F-35A in full loadout for first time

[LeGenD]

It is really amusing to see scores of arm-chair experts jumping to conclusions about the performance and/or capabilities of an aircraft that they do not understand well - baseless negativity mostly.

F-35 is considerably superior to its replacement F-16 in a number of important ways and is expected to revolutionize conduct of modern warfare with its TRON capabilities. This much is apparent from its performance in the recent RED FLAG excercise - the most realistic of its kind - and relevant reports.

Another thing is that F-35 is suitable for a wide variety of missions in the battlefield (3 distinct designs) and can safely operate in areas where 4th generation aircraft cannot - to ensure seamless assault on enemy positions in a major confrontation.

 

[EpiiC]

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/...he-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/
The F-35’s cross section is much smaller than the F-22’s, but that does not mean, Hostage concedes, that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war. In fact, Hostage says that it takes eight F-35s to do what two F-22s can handle.

“The F-35 is geared to go out and take down the surface targets,” says Hostage, leaning forward. “The F-35 doesn’t have the altitude, doesn’t have the speed [of the F-22], but it can beat the F-22 in stealth.” But stealth — the ability to elude or greatly complicate an enemy’s ability to find and destroy an aircraft using a combination of design, tactics and technology — is not a magic pill, Hostage reminds us.
----------------

Every single one of these points alludes to previous information having been purely propaganda. Imagine that, the F-35 has superior avionics, superior payload and greater stealth than the F-22, but you still need 8 F-35s to do the work of 2 F-22s. And this is coming from the guy who was running the Air Combat Command when he made those statements. The difference the F-22's kinetic capability brings in is way too much.

So this difference may become obviously evident in air combat as well. As Hostage said, the F-35 doesn't have the altitude or the speed, both of which are critical for BVR combat.

I would definitely bet my money on the F-22 in a F-22 v. F-35 bout.



The F-35's stealth and avionics are superior to the F-22's.

HELL NO!! F-22 IS More stealthy than F-35.... RCS of F-22 Is like the size of a marble and for f-35 a golf ball... Everyone knows F-22 Is more stealthy and has better radar.

 

[randomradio]

HELL NO!! F-22 IS More stealthy than F-35.... RCS of F-22 Is like the size of a marble and for f-35 a golf ball... Everyone knows F-22 Is more stealthy and has better radar.

That's just propaganda to fool adversaries.

The F-35 is more stealthy than the F-22. I have quoted General Mike Hostage. He is one of the top bosses of the USAF who commanded the largest and most powerful command of the USAF. He said the F-35 is more stealthy than the F-22, so you better believe it.

It is really amusing to see scores of arm-chair experts jumping to conclusions about the performance and/or capabilities of an aircraft that they do not understand well - baseless negativity mostly.

F-35 is considerably superior to its replacement F-16 in a number of important ways and is expected to revolutionize conduct of modern warfare with its TRON capabilities. This much is apparent from its performance in the recent RED FLAG excercise - the most realistic of its kind - and relevant reports.

Another thing is that F-35 is suitable for a wide variety of missions in the battlefield (3 distinct designs) and can safely operate in areas where 4th generation aircraft cannot - to ensure seamless assault on enemy positions in a major confrontation.

Gen Mike Hostage is an armchair expert?

 

[Penguin]

You can't compare the F-15/F-16 combo to the F-22/F-35 combo at all.

The F-16 was designed to be a dog fighter, it was better than the F-15 in that respect.

I believe I pointed that out already. Hence also the silliness of comparing F22 (apples) and F35 (oranges).

 

[war&peace]

when you guys compare it to the newly made F16's,

So you're saying that new versions of F-16 are better than F-35?

 

[EpiiC]

I believe I pointed that out already. Hence also the silliness of comparing F22 (apples) and F35 (oranges).

It's not apples and oranges... F-22 is clearly better than F-35!

 

[randomradio]

I believe I pointed that out already. Hence also the silliness of comparing F22 (apples) and F35 (oranges).

It's really important how you deal with the propaganda aspect of the program.

They are not advertising the F-35 as a F-16 replacement, they are advertising it as a F-15 replacement. Therein lies the problem. They are promising apples and giving oranges. And their propaganda machinery wants to convince people that the oranges are really apples.

But if you pit it against a 4th gen jet that has superior performance and is carrying electronics that's good enough to compete, that orange going to turn into a lemon so fast that your HQ commander is not gonna have anymore oranges to throw at the enemy.

This is a very good example of the propaganda machinery.

If 8 F-35s are equal to 2 F-22s. Then 16 F-35s are equal to 4 F-22s. That little graphic should have had F-35s at the top and F-22s at the bottom. This is Hostage's opinion, not mine.

The F-35 still requires counter air and escorts. Basically, very little has changed, perhaps nothing's changed. People have just become high on propaganda when it comes to the F-35.

To top that, now the USAF is convinced the F-22 also won't maintain air superiority after the 2030 period. That much is obvious to anyone who's studied a bit about stealth since most of its stealth comes from shaping, which has become pretty useless. That's among the principle reasons why they did not authorize the restarting of a modernized F-22 line. They can't compete without a new jet.

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/06/21/the-f22-fighter-jet-restart-dead-study.html
The Air Force has no plans restart the F-22 production line; it wouldn't make economic or operational sense to do so," according to a statement from Air Force spokeswoman Capt. Emily Grabowski.

The high cost reason is simply rubbish. More propaganda. The procurement cost for 194 jets is $50B, that's $257M per jet, including the cost of setting up production line. This cost also includes the expenditure on modernization. That's only $7M more than what India is paying for Rafale, excluding the cost of production line and modernization. So it's pure rubbish. Especially when they can sell the modernized F-22s to countries like Japan, Turkey and Israel and further reduce costs, while also permanently shutting down their indigenous programs.

Read this:
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/everyone-who-wanted-more-f-22s-is-being-proven-right-1732105884

@jhungary @gambit

 

[Penguin]

They are not advertising the F-35 as a F-16 replacement, they are advertising it as a F-15 replacement.

Funny, esp. when you look at F-35 participators and customers....

Participant nations:
Primary customer: United States
Level 1 partner: United Kingdom (no F15 but Tornado and Harrier)
Level 2 partners: Italy and the Netherlands (no F15, but Tornado and/or F-16)
Level 3 partners: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and Turkey (no F15, but F16 or F/A-18)
Security Cooperative Participants: Israel and Singapore (some F15, lots of F16))

Operators/Customers
Australia (no F15, rather F/A-18)
Denmark (no F15 but F-16)
Japan (some F-15, but F-2 - an F-16 development)

Remember:

F-35 development started in 1992 with the origins of the Joint Strike Fighter program and is set to culminate in full production in 2018.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

... the F-35 Lightning II, which will replace various tactical aircraft, including the US F-16, A-10, F/A-18A-D, AV-8B and British Harrier GR7, GR9s and Tornado GR4.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_program

 

[Gomig-21]

They are not advertising the F-35 as a F-16 replacement, they are advertising it as a F-15 replacement.

It's always been the F-16, including the other AC @Penguin listed. Not sure where you got the F-35 as a targeted replacement for the F-15. Can you list a source for that?

But if you pit it against a 4th gen jet that has superior performance and is carrying electronics that's good enough to compete, that orange going to turn into a lemon so fast that your HQ commander is not gonna have anymore oranges to throw at the enemy.

And what is this hypothetical 4th gen jet? The Rafale?

They can't compete without a new jet.

"Compete?" Compete with what? You mean "dominate," I think would be the appropriate term.

Especially when they can sell the modernized F-22s to countries like Japan, Turkey and Israel and further reduce costs, while also permanently shutting down their indigenous programs.

Why would they ever do that when those 3 countries you just listed are already heavily invested in the F-35? And so is the US for that matter, especially at this point in time. It wouldn't make any sense and not just that, orders for those 3 wouldn't necessarily balance or reduce the cost per unit and effectively for more USAF orders, especially when you factor in that Israel more than likely wouldn't be paying for any of those. It's not that simple, especially with the current production line of the F-35.

 

[randomradio]

Funny, esp. when you look at F-35 participators and customers....

Participant nations:
Primary customer: United States
Level 1 partner: United Kingdom (no F15 but Tornado and Harrier)
Level 2 partners: Italy and the Netherlands (no F15, but Tornado and/or F-16)
Level 3 partners: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and Turkey (no F15, but F16 or F/A-18)
Security Cooperative Participants: Israel and Singapore (some F15, lots of F16))

Operators/Customers
Australia (no F15, rather F/A-18)
Denmark (no F15 but F-16)
Japan (some F-15, but F-2 - an F-16 development)

Remember:

F-35 development started in 1992 with the origins of the Joint Strike Fighter program and is set to culminate in full production in 2018.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II

... the F-35 Lightning II, which will replace various tactical aircraft, including the US F-16, A-10, F/A-18A-D, AV-8B and British Harrier GR7, GR9s and Tornado GR4.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Strike_Fighter_program

Many of these countries don't have armies with offensive power.

Only countries that require offensive power require F-15. And these countries, including the USAF, are being asked to replace their F-15s with F-35s. These countries actually need the F-22, not the F-35.

Japan, Israel, S Korea, Turkey and US. It's critical for these countries to operate the F-22 in enough numbers.

Israel is sitting on the fence with respect to replacing their old F-15s which will be due for replacement around 2030. They don't know what to do. They are replacing their F-16s with F-35s, not F-15s, but they may not have a choice due to both funding as well as availability. But Japan and US are directly going to replace their F-15Cs with F-35s instead of F-22s. If the times were more turbulent the last decade, the US wouldn't have been operating their F-15C/Ds today.

Rather, Japan, Turkey and S Korea are going for their own F-22 equivalent development. The US will get the PCA in time.

Fact: The air forces of these countries know the full picture and are going to rely on a different aircraft than the F-35 for the primary air superiority role.

 

[randomradio]

It's always been the F-16, including the other AC @Penguin listed. Not sure where you got the F-35 as a targeted replacement for the F-15. Can you list a source for that?

My previous post explains that.

And what is this hypothetical 4th gen jet? The Rafale?

Any 4th gen jet with advanced radar and other sensors. A lot of 4th gen jets around the world are approaching MLUs, so they will all be carrying avionics far superior to what's on the F-35.

"Compete?" Compete with what? You mean "dominate," I think would be the appropriate term.

Compete, dominate, for either you need a more advanced aircraft than the F-22 or F-35.

Why would they ever do that when those 3 countries you just listed are already heavily invested in the F-35? And so is the US for that matter, especially at this point in time. It wouldn't make any sense and not just that, orders for those 3 wouldn't necessarily balance or reduce the cost per unit and effectively for more USAF orders, especially when you factor in that Israel more than likely wouldn't be paying for any of those. It's not that simple, especially with the current production line of the F-35.

They may be invested in the F-35, but they are also developing aircraft that have the opposite performance qualities as the F-35. The USAF did publicly concede that the F-22's kinematic capabilities alone give it a greater advantage over the F-35.

Take Israel for example, they are getting the F-35s, but they still want to invest in more F-15Es instead of opting for more F-35s.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/israel-continues-talks-over-additional-f-15s-435303/

 

[gambit]

Don't blame others for the post you made.

Am blaming you for the posts you made without knowing the contexts.

Read this report:
https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/HASC-ETC-PrabhakarA-20160224.pdf

He was being perfectly correct.

No, he was wrong. And so are you.

I went off the Internet for one week. I asked earlier for you or Mr. Critical to supply some foreign pilots who charged that the Red Flag exercises are 'rigged'. I would think that after one week, there should be no problems. And yet, I find none from the both of you. What you guys said were essentially baseless speculations and insulting to the thousands of pilots -- US and foreign -- who went thru the program. I see a couple of inexperience and ignorant Internet kids believing themselves to be more knowledgeable and smarter than trained professionals.

Your assertion that you have ability to simulate adversary emissions because you have a record of it (99.99% as you mentioned) is plain ignorant simply because of the fact that the adversary emissions have become highly dynamic as mentioned by DARPA's director and you can't rely on previous records of what you have captured.

You want to see ignorance ? Go look in the mirror.

From your argument regarding unknown and uncatalogued signals, we can be assured that in your ignorance, there can be only one response to any unknown and uncatalogued signals: countermeasure or 'jam'.

YOU ARE WRONG. The both of you.

You cited a Congressional testimony. I will do you one better.

https://www.darpa.mil/program/adaptive-radar-countermeasures

Current airborne electronic warfare (EW) systems must first identify a threat radar to determine the appropriate preprogrammed electronic countermeasure (ECM) technique. This approach loses effectiveness as radars evolve from fixed analog systems to programmable digital variants with unknown behaviors and agile waveforms. Future radars will likely present an even greater challenge as they will be capable of sensing the environment and adapting transmissions and signal processing to maximize performance and mitigate interference effects.

In other words, we already know of future threats.

The goal of the Adaptive Radar Countermeasures (ARC) program is to enable U.S. airborne EW systems to automatically generate effective countermeasures against new, unknown and adaptive radars in real-time in the field.

In other words, the Rafale is not the only one who can real time analyze unknown signals and generate countermeasures. But that is not the point I am making following.

ARC technology will:

Isolate unknown radar signals in the presence of other hostile, friendly and neutral signals.

Since we have concluded that your response to an unknown signal is to jam it. The real professionals in the field completely disagrees with the both of you.

Note the highlighted.

There are three types of signals: friendly, hostile, and unknown ( neutral ).

This automatically results in three different responses.

We can ignore the friendly.

We can jam the hostile.

But an unknown signal must not automatically be classified as hostile as the unknown signal could be an amalgamation of different signals especially in an EM rich environment. An automatic response to an unknown signal could be counterproductive as it would reveal -- to a listening adversary -- one's own technical capabilities in meeting unknown signals. An automatic response should be the response of last resort.

If you have any experience in working with radios, you would have known of the crossed signals or interference or contamination issue. Radar signals are no different. When freqs and amplitudes are similar enough, two or more signals can be of either constructive or destructive interference. But since you made that absurd declaration, we can assured that you have no experience in working with radios or any EM related fields.

Which leads up to my next point...

The Su-35 for example is capable of generating brand new radar signals which even the pilot or anybody else connected to the aircraft are not aware of at the time the signal is generated. And at the same time its EW suite is capable of reacting to unknown adversary signals with little issues.

Well...Whoop dee doo...

Wait for it...

And what makes it worse is the F-35 is still reliant on a library of signals, it is unable to react to signals that have not been catalogued.

This argument is MONUMENTALLY stupid.

You are essentially saying the F-35 is 'backwards' for relying upon what is called a 'threat library', which I earlier called a 'code library'.

To start off...How can you tell if a signal is 'friendly' or 'hostile' or 'unknown' ?

You cannot unless you have said threat library or catalogued signals.

A SIGINT threat library is necessary to enhance classification and offers FLEXIBILITY in formulating appropriate responses. An unknown signal could have characteristics similar to friendly signals and comparison against a threat library would give the operator a better alternative than to simply 'jam' said unknown signal. An automatic destructive countermeasure response in this situation would be the EW equivalent of fratricide.

Scenario:

F-35 with a populated threat library encounters five radar signals. Based upon comparisons with the threat library, there are:

- Two friendlies
- One hostile
- And two unknowns.

Responses are:

- Ignore the friendlies.
- Jam the hostile.
- Analyze the unknown.

Based upon the analyses of the two unknown signals, the F-35 determined that one unknown signal did not came from the threat region, its signal characteristics such as amplitude and freq were erratic and non-directional, so the conclusion for this signal is low risk. For the other unknown signal, while it did not conformed to any known signatures, there are distinct characteristics that are similar to known threats, so the conclusion for this signal is high threat and even appropriate for countermeasures.

Rafale with a blank threat library encounters five radar signals. Responses are either ignore all or jam all.

Dumbass Rafale.

But wait a minute...

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-wide-range-of-smart-and-discrete-sensors/

Also instrumental in SPECTRA’s performance is a threat library that can be easily defined, integrated and updated on short notice by users in their own country, and in full autonomy.

The Rafale does have a threat library, just like the 'backwards' F-35 does...

Look at the Rafale's sales brochure again: '...can be easily defined, integrated and updated on short notice by users in their own country, and in full autonomy.

What that mean is that if you buy the Rafale, if YOU do not populate that threat library, the jet is essentially useless. So what if the Rafale can replicate -- in real time -- any signal it encounters ? This is the feature that you persistently made as superior to the F-35.

Remember, there are three types of signals: friendly, hostile, and unknown ( neutral ).

Without a threat library, ALL signals would be classified by the Rafale as 'unknown'. What the fvck good is that ? But now it turned out the Rafale is just as dependent on a threat library as the F-35 -- that you ridiculed.

The bigger issue is you use your biases to disseminate incorrect/obsolete information by taking advantage of their ignorance on the subject.

Kid, I informed this forum on military aviation in general, and in radar and 'stealth' in particulars, in ways that you and Mr. Critical can NEVER match. And this debate further cement that.

But am not done with this issue regarding the Rafale...

A long time ago, I pointed out the Rafale's SPECTRA weakness -- frequency agility by the threat radar.

Normally, I do not use paywalled sources like IEEE because I understand that not everyone can afford or access such services. But in very rare occasions with stubborn people like you, I will make exceptions.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6377067/

Inside that paper is this significant paragraph...

Coherent transmission and integration allow the radar to perform coherent Doppler processing. The common temporal waveform for this kind of operation is batches of constant frequency and PRI. These batches can last from a few pulses to a few hundred of pulses. This means that for scanning radars, the parameters change from one main lobe hit to the next. For the EW system, classification of such a signal becomes a complicated task.

Note the highlighted, particularly the word 'batches'.

The foundation of radar detection and electronics warfare is statistics. One of the core items of statistics is SAMPLING.

Given the ability of a hostile radar regarding frequency agility, there is no way for the SPECTRA system to adequately sample every 'batch' to create a coherent response. Even weather radars can have variable pulse trains as a method to filter out specific weather phenomena, but here we are talking about the radars of the F-22 and F-35.

http://www.edwards.af.mil/Portals/50/documents/772/AFD-141126-076.pdf?ver=2016-06-23-110404-277

1.35 million pulses per second (10 CW emitters)

That is just one example of a pulse train and that is PUBLIC INFORMATION. Millions of pulses per second.

Now if we bring in a threat radar that is capable of varying its freq, amplitude, pulse trains, and pulse characteristics, under what physical laws is SPECTRA operating under to adequately sample EACH pulse train in order to create an adequate countermeasure -- jamming -- signal ?

Are you willing to put the Rafale under the same testing environment as you advocate for the F-35 with the F-35 as its adversary ?

Let me guess -- according to you, SPECTRA does not need to sample at all.

 

[CriticalThought]

Am blaming you for the posts you made without knowing the contexts.


No, he was wrong. And so are you.

I went off the Internet for one week. I asked earlier for you or Mr. Critical to supply some foreign pilots who charged that the Red Flag exercises are 'rigged'. I would think that after one week, there should be no problems. And yet, I find none from the both of you. What you guys said were essentially baseless speculations and insulting to the thousands of pilots -- US and foreign -- who went thru the program. I see a couple of inexperience and ignorant Internet kids believing themselves to be more knowledgeable and smarter than trained professionals.


You want to see ignorance ? Go look in the mirror.

From your argument regarding unknown and uncatalogued signals, we can be assured that in your ignorance, there can be only one response to any unknown and uncatalogued signals: countermeasure or 'jam'.

YOU ARE WRONG. The both of you.

You cited a Congressional testimony. I will do you one better.

https://www.darpa.mil/program/adaptive-radar-countermeasures

In other words, we already know of future threats.


In other words, the Rafale is not the only one who can real time analyze unknown signals and generate countermeasures. But that is not the point I am making following.


Since we have concluded that your response to an unknown signal is to jam it. The real professionals in the field completely disagrees with the both of you.

Note the highlighted.

There are three types of signals: friendly, hostile, and unknown ( neutral ).

This automatically results in three different responses.

We can ignore the friendly.

We can jam the hostile.

But an unknown signal must not automatically be classified as hostile as the unknown signal could be an amalgamation of different signals especially in an EM rich environment. An automatic response to an unknown signal could be counterproductive as it would reveal -- to a listening adversary -- one's own technical capabilities in meeting unknown signals. An automatic response should be the response of last resort.

If you have any experience in working with radios, you would have known of the crossed signals or interference or contamination issue. Radar signals are no different. When freqs and amplitudes are similar enough, two or more signals can be of either constructive or destructive interference. But since you made that absurd declaration, we can assured that you have no experience in working with radios or any EM related fields.

Which leads up to my next point...


Well...Whoop dee doo...

Wait for it...


This argument is MONUMENTALLY stupid.

You are essentially saying the F-35 is 'backwards' for relying upon what is called a 'threat library', which I earlier called a 'code library'.

To start off...How can you tell if a signal is 'friendly' or 'hostile' or 'unknown' ?

You cannot unless you have said threat library or catalogued signals.

A SIGINT threat library is necessary to enhance classification and offers FLEXIBILITY in formulating appropriate responses. An unknown signal could have characteristics similar to friendly signals and comparison against a threat library would give the operator a better alternative than to simply 'jam' said unknown signal. An automatic destructive countermeasure response in this situation would be the EW equivalent of fratricide.

Scenario:

F-35 with a populated threat library encounters five radar signals. Based upon comparisons with the threat library, there are:

- Two friendlies
- One hostile
- And two unknowns.

Responses are:

- Ignore the friendlies.
- Jam the hostile.
- Analyze the unknown.

Based upon the analyses of the two unknown signals, the F-35 determined that one unknown signal did not came from the threat region, its signal characteristics such as amplitude and freq were erratic and non-directional, so the conclusion for this signal is low risk. For the other unknown signal, while it did not conformed to any known signatures, there are distinct characteristics that are similar to known threats, so the conclusion for this signal is high threat and even appropriate for countermeasures.

Rafale with a blank threat library encounters five radar signals. Responses are either ignore all or jam all.

Dumbass Rafale.

But wait a minute...

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-wide-range-of-smart-and-discrete-sensors/

The Rafale does have a threat library, just like the 'backwards' F-35 does...

Look at the Rafale's sales brochure again: '...can be easily defined, integrated and updated on short notice by users in their own country, and in full autonomy.

What that mean is that if you buy the Rafale, if YOU do not populate that threat library, the jet is essentially useless. So what if the Rafale can replicate -- in real time -- any signal it encounters ? This is the feature that you persistently made as superior to the F-35.

Remember, there are three types of signals: friendly, hostile, and unknown ( neutral ).

Without a threat library, ALL signals would be classified by the Rafale as 'unknown'. What the fvck good is that ? But now it turned out the Rafale is just as dependent on a threat library as the F-35 -- that you ridiculed.


Kid, I informed this forum on military aviation in general, and in radar and 'stealth' in particulars, in ways that you and Mr. Critical can NEVER match. And this debate further cement that.

But am not done with this issue regarding the Rafale...

A long time ago, I pointed out the Rafale's SPECTRA weakness -- frequency agility by the threat radar.

Normally, I do not use paywalled sources like IEEE because I understand that not everyone can afford or access such services. But in very rare occasions with stubborn people like you, I will make exceptions.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6377067/

Inside that paper is this significant paragraph...

Coherent transmission and integration allow the radar to perform coherent Doppler processing. The common temporal waveform for this kind of operation is batches of constant frequency and PRI. These batches can last from a few pulses to a few hundred of pulses. This means that for scanning radars, the parameters change from one main lobe hit to the next. For the EW system, classification of such a signal becomes a complicated task.

Note the highlighted, particularly the word 'batches'.

The foundation of radar detection and electronics warfare is statistics. One of the core items of statistics is SAMPLING.

Given the ability of a hostile radar regarding frequency agility, there is no way for the SPECTRA system to adequately sample every 'batch' to create a coherent response. Even weather radars can have variable pulse trains as a method to filter out specific weather phenomena, but here we are talking about the radars of the F-22 and F-35.

http://www.edwards.af.mil/Portals/50/documents/772/AFD-141126-076.pdf?ver=2016-06-23-110404-277

That is just one example of a pulse train and that is PUBLIC INFORMATION. Millions of pulses per second.

Now if we bring in a threat radar that is capable of varying its freq, amplitude, pulse trains, and pulse characteristics, under what physical laws is SPECTRA operating under to adequately sample EACH pulse train in order to create an adequate countermeasure -- jamming -- signal ?

Are you willing to put the Rafale under the same testing environment as you advocate for the F-35 with the F-35 as its adversary ?

Let me guess -- according to you, SPECTRA does not need to sample at all.

Hey why do u keep bundling me up with that guy? All I said is, the lack of operational testing makes me suspicious of where F-35 stands to the point that I suspect Red Flag. But now, the latest Combat Airforces issue says OT will begin soon. As soon as that happens, I shall have suspicions no more.

I have nothing to do with claims made by randomradio etc.

 

[randomradio]

Am blaming you for the posts you made without knowing the contexts.


No, he was wrong. And so are you.

I went off the Internet for one week. I asked earlier for you or Mr. Critical to supply some foreign pilots who charged that the Red Flag exercises are 'rigged'. I would think that after one week, there should be no problems. And yet, I find none from the both of you. What you guys said were essentially baseless speculations and insulting to the thousands of pilots -- US and foreign -- who went thru the program. I see a couple of inexperience and ignorant Internet kids believing themselves to be more knowledgeable and smarter than trained professionals.

I never claimed Red Flag was rigged. You were the one who brought it up.

You want to see ignorance ? Go look in the mirror.

From your argument regarding unknown and uncatalogued signals, we can be assured that in your ignorance, there can be only one response to any unknown and uncatalogued signals: countermeasure or 'jam'.

YOU ARE WRONG. The both of you.

You cited a Congressional testimony. I will do you one better.

https://www.darpa.mil/program/adaptive-radar-countermeasures

In other words, we already know of future threats.

What's this got to do with what I said? Everybody knows of upcoming threats. I'm saying the F-35 team "forgot" to develop something that can fight against such threats.

In other words, the Rafale is not the only one who can real time analyze unknown signals and generate countermeasures. But that is not the point I am making following.

Ridiculous. I already said they have the technology, but the F-35 is not equipped with it.

This thing:
Adaptive Radar Countermeasures

The F-35 doesn't have it.

Since we have concluded that your response to an unknown signal is to jam it. The real professionals in the field completely disagrees with the both of you.

Note the highlighted.

There are three types of signals: friendly, hostile, and unknown ( neutral ).

This automatically results in three different responses.

We can ignore the friendly.

We can jam the hostile.

But an unknown signal must not automatically be classified as hostile as the unknown signal could be an amalgamation of different signals especially in an EM rich environment. An automatic response to an unknown signal could be counterproductive as it would reveal -- to a listening adversary -- one's own technical capabilities in meeting unknown signals. An automatic response should be the response of last resort.

If you have any experience in working with radios, you would have known of the crossed signals or interference or contamination issue. Radar signals are no different. When freqs and amplitudes are similar enough, two or more signals can be of either constructive or destructive interference. But since you made that absurd declaration, we can assured that you have no experience in working with radios or any EM related fields.

Wow man, way to go with the strawman arguments.

This is how your argument is:
I make Point A. You make Point B, connect it to Point A, and then refute Point B. And then claim Point A is wrong.

What I said is if you are dealing with a hostile unknown frequency that's threatening your existence and you HAVE to react to it, you can't do jack shit against it. That's it. This is my point A. Don't bring in your BS point B with "Oh, we need to first classify it" nonsense. I am talking about what comes well after that.

This argument is MONUMENTALLY stupid.

You are essentially saying the F-35 is 'backwards' for relying upon what is called a 'threat library', which I earlier called a 'code library'.

To start off...How can you tell if a signal is 'friendly' or 'hostile' or 'unknown' ?

You cannot unless you have said threat library or catalogued signals.

This is what will get you killed in a future battlefield. You need the ability to catalogue a signal real time, which is easy. And then react to it effectively. The latter is what's missing in the F-35.

An automatic destructive countermeasure response in this situation would be the EW equivalent of fratricide.

The problem is you are confused between unclassified signals and dynamic "unknown but hostile" signals.

Think of this situation, you know the emitter is hostile. All signals coming out of it are hostile and you have to react to it. But you can react to it only if you can compare it with the threat library.

Scenario:

F-35 with a populated threat library encounters five radar signals. Based upon comparisons with the threat library, there are:

- Two friendlies
- One hostile
- And two unknowns.

Responses are:

- Ignore the friendlies.
- Jam the hostile.
- Analyze the unknown.

Based upon the analyses of the two unknown signals, the F-35 determined that one unknown signal did not came from the threat region, its signal characteristics such as amplitude and freq were erratic and non-directional, so the conclusion for this signal is low risk. For the other unknown signal, while it did not conformed to any known signatures, there are distinct characteristics that are similar to known threats, so the conclusion for this signal is high threat and even appropriate for countermeasures.

Yeah, you are talking about something else. I'm talking about the "appropriate countermeasures". The F-35 pilot has no control over the "appropriate countermeasures". Do you understand the problem now?

All the F-35 can do is classify the threat.

Rafale with a blank threat library encounters five radar signals. Responses are either ignore all or jam all.

Dumbass Rafale.

But wait a minute...

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/a-wide-range-of-smart-and-discrete-sensors/

The Rafale does have a threat library, just like the 'backwards' F-35 does...

Look at the Rafale's sales brochure again: '...can be easily defined, integrated and updated on short notice by users in their own country, and in full autonomy.

What that mean is that if you buy the Rafale, if YOU do not populate that threat library, the jet is essentially useless. So what if the Rafale can replicate -- in real time -- any signal it encounters ? This is the feature that you persistently made as superior to the F-35.

Remember, there are three types of signals: friendly, hostile, and unknown ( neutral ).

Without a threat library, ALL signals would be classified by the Rafale as 'unknown'. What the fvck good is that ? But now it turned out the Rafale is just as dependent on a threat library as the F-35 -- that you ridiculed.

I havta keep repeating it I guess. The Rafale has the ability to employ "appropriate countermeasures", the F-35 doesn't. The Rafale can do so automatically, without the pilot input.

A long time ago, I pointed out the Rafale's SPECTRA weakness -- frequency agility by the threat radar.

Ridiculous. I argued along the same lines to people who are qualified to speak about the Rafale. Frequency agility is not SPECTRA's weakness. That's why Rafale can employ "appropriate countermeasures" in the first place.

Rafale has Adaptive Radar Countermeasures, the F-35 doesn't.

Normally, I do not use paywalled sources like IEEE because I understand that not everyone can afford or access such services. But in very rare occasions with stubborn people like you, I will make exceptions.

Great. Another strawman attack, now attack my financial status. Yes, I am poorer than you. So you win. Great.

All you did is post general information that you can get from non-paywall sources.

The foundation of radar detection and electronics warfare is statistics. One of the core items of statistics is SAMPLING.

Given the ability of a hostile radar regarding frequency agility, there is no way for the SPECTRA system to adequately sample every 'batch' to create a coherent response. Even weather radars can have variable pulse trains as a method to filter out specific weather phenomena, but here we are talking about the radars of the F-22 and F-35.

That is just one example of a pulse train and that is PUBLIC INFORMATION. Millions of pulses per second.

You are still living in the 90s. Even open source signals are now 5 billion pulses per second.

Now if we bring in a threat radar that is capable of varying its freq, amplitude, pulse trains, and pulse characteristics, under what physical laws is SPECTRA operating under to adequately sample EACH pulse train in order to create an adequate countermeasure -- jamming -- signal ?

Let me guess -- according to you, SPECTRA does not need to sample at all.

The Rafale can do everything the F-35 can do of course. It naturally uses a threat library. But the F-35 is restricted to the threat library. For example, the F-35 can pick up hostile signals, sample it, correlate it with signals in its threat library and then create a response, the Rafale can do the same as well. But what makes Rafale special is it can create a response to completely unknown hostile signals as well.

Say the F-35 and Rafale are tasked to take out a S-400 battery. Both aircraft are able to jam the S-400's fire control radar. But the S-400 is smart and it quickly creates entirely new signals which it has never generated before. This means both the Rafale and F-35 don't have these signals in their respective libraries. While the F-35 is unresponsive in this situation, the Rafale is responsive. That's what's special about Rafale.

What's even more special is, since the Rafale already knows the signals are hostile, it has the ability to react to single pulses and not just an entire pulse train. So its response starts from the very first pulse.

So, when I mentioned "unknown" signals, while you were talking about classifying a generally unknown signal into hostile or non-hostile, I was talking about creating a response to a signal that has already been classified as hostile at that moment.

What sucks for the F-35 is, in all their glory, they decided to not give the pilot access to create a response to this unknown signal. So futuristic.

This is the reason why the Israelis asked for the addition of an ECM pod on their jet. No other reason. They wanted full spectrum EA capability. And they wanted the pilot to be able to control the response to new threats.

By the way, you have the same technology as what's on Rafale. The problem is you haven't deployed it. What's sitting in a lab is useless.

The USAF wants to develop something similar as SPECTRA for their tankers.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/mil...orce-wants-a-cloaking-device-for-its-tankers/
General Carlton Everhart, head of the Air Mobility Command, told Bloomberg News that the solution may involve "technology to alter the plane's radar image, or waveform, so it appears to be 'either in a different location in the air' or 'reduced or disappears altogether: Now you see me, now you don't.'"

The Growler is also going to be equipped with active cancellation technology, where the point is to remove the target echo in a reflected signal. The same thing that the General above is talking about.

That's why:
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...n-ahead-of-F-16-jets/articleshow/54491801.cms
Rafale is more a competitor for the F-35. We are a generation ahead of the F-16.

Are you willing to put the Rafale under the same testing environment as you advocate for the F-35 with the F-35 as its adversary ?

The French have been begging for the chance for years now.

 

[randomradio]

Hey why do u keep bundling me up with that guy? All I said is, the lack of operational testing makes me suspicious of where F-35 stands to the point that I suspect Red Flag. But now, the latest Combat Airforces issue says OT will begin soon. As soon as that happens, I shall have suspicions no more.

I have nothing to do with claims made by randomradio etc.

He's assumed you think Red Flag is rigged. And then for some reason claimed I also said the same. Neither you nor I made any claims such as that.