The F-35 Discussion Topic (No Holds Barred II)

"F-35 Fighter Jets To Get Mysterious New 'Cyberpod' Cyberweapon"

World’s deadliest podcast?
By Kelsey D. Atherton Posted March 19, 2015

Source:
http://www.popsci.com/f-35-cyberjoint-cyberstrike-cyberfighter-gets-cyberpod-cyberwarfare

Lockheed Martin’s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is, for better or worse, the future of American military airplanes. With Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps versions costing over $100 million each, the aircraft is a jack-of-some-trades designed to replace 10 older models now in use by America and its allies. The F-35 has a lot of very different-sized shoes to fill, including one in a cyberwarfare, so it’s going to do something new: carry a "cyberpod" cyberweapon.

Like many new weapons systems, the cyberpod is cloaked in secrecy. Rear Admiral Randy Mahr, a program director on the F-35, told IHS Jane's that “industry is developing a pod that would not degrade the signature of the airplane.” Translation: The cyberpod is probably an external weapon that won't make the F-35 any less stealthy than it is now.

Cyber-attack is a broad category that encompasses everything from jamming signals to destroying laboratory equipment (i.e. centrifuges to refine weapons-grade nuclear materials) with malicious code. The common thread is that all cyber attacks target computers in some form or another.

We don't yet know what the F-35’s cyberpod will do. But in 2010 the U.S. Navy revealed a goal develop its existing cyberweapon technologies into a “Next Generation Jammer.” Made by Raytheon, the jammer fools hostile radar systems by receiving those signals, then sending back false ones directly to the source. Fast-forward five years, and it's almost certain the jammer has evolved--and that the cyberpod could do more than any jamming devices currently carried by naval aircraft. If not, what’s the cyberpoint?
 
"F-35 programme begins developing cyber-attack capability"
Marina Malenic, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
18 March 2015

Source:
http://www.janes.com/article/50036/f-35-programme-begins-developing-cyber-attack-capability

Key Points

The F-35 programme is developing a pod-mounted cyber-attack system
The offensive system is in the "prototyping phase", according to the deputy programme manager

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter programme is developing a pod-mounted cyber-attack system as it continues kinetic weapons integration, the deputy programme executive officer said on 17 March.

"Industry is developing a pod that would not degrade the signature of the airplane," said Rear Admiral Randy Mahr at the Precision Strike Association conference in Springfield, Virginia. He told IHS Jane's that the offensive system was in the "prototyping phase" and was not being designed by F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin, but declined to name the developer.

Meanwhile, Rear Adm Mahr said, the short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) B-model of the aircraft would be able to accommodate the Raytheon GBU-53/B Small Diameter Bomb Increment II (SDB II).

Some media reports have suggested that the weapon cannot be carried in the weapons bay of the F-35B - the smallest of the three variants - because the aircraft body contains a liftfan.

"SDB II will fit in the F-35B," Rear Adm Mahr said. "We have to move one hydraulic line and one wire bundle about a half-inch each to make it fit".

He noted that SDB II was still in development and would not even be ready for integration until Block IV of the F-35 programme was complete.
 
"US Air Force eyes next-gen electronic warfare, not Boeing jets"
WASHINGTON, June 1 | By Andrea Shalal

Source:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/01/usa-airforce-growlers-idUSL1N0YN1CC20150601

The U.S. Air Force on Monday said it aims to meet electronic warfare needs using next-generation aircraft such as Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter and a new long-range bomber, rather than older planes like Boeing Co's EA-18G Growler.

Air Combat Command Commander General Herbert Carlisle said the F-35 offered "some pretty impressive" electronic warfare capabilities - consisting of jamming enemy signals to make it easier for warplanes to bomb targets on the ground and other offensive actions - though he gave no details.

Carlisle said a bomber for which a contract will be awarded in coming months, and the associated "family of systems" to be rolled out in coming years, would also give the Air Force new electronic warfare capabilities.

"With the limited (budget), you've got to think harder about buying brand new legacy airplanes versus the next generation as we go forward," Carlisle told reporters after an event hosted by the Air Force Association booster group.

The comments come as Boeing is trying to secure enough orders to keep its F/A-18E/F and EA-18G fighter lines running in St. Louis. Congress is poised to add funding for 12 more jets, but the budget measures have not yet been finalized.

The Navy order, together with a likely Kuwait order for 28 jets, should keep the production line open into 2019.

U.S. Navy officials have said they have enough Boeing EA-18G Growlers to meet their own needs, but that a Navy-led study of the needs of the other services could generate demand for more of the jets for the Air Force and Marine Corps.

However, neither of the services have endorsed that view, and a Navy-led study of the joint needs has not been released.

Carlisle said he had not been fully briefed on the study, which was completed this spring, but his preference would be to opt for newer, next-generation aircraft like the bomber or F-35.

Carlisle said he expected the Air Force to pick a winner in the bomber competition in July or possibly August.

Boeing and Lockheed have teamed up to compete against Northrop Grumman Corp, builder of the B-2 bomber, for a contract valued at $50 to $80 billion.

Lieutenant General Jon Davis, the top Marine in charge of aviation, has also expressed skepticism about the need for more Growlers, citing the capabilities offered by the F-35. (Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Christian Plumb)
 
"Navy League 2015: F-35 studies next-generation EW capability"
Marina Malenic, National Harbor, Maryland - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
14 April 2015

Source:
http://www.janes.com/article/50659/navy-league-2015-f-35-studies-next-generation-ew-capability

Key Points

The F-35 programme is considering integration of a next-generation EW capability that could allow pilots to control enemy weapon systems
The evolution in EW capability is likened to the technological advancement from gravity bombs to precision munitions

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter programme is considering integration of a new pod-mounted electronic warfare (EW) capability being developed independently, the deputy programme executive officer told IHS Jane's during the during the Navy League Sea-Air-Space conference on 14 April.

"Fundamentally, it's no different than the application of electronic warfare," Rear Admiral Randy Mahr said of the new kit, which he previously referred to as an "offensive cyber" capability. "You pick a target and you apply a signal to that target."

Rear Adm Mahr declined to name the company developing the capability, noting that such industry internal research and development (IRAD) initiatives are treated as proprietary technology.

He said the company is targeting the F-35 programme for sale of the capability because "they're looking at us and the evolution of the platform. We have the processing capability, and we have the knowledge of the battle space."

The admiral described the capability as a more nuanced application of EW than that of legacy systems. "Until now, we've been trying to disrupt radar," he explained. "The next step is to try to gain control of the weapon system."

Rear Adm Mahr likened the advancement of EW in the new system to the difference between gravity bombs and precision munitions. "So far in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, electronic warfare has been the massive application of a lot of energy; we've been able to direct that energy," he said. "Now we're looking to make that energy smaller and to do something with it. This is to get in to their control systems."

Meanwhile, the F-35 programme is also examining ways to open its architecture to the integration of new technology, Adm Mahr said. "We'd like to be able to open our systems so that we can bring more things in, like this cyber capability," he said. However, opening architectures after an aircraft has been completed is a challenging task, he acknowledged.

Still, there is precedent to opening architectures after the fact. The Boeing AV-8B Harrier and the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet are just two of the Pentagon's aircraft that have been subject to such changes that allowed for technology insertion. Asked when the F-35 might have a completely open architecture, Rear Adm Mahr said: "It's probably a decade away." One of the keys to opening the architecture will be integrating international weapons. Those efforts will help the programme "learn how to integrate things efficiently without have to rebuild the whole system", he said.
 
bobbymike said:
Other than the throw away line by the IISS analyst about detection ranges articles like this should always have in the concluding paragraph something like, "Despite improvement in radar technologies stealth aircraft will always have advantages over their non-stealthy predecessors"


This should probably be the response to the hysterical articles concerning "stealth killers" utilizing low-frequency radars:

“Even the threats that can see the F-35 from a distance can’t do anything about it,” Al Norman, the Lightning II F-35 Program Chief Test Pilot said. Since these radars and weapons cannot target and lock missiles on the F-35, given the fact that these assets rely primarily on sensors operating in the X-Band, which is the focus of the F-35 RCS reduction. “Take for example a long-range threat such as the S-300 and its many variants – it can engage a 4th Generation fighter from hundreds of miles away, but the effective range against a JSF would be much, much shorter. In fact, an F-35 could get to a close range from an S-300 site and launch weapons against it, without relying on stand-off weapon engagement.“

The stealth is not the purpose of the F-35, but one of its means of breaking the enemy kill chain. “When you fly against an enemy air defense, ground-based or air-based, you always find yourself facing an X-Band radar,” says Michael P. Howe, Director of Business Development at Lockheed Martin. “Although potential adversaries – China and Russia, for example — have come up with counter-stealth radars, they continue to rely on X-Band radars for targeting and fire control.”

According to Howe, the current and planned technology phases (3I-3F) are at least 15 years ahead of the threat: “We definitely plan to evolve beyond that,” Howe added, hinting at the Block 4, scheduled for 2020 and expected to integrate several foreign weapon systems required by international partners, such as Israel, Japan and Korea.

Source:
http://defense-update.com/20150614_f35_beyond_stealth.html#.Ve34DJeGMdi
 
Well, that's obvious nonsense.
Single F-35 vs. single S-300 battery is a trivial nonsense case. That's like claiming the F-35 has no chance sitting on a runway while a S-300 battery's tracked vehicle runs over it. Not going to happen. The question is rather about F-35 flight or strike package with F-35 vs. IADS (and IADS possibly with PAK-FA and AEW&C support).

The long wavelength radars detect the plane, transmit the info about its location to other radars and IR sensors and those make the engagement possible with a focused search, lock, accurate firing solution. The missile that engages the F-35 may then use an infrared-guided missile which exposes its IR sensor only very late in the engagement for the terminal phase (relying on datalink for intercept). This enables the use of high kinetic energy missiles without overheating the IR sensor due to a high speed cruise. This was already done with IRIS-T SL and its detachable nose cone.
Alternatively, the whole thing could be done with two cooperating S-300 units as well, assuming the initially passive one is sited properly.

His scenario may be somewhat correct against shipboard AAW, but not against an IADS on land where the outlying MR SAM firing units aren't as easily detected as some picket ship would be.


I'm optimistic about such LO / VLO aircrafts' survivability over 'blue' terrain, with AEW&C and other support. I'm not convinced that they can do better deep over "red" terrain than less unaffordbale planes were able to do in their 70's or 80's period. There were huge claims about Tornado IDS survivability when flying at 100-200 ft as well, but those were questionable in face of MiG-23, MiG-29, SA-14, SA-16, SA-18 and Mainstay.
 
"First flight success for Italian-assembled F-35"
07 September, 2015 BY: Craig Hoyle

Source:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/first-flight-success-for-italian-assembled-f-35-416471/

The first F-35 Lightning II to have been assembled away from Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth site in Texas has performed its debut flight, from Cameri air base in Italy.

Conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) aircraft AL-1 completed a 1h 22min flight on 7 September, with Lockheed test pilot Bill Gigliotti having been at the controls. “As expected, the jet performed exceptionally well and without any surprises,” he said following the sortie.

Future Italian air force asset AL-1 was completed at Italy’s final assembly and check out facility (FACO) at Cameri, which was established under a cooperation agreement with the Italian government and local industry partner Alenia Aermacchi. Its debut represents “the programme’s first-ever F-35 flight outside the United States”, Lockheed notes.

Having been rolled out in March, “AL-1’s official delivery to Italy is expected by the end of the year”, the US company says.

Flightglobal’s Fleets Analyzer database records Rome as currently planning to acquire up to a combined 90 F-35As and short take-off and vertical landing B-model examples for its air force and navy. These will be completed at the Cameri FACO, along with some of the CTOL aircraft to be bought by the Netherlands.
 
The First Italian-Built F-35 Makes First Flight

Published on Sep 7, 2015

Test pilot Bill "Gigs" Gigliotti piloted the first flight of the F-35 outside the U.S. on September 7, 2015, near the Cameri, Italy, Final Assembly and Check Out (FACO) facility. Aircraft AL-1 was also produced at the FACO facility, making it the first-ever internationally produced F-35A.

https://youtu.be/ItWzV5FiCdE
 
"Italy’s F-35A Flies Inaugural European Flight"
Cameri, Italy // September 07, 2015

Source:
https://www.f35.com/news/detail/italys-f-35a-flies-inaugural-european-flight

Italy’s first F-35A Lightning II, known as AL-1 and assembled at the Cameri Final Assembly and Check Out (FACO) facility, flew for the first time today marking the program’s first-ever F-35 flight outside the United States.

Lockheed Martin F-35 test pilot Bill “Gigs” Gigliotti, lifted off the runway at 1:05 p.m. European Standard Time for a 1:22 hour check flight in AL-1 marking a historic milestone for Italy, Finmeccanica-Alenia Aermacchi manufacturing cooperation and Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT).

“The first flight of AL-1 is a monumental achievement thanks to the hard work and dedication of our Finmeccanica-Alenia Aermacchi and Lockheed Martin teammates,” said Lorraine Martin, Lockheed Martin F-35 Program General Manager. “Italy’s ‘primo volo’ (first flight) sets a firm foundation for Italy’s F-35 program and future opportunities for the Cameri FACO. My heartfelt congratulations to all who worked tirelessly to bring us to this major international program milestone.”

Today’s first flight for AL-1 went as planned. “As expected, the jet performed exceptionally well and without any surprises,” Gigliotti said. “I’m honored to have flown AL-1 on its maiden flight and grateful to the Cameri team for providing a great jet. We look forward to continued successes leading up to aircraft delivery later this year.”

The Cameri FACO is owned by the Italian government and operated by Finmeccanica-Alenia Aermacchi in association with Lockheed Martin. The Cameri FACO’s F-35 production operations began in July 2013 and ‘rolled out’ Italy’s first F-35A aircraft, AL-1, in March. AL-1’s official delivery to Italy is expected by the end of the year. The facility will assemble both Italy’s F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant and the F-35B short takeoff/vertical landing variant, and is planned to assemble the Royal Netherlands Air Force’s F-35A aircraft in the future. The F-35A and F-35B will replace Italian Air Force and Italian Navy AV-8 Harriers, Panavia Tornados and AMX fighters.

In addition to its responsibility in the operations of the FACO, Finmeccanica-Alenia Aermacchi also produces the F-35A’s full wing-sets. The work contracted to Finmeccanica-Alenia Aermacchi, a strategic co-supplier of F-35A full wing assemblies, is one of the largest manufacturing projects for the Italian F-35 program, with 835 full wing assemblies planned. Finmeccanica participates in the F-35 program also with Selex ES, responsible for various onboard electronics.

The F-35 Lightning II, a 5th generation fighter, combines advanced low observable stealth technology with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment. More than 130 production F-35s have been delivered to customers and have flown more than 38,700 cumulative fleet flight hours, fleet-wide.
 
Yesterday first Italian F-35A (AL-001) become airborne for the very first time in Cameri (near Novara in Piedmont).


Italy hails its new fighter.
 
Triton,


Great theoretical work by LockMart, but, as they say, the adversary gets a vote.


Regardless of RCS (which varies by wavelength) the probability of detection goes up by putting more energy on target.


The VHF Aesa itself has much greater tracking performance than an M-Scan VHF. Even if it detects a very weak signal (which it may do through track-before-detect or multiple-hypothesis tracking) it can revisit that spot at any frequency and with any amount of energy as long as the target's within 60 degrees of the antenna position. Or it can have continuous view over 120 deg without moving at all.


The NNIIRT 55Zh6ME is also designed to hand off to a UHF Aesa (decimetric) and then to a VHF. This is designed to make it less easy to break the kill chain at the VHF-to-X-band handoff. But again, the idea is that the higher-frequency radars have been cued and are operating as RF searchlights.
 
That's not what "breaking the kill chain" means.


A kill chain represents the entire sequence of events & equipment involved in the process of Detecting, ID'ing, Tracking, Engaging, and Hitting a target.


If you can degrade one or more of those items to the extent of negating it's ability to do it's job, then the entire chain is broken.
 
The other plan, so I have heard, is to bypass the X-Band stage altogether:

A. Low frequency radars detect a stealth aircraft to a reasonable precision.
B. S-400 fires a missile to that stealth aircraft box (with tracking updates).
C. When S-400 missile gets within range, the S-400 uses its own X-Band radar to detect the stealth aircraft and conduct terminal homing.

The engagement requirement here is that the low frequency radar maintain a track tighter than the radar engagement window of the S-400 missile (against a low observable target). Provided that is the case, then this defense scheme requires no X-Band search beam at all.
 
DrRansom said:
The other plan, so I have heard, is to bypass the X-Band stage altogether:

A. Low frequency radars detect a stealth aircraft to a reasonable precision.
B. S-400 fires a missile to that stealth aircraft box (with tracking updates).
C. When S-400 missile gets within range, the S-400 uses its own X-Band radar to detect the stealth aircraft and conduct terminal homing.

The engagement requirement here is that the low frequency radar maintain a track tighter than the radar engagement window of the S-400 missile (against a low observable target). Provided that is the case, then this defense scheme requires no X-Band search beam at all.

"the S-400 uses its own X-Band radar to detect the stealth aircraft"

There's the problem. Can you get it close enough for the small, expensive, radar on the missile to detect the stealth aircraft?
 
Not only will the much smaller killbox be a problem, but the EA functions of the APG-81 will be pumping out so many electrons that it will either spoof or fry the seeker.
 
Have you seen how large the S-400 missiles are? This is like putting a guided seeker-head on a SM-6. If any weapon is going to have enough power, it will be these missiles.

Self-defense jamming is one possibility, may depend on the engagement geometry and if the missile has secondary home-on-jam.

I just put the theory there, use the missile active homing to close the accuracy gap caused by low frequency radars. It remains to be seen if it is possible.
 
DrRansom said:
Have you seen how large the S-400 missiles are? This is like putting a guided seeker-head on a SM-6. If any weapon is going to have enough power, it will be these missiles.

SM-6's seeker is the same as AIM-120s so that's probably a non-starter. (S-400s front end is much larger than SM-6's but even so, unless you can drop it inside a mile or two, with favorable shot geometry, you'd need a fighter-sized radar.)

 
It's not only the reduced shot basket, smaller sized radar, but also the simplicity of the seeker electronics and it's inability to deal with advanced jamming techniques ...


Then throw in jamming from a F-35 5-10 miles away from the intended target and it get's real hard for a SAM to ever find an F-35.
 
I see the pews at the Church of the Immaculate Assumption are full today.


Unless the intercept is at the missile's kinematic range limit, why should I engage nose-on? Let alone in the 120-deg. cone of jammer coverage...


Also amusing to see some people's choice of sources for graphics.
 
LowObservable said:
I see the pews at the Church of the Immaculate Assumption are full today.

Because your assumptions are the correct ones right? ;)


LowObservable said:
Unless the intercept is at the missile's kinematic range limit, why should I engage nose-on? Let alone in the 120-deg. cone of jammer coverage...

So your plan is to wait until after they've blown up your SAM site and hit 'em when they're leaving? Uhm. . .okay.

LowObservable said:
Also amusing to see some people's choice of sources for graphics.

What's amusing is that you actually think there's anything significant about it. Unless you think the sources of the information on the graphic (not the graphic itself) are incorrect?
 
No, I don't assume anything.


Controlling the engagement geometry is not a choice of head-on or tail-on. Please say whether you disagree with that statement.


The graphic's probably accurate - considering the source.
 
LowObservable said:
No, I don't assume anything.

Based on your comment, "I see the pews at the Church of the Immaculate Assumption are full today." you appear to be making assumptions about various posters no?


LowObservable said:
Controlling the engagement geometry is not a choice of head-on or tail-on. Please say whether you disagree with that statement.

Obviously there are more options than just head-on or tail-on. How likely others angles are to present themselves, given likely defensive deployments, and likely offensive strategies, is another matter. (Then again we have the planning brilliance that led to the F-117 shoot down so I suppose anything is possible.)


LowObservable said:
The graphic's probably accurate - considering the source.

Yes, it's probably a safe bet that NIIP and Rosvooruzheniye know what their radars can do.
 
Well, S-300 / S-400 has ranges in excess of 250km, giving the missile site a lot of room to work with for trajectory shaping. I guess this would explain some of the recent research into constrained terminal trajectory guidance algorithms.

If the trajectory is shaped to come down from the vertical direction (which is available when the missile is not flying out to maximum range) then the engagement gives the missile:
Maximum energy for end-game maneuvers
Maximum target cross-section, allowing the smaller missile radar to detect the target at a reasonable range
Minimum target electronic warfare, especially if target EW is through the radar.

Also, reasonable range may be as low as a few kilometers, depending upon the accuracy of the low frequency radar.
 
"Belgium Forced to Buy F-35 If Nuclear Strike Mission Maintained"
(Source: L’Avenir; published April 19, 2015

Source:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/162912/no-alternative-to-f_35-if-belgium-keeps-nuke-mission.html

(Published in French; unofficial translation by Defense-Aerospace.com)
How will we replace our F-16 fighter-bombers? Experts and industry officials suggest that a single criterion contained in the specification - the ability to carry a nuclear bomb - may swing the competition to favor the American F-35 over its four potential competitors.

"If the nuclear requirement is included in the Request for Proposal, the tender that the Defence ministry must issue in the autumn), the door is wide open for the F-35,” an industry officials told the Belga news agency.

Of the five aircraft currently competing to replace, from 2023, the aging F-16s (Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II; Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet; Dassault Aviation Rafale F3R; Saab JAS-39E/F Gripen and Airbus Group Eurofighter), only the F-35 will be able to operate the nuclear strike mission carrying the American B-61 nuclear free-fall bomb.

For decades, Belgium has assumed nuclear missions within NATO, but these were gradually reduced to one, assigned to fighter-bombers stationed at Kleine-Brogel air base (F-84E, F-104G and since 1982 the F-16A). These aircraft are able to carry and drop the American B-61 nuclear bomb, although the presence of these weapons on Belgian air bases - ten to twenty bombs, according to unofficial estimates - is generally "neither confirmed nor denied."

The current Minister of Defense, Steven Vandeput (N-VA), suggested last month that the precise requirements to be answered aircraft to succeed the F-16 will be identified in the strategic plan that he is preparing to submit to the government cabinet in the coming weeks.

"The technical specifications depend on the level of commitment, and we will define in the strategic plan exactly what is expected of the new fighter," he told the Parliamentary Defense Committee, without however providing any further clarification.

If Belgium decided to retain its only remaining nuclear task, and if the RFP confirms this requirement, only the F-35A - the conventional take-off and landing version of the new American Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) will be compliant.

This aircraft was designed for a dual role (conventional and nuclear) and should be able to carry the B-61 nuclear bomb later in its development, probably after 2022. This is not the case for the other contenders for the Belgian competition, with the exception of the French Rafale.

The Boeing F-18E Super Hornet is not nuclear-capable, Hans Kristensen, a nuclear expert at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) told Belga on Thursday. The Swedish government for its part prohibits any Gripen sales that could involve a nuclear role. As for the Airbus Group’s Eurofighter, it was conceived as an interceptor and is only acquiring attack capabilities very slowly. No European user (Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Spain and Austria) has however considered giving it a nuclear capability.

There remains the case of the French Rafale. This aircraft, which its manufacturer describes as "omnirole," is capable of carrying a nuclear weapon, this is the ASMP-A missile (improved medium range air-to-ground missile), developed in France for France’s nuclear forces, and thus not easily exportable. As for the integration of the American B-61 on the Rafale, it appears as politically unrealistic and financially costly, say industrialists and experts.


(EDITOR’S NOTE: Some observers say the Belgian defense staff is using the nuclear argument to push its preferred fighter, the F-35, without appearing to meddle in the selection process.
Others say that the nuclear issue is a red herring, and that the decision rests on whether the Belgian government wants to align its air force with the Netherlands (F-35) or with France, in which case it would go with Rafale.
In both cases, aircraft performance and price are likely to have very little influence on the final decision.)
 
DrRansom said:
Well, S-300 / S-400 has ranges in excess of 250km, giving the missile site a lot of room to work with for trajectory shaping. I guess this would explain some of the recent research into constrained terminal trajectory guidance algorithms.

If the trajectory is shaped to come down from the vertical direction (which is available when the missile is not flying out to maximum range) then the engagement gives the missile:
Maximum energy for end-game maneuvers
Maximum target cross-section, allowing the smaller missile radar to detect the target at a reasonable range
Minimum target electronic warfare, especially if target EW is through the radar.

Also, reasonable range may be as low as a few kilometers, depending upon the accuracy of the low frequency radar.

Wouldn't it still be carrying a small X-band radar that stealth is specifically meant to defeat?
 
Yes, the missile will still be operating in F-35's best RCS range. But when diving from above, that 'should' give the missile a relatively large RCS target. Depends if the F-35 has shaping to protect it against radar operating from above.

Also, the theory relies on the F-35 becoming a reasonable target at a reasonably short range.

As I said, it isn't a fool-proof system, but it does offer some intriguing ways of bypassing the problem of low precision in low frequency radars.
 
The F-35's EODAS had a YATO function (You Are The One) which alerts the pilot that a missile is headed for him. Knowing this, the pilot has the option to change his approach so that the F-35 will no longer be in the basket when the SAM comes down.


btw, Because of the way that the APG-81 is tilted back, it can direct EW energy almost directly up and would certainly be able to affect SAMs at any position in their flight.
 
Extreme edge of scan = reduced aperture.


And if you're looking for an HPM-type effect, you either need a lot of power or to couple through the antenna.


Source for the "YATO" mode, other than yourself?
 
YATO source (start at the 1:00 mark)


http://youtu.be/Z7bwPLxo6u8?t=1m
 
"F-35: Now For The (Next) Hard Part, Says Bogdan"
By Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. on September 09, 2015 at 5:30 PM

Source:
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/09/f-35-now-for-the-next-hard-part-says-bogdan/

NATIONAL PRESS CLUB: The good news for the Pentagon’s largest program is that the difficult early days are almost over. The bad news: now it’s time for the next hard part.

“We are beyond slow and steady progress on the F-35 program now. We are into the phase of rapidly accelerating and growing,” said Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, program executive officer (PEO) for the F-35. After two decades of often-troubled development of ambitious technology, the F-35 will complete its roughly $50 billion development phase in 2017. Now the challenge is to build the stealth fighter in bulk and sustain the global fleet — a different but by no means easy problem.F-35 Wing Assembly Cameri Italy

“We’re going to triple the production ramp and the fielding rate on this airplane in just three years,” said Bogdan, from 40-odd new planes a year to over 120. “That gives me some pause.”

“What I most worry about and what we most have to concentrate on is the supply base,” Bogdan said. As production accelerates, suppliers must build more components for new planes — but as the fleet in service grows, the same suppliers must also build more components for spare parts. Both demands will increase at once: The more new planes produced in any given year, the more planes there’ll be in service to supply, maintain, and repair in every year that follows.

The greatest near-term challenge: Every F-35 built so far — in fact, every F-35 that will be built for a few years to come — will require some kind of modification to achieve full capability. The key component is the 3F iteration of the software package, but many aircraft will require labor-intensive physical alterations as well.

Today there are 126 F-35s of various models in service (plus 19 test aircraft); by the end of 2019, that will skyrocket to 493. “When we have those 493 airplanes out in the field in 2019, guess how many of them will be in what I consider to be the right configuration?” Bogdan asked the ComDef conference here. “Not. A. One. Every one of the airplanes coming off the production line today and coming off the production line for the next two and a half years, plus all the airplanes we’ve built already, will need some form of modification to get them up to the full capability that we promised the warfighter. That is a massive undertaking..”

The price is not just dollars but time: Taking an aircraft out of service for modifications means pilots can’t use it to train. That’s a major concern when you have to train a whole new fleet of pilots, Bodgan acknowledged, especially to meet the Air Force’s planned Initial Operational Capability (IOC) date for its F-35A model.

The key will be keeping modification work quick and throughout of airplanes high, said Bogdan. One measure the program is taking is sending “field teams” to overhaul F-35s at their bases, rather than bringing the planes back to central depots as is usual for such work. The F-35 depot capacity is nascent anyway, he said.

Modifications aren’t the only issue, however. The ALIS logistics system continues to operate far short of its potential, Bogdan said, while the five software reprogramming labs required to keep the aircraft updated just aren’t standing up fast enough.

Nevertheless, Bogdan showed every sign of confidence that the F-35 was jetting out of the woods. While the program will never be problem-free, he said, “we’re seeing problems long in advance, we’re mitigating risk long in advance, [so] where we don’t get surprised as much as we used to.”

Things should keep on getting more predictable, he went on. “When we get to LRIP 11 [Low-Rate Initial Production lot 11], we will be done with all the hardware changes and the production cut-ins for the full 3F capability,” he said. “At the start of lot 12 that we have a stable hardware and software configuration for the airplane” — which means a major reduction in risk and cost.

Production costs are already coming down by 3-4 percent from one lot to the next, Bogdan said, so on current trends, “by 2019, in fiscal year 2019 dollars, we’re going to sell an A-model for somewhere between 80 and 85 million. That’s not so bad… for the capability that you get.”
 
LowObservable said:
Extreme edge of scan = reduced aperture.


And if you're looking for an HPM-type effect, you either need a lot of power or to couple through the antenna.


Source for the "YATO" mode, other than yourself?

For coherent deception jamming, the AN/APG-81 should have a very comfortable edge over a SAM's RF seeker. YATO should go a long way in ensuring that there's adequate time for it to work its magic.
 
"Lockheed reveals Advanced EOTS targeting sensor for F-35 Block 4"
10 September, 2015 BY: James Drew Washington DC

Source:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-reveals-advanced-eots-targeting-sensor-for-416631/

Lockheed Martin has announced an improved version of its electro-optical targeting system for the F-35, called Advanced EOTS, just months after the long-delayed fifth-generation fighter was declared fit for combat with the Marine Corps.

The new sensor developed internally by Lockheed is similarly sized and shaped to fit neatly into the same forward undercarriage position on the F-35, and the first prototype is expected next year.

The new and improved capabilities include short-wave infrared, high-definition television, infrared marker and superior image detector resolution than the baseline EOTS.

Even though the company’s current targeting systems, which combines forward-looking infrared and infrared search and track for precise air-to-air and air-to-ground targeting, was considered revolutionary in the 2000s, more than 15 years have passed since it entered development and the technology and threat has moved on.

The company says the current sensor, miniaturised for low drag and stealth, meets all the contractual specifications required by the Pentagon. ut the new system offer the F-35 programme a significant leap in terms of target recognition and detection capability.

“Threats to our warfighters continue to evolve, and we have invested to develop advanced technology to combat those threats,” the company tells Flightglobal. “Our investment in Advanced EOTS is consistent with the timeline set forth by the F-35 Joint Program Office, which includes follow-on development for F-35 software and hardware in Block 4.”

The announcement comes as the Pentagon beds down what new technologies and weapons should be included in the Block 4 upgrade – set to roll in increments from 2019 to 2025.

Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control says it has delivered 170 baseline EOTS sensors to date from its sensor and datalink production facility in Orlando, Florida, and the advanced system has been designed internally “with significant investment from Lockheed Martin and its suppliers”.

It would be a further upgrade option purchased at the discretion of the DOD and international F-35 partners and customers.

“Due to its similarity in shape and size to EOTS, Advanced EOTS can be installed with minimal changes to the F-35’s interface,” Lockheed said in a 10 September news release. “It will be housed behind the same low-drag window, maintaining the F-35’s stealthy profile. Advanced EOTS production will be completed on the current EOTS line.”
 
marauder2048 said:
For coherent deception jamming, the AN/APG-81 should have a very comfortable edge over a SAM's RF seeker. YATO should go a long way in ensuring that there's adequate time for it to work its magic.


Warm radome is... warm.
 
“When we have those 493 airplanes out in the field in 2019, guess how many of them will be in what I consider to be the right configuration?” Bogdan asked the ComDef conference here. “Not. A. One."

That man needs a press agent. Very badly. That quote is going to be repeated again, and again, and again, for the next four years.....
 
DAS and BACN Passive Stereo Ballistic Missile Tracking

Published on Sep 10, 2015

In November 2013, Northrop Grumman successfully demonstrated three dimensional battlespace awareness, detecting, identifying, fusing and tracking the trajectory of a rocket launched from NASA wallops Island.

https://youtu.be/O3gJ3AetqY4
 
Triton said:
"Belgium Forced to Buy F-35 If Nuclear Strike Mission Maintained"
(Source: L’Avenir; published April 19, 2015

Source:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/162912/no-alternative-to-f_35-if-belgium-keeps-nuke-mission.html

(Published in French; unofficial translation by Defense-Aerospace.com)
How will we replace our F-16 fighter-bombers? Experts and industry officials suggest that a single criterion contained in the specification - the ability to carry a nuclear bomb - may swing the competition to favor the American F-35 over its four potential competitors.

"If the nuclear requirement is included in the Request for Proposal, the tender that the Defence ministry must issue in the autumn), the door is wide open for the F-35,” an industry officials told the Belga news agency.

...

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Some observers say the Belgian defense staff is using the nuclear argument to push its preferred fighter, the F-35, without appearing to meddle in the selection process.
Others say that the nuclear issue is a red herring, and that the decision rests on whether the Belgian government wants to align its air force with the Netherlands (F-35) or with France, in which case it would go with Rafale.
In both cases, aircraft performance and price are likely to have very little influence on the final decision.)
Emphasis mine. So as discussed earlier, like anything else in Belgium selection of F35 or not is about politics.
Personally i think 2 squadrons of nuke wired Cessnas are the best option : operationally proven, mature design, in production, cheap to procure, good user base and support network, and most importantly we can sustain them over 30+ years without having to give up half of the remaining military forces. ;)
 
sublight is back said:
“When we have those 493 airplanes out in the field in 2019, guess how many of them will be in what I consider to be the right configuration?” Bogdan asked the ComDef conference here. “Not. A. One."

That man needs a press agent. Very badly. That quote is going to be repeated again, and again, and again, for the next four years.....

Imagine what he'd have been saying about the thousand or so F-16s that got fielded with no BVR capability. ;)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom