 'stealth'.

But the ECM signal can have different delay , or doppler shift from real reflection to help break radar lock , or it could be white noise from a third party such as MALD-J or EA-18G , in that case shouldnt lower RCS help ?

 

[gambit]

But the ECM signal can have different delay , or doppler shift from real reflection to help break radar lock , or it could be white noise from a third party such as MALD-J or EA-18G , in that case shouldnt lower RCS help ?

It would MASK the aircraft's inherent RCS, but it would be like you carrying a shield in front of you. All I would see is the shield. I could not see how tall, how fat, what your clothes look like, and so on. But I would definitely see the shield and know someone is behind it. That is not the purpose of 'stealth', which is to blend in with background radiation. Use the sniper as analogy. You may suspect he is out there but too well blended in with the environment for you to see his patterns. Or you may not suspect anything at all.

 

[DavidSling]

JASDF releases images of first F-35
Gareth Jennings, London - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
15 August 2016

The first F-35 for the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) is seen at the Fort Worth production facility ahead of the commencement of flight trials and delivery. Source: Japan Air Self-Defense Force
The first Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) for Japan was photographed at the Fort Worth production facility in mid-August.

The images, released by the Japan Air Self-Defence Force (JASDF) on 14 August, show aircraft 69-8701 (also designated AX-1) in its completed state ahead of flight tests and delivery to the international training fleet at Luke Air Force Base (AFB), Arizona, in the coming weeks. Four aircraft for the JASDF are currently being built at Fort Worth.

Japan has committed itself to buying 28 F-35As over the next five-years (6 of the aircraft are under contract), and has a total requirement of 42 to replace its ageing Mitsubishi-McDonnell Douglas F-4J Kai (Phantom II) aircraft, which have been in service since the early 1970s.

On 25 June 2014, then Japanese defence minister Itsunori Onodera announced that the F-35 would initially be based at Misawa, which is expected to receive the first 4 of about 20 aircraft during fiscal year 2017. The initial operating unit is expected to be either 301 or 302 Squadron.

Want to read more? For analysis on this article and access to all our insight content, please enquire about our subscription options　ihs.com/contact

To read the full article, Client Login

http://www.janes.com/article/62957/jasdf-releases-images-of-first-f-35

 

[randomradio]

It is that I have a better understanding of the subject better than you do.

No such 'fact' existed.

Yeah, yeah, pass it all off as "I'm better educated than you." Quantum radars are already in the prototype stage in some countries. Maybe they haven't told you.

It's the same thing with AI. They said it will take a 100 years, now they are talking about 2030.

This mean ownership. It does not detract from the basic principles of radar detection. It means instead of a single operator controlling the entire process in a unitary manner, the process is separated out into physically and geographically apart entities. The word 'passive' is conveniently used, but it does not mean there is a conceptual distinction.

What do you think I have been saying? A passive radar has never detracted from its principles.

Potayto, potahto. As long as you agree about the way it works, you can call it whatever you want.
Source: https://defence.pk/threads/f-22-f-3...news-discussions.179287/page-32#ixzz4HQohjL46

You don't like the term, don't use it. A lot of other people use it, particularly the entire radar community. Geez, man, all the journals are now using this term.

http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/eletel.2012.58.issue-4/v10177-012-0047-x/v10177-012-0047-x.xml

http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/eletel.2012.58.issue-4/v10177-012-0047-x/v10177-012-0047-x.xml

http://www.nuforc.org/mufonpresentation.pdf

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/logi...re.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5494622

Why are you so arrogant about it?

It's too bad you don't have the authority to say what's a misnomer and what's not.

That is not the purpose of 'stealth', which is to blend in with background radiation.

What if I tell you we can generate signals for ECM that are weaker than background signals and still extremely effective?

 

[gambit]

What if I tell you we can generate signals for ECM that are weaker than background signals and still extremely effective?

This is why you should leave this discussion.

So according to you, if a body under radar bombardment generate background radiation level RCS, all it has to do is generate a weaker signal and that body will have a lower RCS.

In real physics, 1 + .5 (weaker) = 1.5 .

But with your physics, 1 + .5 (weaker) = .5 .

I wonder why no one ever thought of this before.

 

[randomradio]

This is why you should leave this discussion.

So according to you, if a body under radar bombardment generate background radiation level RCS, all it has to do is generate a weaker signal and that body will have a lower RCS.

In real physics, 1 + .5 (weaker) = 1.5 .

But with your physics, 1 + .5 (weaker) = .5 .

I wonder why no one ever thought of this before.

That doesn't even make sense.

What I'm saying is the radar won't even know what it's picking up. And for that you only need to generate an ECM signal with an amplitude that is equal to the radar signal at the time the radar signal reaches the target, which is minuscule. Which means the 'shield' will also have blended into background radiation.

You can basically fool a radar into believing it has picked up clutter, it's a far more advanced technique than repeater jamming because the radar will actually see a large RCS target and then dismiss it. And to do that you need very little power, power that is well below background noise. If it's more, then the 'shield' is going to be visible.

 

[gambit]

That doesn't even make sense.

What I'm saying is the radar won't even know what it's picking up. And for that you only need to generate an ECM signal with an amplitude that is equal to the radar signal at the time the radar signal reaches the target, which is minuscule. Which means the 'shield' will also have blended into background radiation.

You can basically fool a radar into believing it has picked up clutter, it's a far more advanced technique than repeater jamming because the radar will actually see a large RCS target and then dismiss it. And to do that you need very little power, power that is well below background noise. If it's more, then the 'shield' is going to be visible.

No. YOU are not making sense.

The goal of 'stealth' is to get the body into background clutter. Once there and discarded by the seeking radar -- DO NOT DO ANYTHING ELSE LIKE GENERATING ANY OTHER SIGNALS.

So what if I can generate a signal whose amplitude is lower than clutter ? I am ALREADY in the clutter region. Generating any type of signals risks rising above that clutter rejection threshold.

Why the hell is that so difficult to understand ?

 

[Pak_Sher]

US still manufacturers the best looking planes and defense equipment.

 

[randomradio]

No. YOU are not making sense.

The goal of 'stealth' is to get the body into background clutter. Once there and discarded by the seeking radar -- DO NOT DO ANYTHING ELSE LIKE GENERATING ANY OTHER SIGNALS.

So what if I can generate a signal whose amplitude is lower than clutter ? I am ALREADY in the clutter region. Generating any type of signals risks rising above that clutter rejection threshold.

Why the hell is that so difficult to understand ?

The F-35 and F-22 are being installed with ECM capability now. The F-22 is getting it by 2017.

Why wouldn't you use additional stealth enhancing capabilities when you have it? There are many ways you can use this capability. Say, you have one F-35 and 3 F-16s, you can have the F-16s fly in tight formation with the F-35s and put the entire group in the clutter region with this ECM capability. Yeah, you can do that.

Hell, you can put the Mig-29 and F-16 in the clutter region too. In fact you can create a uniform low observable bubble around yourself, unlike aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 which have different RCS figures from different angles making yourself more visible to multistatic radars.

And clutter rejection threshold for different radars are different. Some may accept far more clutter because they have the ability to progressive cancel them out during processing, especially in combination with other sensors and radars. They are even capable of reducing the threshold for selective frequencies in certain sections of the sky. With ECM you can reduce your RCS to magnitudes below your physical RCS, completely eliminating risk. A 0.001m2 RCS can be reduced by another 100 times with ECM, maybe more.

This capability allows the pilot to manipulate his aircraft's own RCS, not simply be restricted by the aircraft's design.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/a-gods-eye-view-of-the-battlefield-gen-hostage-on-the-f-35/

These are the capabilities that most excite the experts I’ve spoken with because they distinguish the F-35 from previous fighters, giving it what may be unprecedented abilities to confuse the enemy, attack him in new ways through electronics (think Stuxnet), and generally add enormous breadth to what we might call the plane’s conventional strike capabilities.

While Growlers, Boeing’s EA-18G, have extremely powerful, broadband jamming capabilities, the F-35’s combination of stealth and highly specific electronic beams is a better combination, Hostage tells me during the interview.

“If you can get in close, you don’t need Growler-type power. If you’re stealthy enough that they can’t do anything about it and you can get in close, it doesn’t take a huge amount of power to have the effect you need to have,” he says.

“The high power-jamming is ‘I’ll just overwhelm them with energy since I can’t get in there and do magic things with what they’re sending to me,'” Hostage says.

ECM has changed drastically since the time you were in the cockpit.

The very fact that the Israelis want to equip the F-35 with a 'hilarious' external pod mounted jammer demonstrates that the F-35's low RCS (which is lower than the F-22's) is not enough.
http://aviationweek.com/awin/israel-us-agree-450-million-f-35-ew-work

“We think the stealth protection will be good for 5-10 years, but the aircraft will be in service for 30-40 years, so we need EW capabilities [on the F-35] that can be rapidly improved,” a senior Israeli air force (IAF) official tells Aviation Week. “The basic F-35 design is OK. We can make do with adding integrated software.”

So being below the current standards of clutter is not enough. The F-35 is going to light up like a Christmas tree in about 5-10 years. You are spreading outdated information.

 

[moon_light]

Hell, you can put the Mig-29 and F-16 in the clutter region too. In fact you can create a uniform low observable bubble around yourself, unlike aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 which have different RCS figures from different angles making yourself more visible to multistatic radars.

And clutter rejection threshold for different radars are different. Some may accept far more clutter because they have the ability to progressive cancel them out during processing, especially in combination with other sensors and radars. They are even capable of reducing the threshold for selective frequencies in certain sections of the sky. With ECM you can reduce your RCS to magnitudes below your physical RCS, completely eliminating risk. A 0.001m2 RCS can be reduced by another 100 times with ECM, maybe more.
.

Dude , you should stop talking nonsense , this is getting ridiculous

 

[randomradio]

Dude , you should stop talking nonsense , this is getting ridiculous

I'm talking about stuff what today's pilots and generals are talking about. Read Hostage's quotes. Figure out why they are now advertising Rafale as a VLO.

They are just disguising it in clever ways for civilian consumption.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_article.html?item_id=182

“This jet isn’t just about the weapons — it’s a game-changing capability. The Tornado GR.4 can't just stroll into a double digit SAM MEZ [Missile Engagement Zone]. In the F-35 I can generate a wormhole in the airspace and lead everyone through it. There isn’t another platform around that can do that. This isn’t all about height and supercruise speed — it’s the ability to not be seen,” added Beck.

A bit about the quantum radar as well.
http://www.business-standard.com/ar...-for-indo-russian-fighter-112051502009_1.html

A key IAF requirement is a ‘360-degree’ AESA (airborne electronically scanned active) radar, rather than the AESA radar that Russia developed. Either way, India would pay Russia extra: either in licence fee for the Russian radar; or hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, for developing a world-beating, 360-degree AESA radar.

However the Russians claimed that the IAF will have to pay separately for the 'new' radar because the RuAF did not ask for it. They asked for a 25-30% increase in IAF's contribution to the program, $2B. Then the Russian economy collapsed because of the oil glut and their currency weakened. So now they can deliver the radar to both the IAF and RuAF. They had asked for 60B rubles to develop the new radar, separate from the 280.5B rubles planned to be invested in the PAK FA by both the countries as Russia's workshare. But because of the weak currency, now the Russians have 400B rubles, which now covers the development of new technologies, including the new radar.

Basically, the Russians asked for 60B extra for the new radar and now they are getting 120B instead. Their current objective is to have this radar operational by 2021.

The cost of the FGFA is also expected to be $225M, that's as much as the F-22 and F-35 combined.

 

[moon_light]

I'm talking about stuff what today's pilots and generals are talking about. Read Hostage's quotes. Figure out why they are now advertising Rafale as a VLO.

They are just disguising it in clever ways for civilian consumption.

A bit about the quantum radar as well.

no they didnt , it just that you have very bad understanding of physics

 

[gambit]

Hell, you can put the Mig-29 and F-16 in the clutter region too. In fact you can create a uniform low observable bubble around yourself, unlike aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 which have different RCS figures from different angles making yourself more visible to multistatic radars.

And clutter rejection threshold for different radars are different. Some may accept far more clutter because they have the ability to progressive cancel them out during processing, especially in combination with other sensors and radars. They are even capable of reducing the threshold for selective frequencies in certain sections of the sky. With ECM you can reduce your RCS to magnitudes below your physical RCS, completely eliminating risk. A 0.001m2 RCS can be reduced by another 100 times with ECM, maybe more.

This capability allows the pilot to manipulate his aircraft's own RCS, not simply be restricted by the aircraft's design.

So all these billions have been wasted all this time in developing 'stealth' aircrafts. All these decades since the end of WW II that we have been able to generate signals of any kind, no one bothered to think of faking clutter signals and making a 'bubble' of these signals.

And YOU, an anonymous handle on an Internet forum figured it all out.

What you said about clutter rejection is -- nonsense.

First, what is 'clutter' is convenient, meaning it changes. For an air defense radar, rain is clutter and rejected. But for a weather radar, any metallic body is clutter and rejected. That means there is no signal that is inherently clutter.

Second, the initial criteria for assessing a signal to see if it is to be rejected or for further processing is amplitude. If a signal is below a threshold, it is rejected.

Third, if a signal passed the amplitude disqualification and is filed away for further processing, its characteristics are analyzed to see if it meets other qualifiers. If it does not meet the radar design's intentions, the signal is considered to be clutter.

So it is a combination of amplitude and characteristics that if a signal is to be considered clutter or not. So for you to say this '...in combination with other sensors and radars.' means you do not know what you are talking about. What other sensors and radars ? There is only one radar and it is the one being used. If a body is being illuminated from multiple sources in different directions, the one radar will not know from analyzing the echo signal that this echo signal is a composite of multiple seeking signals.

You are making shit up as you go along in this debate. You are basically saying that a lower amplitude signal will override a higher amplitude signal. I cannot respond to that.

I know from long ago that I cannot win against 'Chinese physics'. Looks like am not to win against 'Indian physics' as well.