F-35A in full loadout for first time

[gambit]

Some countries have developed the ability to replicate radar pulses of brand new never-seen-before signals on the fly, without human intervention.

Yeah...We have done it long before those 'some countries'.

You are confused on what SIGINT flights really do. The SIGINT flights conducted by the large EC platforms do more than just collect signals. Factors like direction, signal strength over time such as minutes and hours, signal characteristics when provoked and not provoked, or multiple sources are all collected and analyzed in real time.

Have you heard of the 'zero-ize' switch ?

https://www.terma.com/media/291747/alq-213_v__electronic_warfare_management_unit_v1.pdf

The switch labeled 'Data Zeroize' simply sent a data destructive signal to all components to erase everything that was collected and analyzed.

In the Hainan Incident where our EP-3E had to make an emergency landing on mainland China, the crew had plenty of time destroy everything they collected.

Been in operation on the Rafale since the last 15 years. Whereas it is yet to be ready on the F-35 because Block 3F development is yet to be over.

Pleease...

The Rafale is essentially a complete and locked down platform whereas the F-35 is fully modularized and upgradable for at least 20 more yrs. The Rafale has at best %50 potential of the F-35. Maybe %60 if am feeling generous.

 

[randomradio]

Yeah...We have done it long before those 'some countries'.

You are confused on what SIGINT flights really do. The SIGINT flights conducted by the large EC platforms do more than just collect signals. Factors like direction, signal strength over time such as minutes and hours, signal characteristics when provoked and not provoked, or multiple sources are all collected and analyzed in real time.

I was referring to fighter aircraft performing these functions, not dedicated SIGINT aircraft.

I'm talking about the fighter aircraft that can not only analyze unknown signals in real time without any operator, but also sic a missile their way using the same data, without radar input.

Have you heard of the 'zero-ize' switch ?

https://www.terma.com/media/291747/alq-213_v__electronic_warfare_management_unit_v1.pdf

The switch labeled 'Data Zeroize' simply sent a data destructive signal to all components to erase everything that was collected and analyzed.

In the Hainan Incident where our EP-3E had to make an emergency landing on mainland China, the crew had plenty of time destroy everything they collected.

Yes. Although I don't know why you brought it up.

Pleease...

The Rafale is essentially a complete and locked down platform whereas the F-35 is fully modularized and upgradable for at least 20 more yrs. The Rafale has at best %50 potential of the F-35. Maybe %60 if am feeling generous.

What makes you believe the Rafale has only 50% of the F-35's potential? Maybe if you are specific about some capabilities, we can have a more meaningful discussion.

So let me start with my 2 cents on this.

The Rafale is extremely modular and easily upgradeable, both hardware and software. Take the engine for example, you can break it into 22 pieces. You can replace any faulty piece without having to take the engine out of the aircraft. Neither the aircraft nor the engine require overhaul. The engine doesn't require a test bench either. And the aircraft never has to leave its home base for any maintenance related activities, literally never.

Another example, the Rafale has been made using one single standard. It means aircraft that were inducted in 2001 can be upgraded with the exact same electronics as an aircraft that will be inducted in 2025. And I mean, literally the exact same specifications, no deviations.

So if the hardware itself is modular to that extent, you can only imagine what the software can do. Take this as an example, the aircraft can perform multiple mission roles in a single sortie. As long as you are carrying the weapons and equipment required, you can perform air defence, strike, recce, interception, whatever you want in a single sortie with the click of a single button. That's why they call it omnirole. You don't need to land between sorties to switch roles.

Lastly, it is fully networked, not just to other aircraft but to all military assets. Literally all assets, right from the troops on the ground to warships to SAMs to satellites. For example, a warship can launch SAMs at an incoming AShM based on the Rafale's targeting data and a commander can watch the engagement 5000 miles away in real time using the Rafale's optical sensors. And during this time, the Rafale can fire an Exocet at the enemy ship and switch to engaging enemy fleet defence fighters.

 

[Gomig-21]

The core of Sprey's venom against the F-35 is that the entire program is corrupt, from top to bottom. No one is honest. Anyone who speaks positively of the jet is either a dupe or in the pay of Lockheed. I put it at the same absurdity as 9/11 is an 'inside job'.

He's also begrudged to the F-35's potential to threaten the endurance of his darling and its design, to which he was a member of it's creation, the F-16.

Pleease...

The Rafale is essentially a complete and locked down platform whereas the F-35 is fully modularized and upgradable for at least 20 more yrs. The Rafale has at best %50 potential of the F-35. Maybe %60 if am feeling generous.

You'll have to explain why you think the Rafale is a complete and locked down platform. And what is the 50%-60% related to, it's modularity and upgradability vs the F-35? Or are you referring to its capability vs the F-35?

 

[gambit]

I was referring to fighter aircraft performing these functions, not dedicated SIGINT aircraft.

I'm talking about the fighter aircraft that can not only analyze unknown signals in real time without any operator, but also sic a missile their way using the same data, without radar input.

You missed the point COMPLETELY.

Mr. CriticalThought asserted that Red Flag used only American equipment, therefore, the exercise cannot adequately simulate Soviet/Russian radars.

I pointed out the 507th ADAS has Soviet/Russian air defense systems and that we can recreate any radar signals FOR THAT EXERCISE since we collected enough SIGINT data to know.

I will repeat -- FOR THAT EXERCISE. Do you get it now ?

It has nothing to do with exercise aircraft trying to simulate Soviet/Russian radar signals. It is about creating an EM environment FOR THAT EXERCISE.

Christ Almighty...!!! Your reading comprehension problem is almost as annoying as the Chinese.

Yes. Although I don't know why you brought it up.

I doubt you know about it. But the reason I brought that feature is to show you that we have been doing real time SIGINT analyses for decades, not just collecting the signals and take it home to analyze it later.

What makes you believe the Rafale has only 50% of the F-35's potential? Maybe if you are specific about some capabilities, we can have a more meaningful discussion.

So let me start with my 2 cents on this.

Fine...The Rafale is superior to the F-22/35 in everything. Just like the J-20. The Rafale operates on a different set of physical laws.

 

[Ultima Thule]

This: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-purpose-behind-chinas-mysterious-j-20-combat-jet-2017-1

you believe news papers goood for your health all defense site like Flight global,Jane's defense weekly,aviotion weekly and global security are telling that J-20 is a counterpart of US F-22

 

[randomradio]

You missed the point COMPLETELY.

Mr. CriticalThought asserted that Red Flag used only American equipment, therefore, the exercise cannot adequately simulate Soviet/Russian radars.

I pointed out the 507th ADAS has Soviet/Russian air defense systems and that we can recreate any radar signals FOR THAT EXERCISE since we collected enough SIGINT data to know.

I will repeat -- FOR THAT EXERCISE. Do you get it now ?

It has nothing to do with exercise aircraft trying to simulate Soviet/Russian radar signals. It is about creating an EM environment FOR THAT EXERCISE.

Christ Almighty...!!! Your reading comprehension problem is almost as annoying as the Chinese.

It's you who's missing the point.

You should take a look at the snippet I quoted from your post.
This is what you said:
Currently, there are no credible technical sources that says X country is able to create radar pulse characteristics that the US cannot replicate.

My point was, "This is not a big deal, anybody can do it".

The question is no longer if you can use what you have obtained, but how fast you can analyze it and put it to use before the enemy can take advantage of that little gap between your discovery and complete analysis during the same sortie.

Okay, it's like this. You can make unique signal patterns on the fly. So when you say you are training pilots for EM threats, I'm saying that's irrelevant now because if you want to win the engagement, you are going to need systems that will do it for you immediately, and machines don't need extensive training. Pilot training against EM threats has become irrelevant because humans can't keep up with changes when you are constantly dealing with new signals.

Read up on why the Rafale was the only aircraft that could fly over a S-300 SAM in Slovakia when the rest of NATO failed, you will have an idea.

Warfare has evolved far beyond your wildest dreams. Stuff you took for granted are no longer relevant. And the difference between what you used to do in the 90s compared to today's pilots is the same as what a WW2 pilot could do compared to you in your F-16. And this difference is only going to get shorter and shorter due to the advancements in signal processing being made in the civilian industry to the point where you will have generation changes every few years and then every few months. It's an exponential curve.

I doubt you know about it.

There was a point in time when I used it every day, in a way.

In civilian circles it's called "zero out".

Take this for example:

The reset button "zeroizes" the RAM.

I bet you didn't know this.

But the reason I brought that feature is to show you that we have been doing real time SIGINT analyses for decades, not just collecting the signals and take it home to analyze it later.

I know that, but with operators. Not automatic.

The stuff you are familiar with are now being phased out with better stuff.

Fine...The Rafale is superior to the F-22/35 in everything. Just like the J-20. The Rafale operates on a different set of physical laws.

So basically, you have no information on the F-22/F-35 that will allow you to back up your claim.

Except for networking and omnirole capabilities, the F-35 isn't capable of any of the points I mentioned about the Rafale.

The Rafale operates on the same physical laws the F-22 and F-35 do, it's merely better at it. Is this your excuse every time you can't stand your ground? None of the points I made were technical in the first place, they were all very, very well known factoids about the Rafale. But then you are either way too ignorant on this subject since you have retired long before any of these aircraft came into existence or you are simply a victim of your own propaganda, this happens quite frequently even to the best of people. Basically, I'm not surprised at your reply.

 

[gambit]

It's you who's missing the point.

You should take a look at the snippet I quoted from your post.
This is what you said:
Currently, there are no credible technical sources that says X country is able to create radar pulse characteristics that the US cannot replicate.

My point was, "This is not a big deal, anybody can do it".

And it is YOU who are still missing the point, which is: Show me a signal that the US cannot replicate.

Sure, anyone can. But show me who has a set of signals that we cannot replicate. That was my question. Your point is completely off topic.

Do you get it now ? You are so eager to one-up the Americans that you failed to read the original criticism.

Read up on why the Rafale was the only aircraft that could fly over a S-300 SAM in Slovakia when the rest of NATO failed, you will have an idea.

Am sure the Rafale will be awesome -- according to the sales brochures and not in actual combat like the F-22 is over Syria.

 

[randomradio]

And it is YOU who are still missing the point, which is: Show me a signal that the US cannot replicate.

Sure, anyone can. But show me who has a set of signals that we cannot replicate. That was my question. Your point is completely off topic.

Do you get it now ? You are so eager to one-up the Americans that you failed to read the original criticism.

You still didn't get it. You are saying, "Show me one bicycle I can't ride". I'm saying, "Riding a bicycle is not a big deal".

I'm not trying to one-up the Americans or the USAF, I'm pointing out the mistake you made in believing what you claimed is a big deal.

Am sure the Rafale will be awesome -- according to the sales brochures and not in actual combat like the F-22 is over Syria.

Let me ask you a question. You were probably part of Desert Storm when you flew the F-16, I'm gonna assume you were.

Would you and your wingman have flown into Iraq on the very first day, ignored all the SAMs, hit a tank or two instead and safely flown back without a care in the world?

No? Well, the French have done it.

As for Syria, you could be flying F-15s instead of F-22s and it wouldn't make a difference. The Russians have only 8 air superiority aircraft in the region while the USAF has 150. The conflict in Syria is being influenced by diplomacy, SSNs and low tech aircraft like the Su-24, not high tech aircraft.

 

[LeGenD]

from Australian news paper good for your health
http://www.popsci.com/planes-zhuhai...uch-more-from-new-bombers-to-marsupial-drones
https://theaviationist.com/2016/11/...y-unveiled-and-ready-to-enter-active-service/
J-20 is comparable to F-22 not F-111, Su-34, Su-24 type jets but a air superiority jet

You concentrate on the arguments of the expert, not the news item.

Malcolm Davis is the expert in question and his concluding remarks are highlighted in red:

Malcolm Davis, a senior analyst at the Australia Strategic Policy Institute, told Business Insider that the J-20 is a "fundamentally different sort of aircraft than the F-35."

Davis's paper on the subject matter is an excellent read but not easily accessible on the web (I got access to it once). He has extensive knowledge of the design of various aircraft (J-20 notwithstanding) and he came to understand that J-20 is a fundamentally different aircraft than F-22 and F-35.

J-31 is expected to be a true multi-role combat aircraft design but it is far from finalization at present.

Do you people honestly think that China could develop an aircraft on par with F-22 Raptor just like that? Russia, with relatively superior aviation industry, has yet to produce an aircraft on the level of F-35, let alone F-22.

American aviation industry has no equal in reality.

you believe news papers goood for your health all defense site like Flight global,Jane's defense weekly,aviotion weekly and global security are telling that J-20 is a counterpart of US F-22

See above.

As for Syria, you could be flying F-15s instead of F-22s and it wouldn't make a difference. The Russians have only 8 air superiority aircraft in the region while the USAF has 150. The conflict in Syria is being influenced by diplomacy, SSNs and low tech aircraft like the Su-24, not high tech aircraft.

Here: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/how-f-22-is-deconflicting-u-s-russia-operations-over-syria.503754/

Russia is absolutely outmatched in conventional respect there via-a-vis US. However, US still see in Russia an adversary that deserves respect in political terms at minimum.

Russia has an official mandate in Syria [due to its political ties with Bashar regime]. US, on the other hand, is not welcome there and rather violating Syrian airspace.

Russia has a strong footing in Syria [since 2015] because US did not had any coherent strategy for Syria in the first place and did not take action there when the time was right for it. Russians owe there strong footing in Syria in part to Obama administration.

 

[gambit]

You still didn't get it. You are saying, "Show me one bicycle I can't ride". I'm saying, "Riding a bicycle is not a big deal".

I'm not trying to one-up the Americans or the USAF, I'm pointing out the mistake you made in believing what you claimed is a big deal.

Then directed your comment at THE OTHER GUY and not me because he was the one who made a big deal out of it when he claimed Red Flag is not realistic enough. That was YOUR mistake. Try to follow who made what comment. So yes, you are eager to one-up any American at the expense of looking like a fool.

 

[randomradio]

Here: https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/how-f-22-is-deconflicting-u-s-russia-operations-over-syria.503754/

Russia is absolutely outmatched in conventional respect there via-a-vis US. However, US still see in Russia an adversary that deserves respect in political terms at minimum.

Russia has an official mandate in Syria [due to its political ties with Bashar regime]. US, on the other hand, is not welcome there and rather violating Syrian airspace.

Russia has a strong footing in Syria [since 2015] because US did not had any coherent strategy for Syria in the first place and did not take action there when the time was right for it. Russians owe there strong footing in Syria in part to Obama administration.

What's more important in Syria is control over the sea lanes. That's why the SSN is more important.

As for the F-22, the article says even other aircraft are involved in deconfliction. It's simply an article meant for domestic consumption. The Russians have created rules for NATO to operate in Syria. And if NATO breaks that, they lose a destroyer. And if NATO escalates, they lose New York. That's how the conflict in Syria is. The F-22 is not playing a real role because the aircraft they are tasked to handle don't even carry radars.

The Russians are controlling Syrian airspace with attack aircraft. How about that?

 

[CriticalThought]

It's you who's missing the point.

You should take a look at

Then directed your comment at THE OTHER GUY and not me because he was the one who made a big deal out of it when he claimed Red Flag is not realistic enough. That was YOUR mistake. Try to follow who made what comment. So yes, you are eager to one-up any American at the expense of looking like a fool.

Well, sir, if I wanted to press the argument on Red Flag, I could say even with perfectly replicated signals, the organizers had fore knowledge and could feed the correct info to the F-35s. Simply put, there is no replacement for operational testing done by an independent third party. And if you have a jet that works like you claim it does, you would be jumping to make critics eat dirt. Attacking the critics with charges of being biased is just bad form.

 

[LeGenD]

What's more important in Syria is control over the sea lanes. That's why the SSN is more important.

As for the F-22, the article says even other aircraft are involved in deconfliction. It's simply an article meant for domestic consumption. The Russians have created rules for NATO to operate in Syria. And if NATO breaks that, they lose a destroyer. And if NATO escalates, they lose New York. That's how the conflict in Syria is. The F-22 is not playing a real role because the aircraft they are tasked to handle don't even carry radars.

The Russians are controlling Syrian airspace with attack aircraft. How about that?

Russia has [not] created rules for NATO to operate in Syria; both camps created rules-of-engagement for each other in Syria [in partnership] in order to avoid mid-air collisions over Syrian airspace. Cooperation was necessary.

Do you think Russia will use nuclear weapons if it comes down to exchanging blows between it and NATO over Syria? Ridiculous assumption on your part. Try to nuke New York and all bets are off.

Russia controls Syrian airspace? Who told you this? If Russia was controlling Syrian airspace, NATO would not be there. Russia cannot deter NATO from taking action in any part of the world bar its own territory. Russian nuclear deterrence is limited to the defense of its mainland [only] as a matter of Russian policy.

 

[gambit]

Well, sir, if I wanted to press the argument on Red Flag, I could say even with perfectly replicated signals, the organizers had fore knowledge and could feed the correct info to the F-35s. Simply put, there is no replacement for operational testing done by an independent third party. And if you have a jet that works like you claim it does, you would be jumping to make critics eat dirt. Attacking the critics with charges of being biased is just bad form.

Simply put, THAT is not possible. If anything, THAT would require all parties to open up their highest technical secret data. And who is going to be that independent and non-biased third party ? Am sure for such a hypothetical situation, plenty of organizations ranging from aviationweek to the Swiss could make their arguments.

Red Flag is not rigged, if that is what you are implying. If there is any 'rigging', it is for safety and no live weapons at each other.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a12350/4311433/

"There are very few restrictions to airspeeds and altitudes out here, which allows us to train like we intend to fight," Brenton says. "The extreme terrain adds additional tactical problems for students to solve, since radar-equipped aircraft have numerous blind zones behind ridges and surveillance radars cannot always see to the surface."

In how to deal with threat radars, whether it is long range volume search or high precision signals for target tracking, the approximation to the real Soviet/Russian hardware is less important than on how to differentiate between the two TYPES of signals and how to respond to each appropriately. Long range volume search have different signal characteristics than high precision pulses from higher freqs.

In real physics, these differences are independent of countries, meaning they are immediately recognized, not as coming from country A or B, but from different pulse characteristics. So there is no additional benefit to 'rig' the event to exercise members since we can use our own hardware to create those long range volume search and/or high precision signals. All the pilot needs to know is when his ECCM warns him of which type his tactics changes to match. Whether the signals are ID-ed as from country A or B is for a different scenario.

Which lead up to...

When there is a need to use Soviet/Russian signals, it is to test whether the exercise members have the necessary CODE LIBRARY or not in their ECCM packages if among their adversaries is Russia or Chinese. If they do not have it, they will virtually 'die' in that simulated combat. If the members are from an allied country, we may work out some kind of agreement to provide those codes, but that would be at the diplomatic level. The base commander is not allowed to make that kind of decision. For Pakistan, which library is more important ? India's or China's ? Add Russia's ? But does Pakistan need the threat library from the Swiss air defense radars ? Any Swiss enemy across the border ? You see the point ? The Indian guy did not.

Other than shooting live weapons at each other, Red Flag is the most realistic to combat an exercise for air forces. We continually see foreign pilots got out of their jets exhausted and bewildered, uncertain if they are readied for the next few hrs in debrief where everything they did will be taken apart. At Red Flag, your work day is 12 hrs long with 1-2 hrs of flying and at least 8 hrs of debrief.

I challenge anybody to find his country's pilots who have been to Red Flag and calls the exercise 'rigged'.

 

[randomradio]

Then directed your comment at THE OTHER GUY and not me because he was the one who made a big deal out of it when he claimed Red Flag is not realistic enough. That was YOUR mistake. Try to follow who made what comment. So yes, you are eager to one-up any American at the expense of looking like a fool.

Don't blame others for the post you made. They are not typing for you. I was talking about what you had posted.

---------------
Read this report:
https://www.darpa.mil/attachments/HASC-ETC-PrabhakarA-20160224.pdf
Cognitive Electronic Warfare (EW) DARPA’s Advanced RF Countermeasures (ARC) and Behavioral Learning for Adaptive Electronic Warfare (BLADE) programs are investing in the technologies needed to rapidly react to dynamic electromagnetic spectrum signals from adversary radar and communications systems. These programs are applying machine learning—computer algorithms that can learn from and make predictions from data—to react in real time and jam signals, including new signals that have not yet been cataloged. DARPA is working with the Services to transition technologies derived from the field of cognitive electronic warfare into the F-18, F- 35, Army Multi-Function EW program, and Next Generation Jammer.
----------------

All the stuff that you have experienced and taken for granted is irrelevant now.

When Critical Thought said this:
Well Red Flag is almost all US jets, whose radar and system capabilities they know like the back of their hands. It is also not an independent test because the same airforce leaders who are backing F-35 were involved in planning and executing Red Flag.

He was being perfectly correct. You were replying to the post about Sprey and Berke. While you dismissed Sprey, which is my opinion as well... (This is what I posted in another forum: Sprey was spouting useless crap. Berke made more sense, he was being polite and diplomatic") ...you decided to endorse the F-35 simply based on Red Flag which is still a highly controlled environment. 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.

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.

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. If you really want to test the F-35, you will need to test it against signals it has no previously held information about. Of course, the F-35 cannot react to unknown signals yet, so that's a different discussion.

Read this article as well.
https://gcn.com/articles/2016/05/10/darpa-ai.aspx
Artificial intelligence, for example, can be useful if it immediately provides a jamming profile to military pilots who encounter a new radar signal, she explained.

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

Well, sir, if I wanted to press the argument on Red Flag, I could say even with perfectly replicated signals, the organizers had fore knowledge and could feed the correct info to the F-35s. Simply put, there is no replacement for operational testing done by an independent third party. And if you have a jet that works like you claim it does, you would be jumping to make critics eat dirt. Attacking the critics with charges of being biased is just bad form.

You are perfectly correct. The system engineers have already fed the F-35's library with the adversary signals. The F-35 has no capability to react to unknown signals.

You pit it against a Russian operational jet, the F-35 won't do as well as it performed in Red Flag. But that's also why the Americans have developed the F-35 with passive stealth and EMCON in mind. Their EW capabilities have fallen behind the Europeans and Russians as of now, at least 10 years.

Russia has [not] created rules for NATO to operate in Syria; both camps created rules-of-engagement for each other in Syria [in partnership] in order to avoid mid-air collisions over Syrian airspace. Cooperation was necessary.

Do you think Russia will use nuclear weapons if it comes down to exchanging blows between it and NATO over Syria? Ridiculous assumption on your part. Try to nuke New York and all bets are off.

Russia controls Syrian airspace? Who told you this? If Russia was controlling Syrian airspace, NATO would not be there. Russia cannot deter NATO from taking action in any part of the world bar its own territory. Russian nuclear deterrence is limited to the defense of its mainland [only] as a matter of Russian policy.

The Russians threatened the world with nuclear war after their aircraft was lost to the Turks. It worked.

And you forget that the Russians have withdrawn from the agreement to share the airspace since the Tomahawk attack. Most NATO flights that Russia allows are related to combat ISIS, not Assad. Russia has also allowed the Israelis to attack Hezbollah groups that are threatening them.