The F-35 Guides Missiles Without Firing a Shot

[Ulmita]

Great publication on the VHF and UHF

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...d_applications

Anti Jamming capabilities in VHF/UHF Radar


At the classical radar frequencies, jamming scenarios with a number of stand-off jammers of defined jamming power, distance and bandwidth, as well as escort jammers and self screening jammers are defined and anti-jamming concepts are based on such assumptions. At the lower frequencies, however, the available jamming equipment is generally designed to jam communication systems, rather than radars, and thus operate at different power levels. A well defined VHF/UHF radar jamming scenario hardly exists and it is discussed, whether jamming a radar in a frequency band, where own radio communication services operate, could be efficient, at all.

Nevertheless, the application of anti-jamming procedures to low frequency radars has been addressed and trials with the VHF-experimental radar LARISSA have been conducted to verify it’s capabilities. Anti-jamming procedures like adaptive nulling require in general the use of a fully adaptive phased array antenna. Due to restrictions in the operationally tolerable size of an antenna, at VHF/UHF frequencies, the number of elements that can be realised on the antenna aperture is limited. Hence, the number of jammers that can be cancelled by adaptive nulling is also limited to a theoretical number of n-1 for n elements within the antenna aperture

- - - Updated - - -

10kw is sufficient for deceptive jamming of a Tall King, which is why the digital update for the system has improved ECCM and jammer DF capability.

Any sources you could provide i could read on that?

[Gaaz]

10kw is sufficient for deceptive jamming of a Tall King, which is why the digital update for the system has improved ECCM and jammer DF capability.

The radar is dumb, the control algorithm is not. It is capable of discerning shapes sufficient to allow BDA from the images returned prior to impact.

CAS and SEAD are very different animals, unless you expect friendly forces to be right next to long range SAMs.

Fire up those air defenses, and get HARMs on the way to the fire control radars.

Also, if you are really really worried about hitting the wrong target, you pass the location data off to an aircraft armed with SLAM-ER.

Do you actually understand english? I know that sometimes I have problems expressing my thoughts exactly when using this language, since it is not my first (or even the second). But can you please provide a SINGLE piece of technology that is used for VHF radar jamming and can be mounted on an aircraft? No "ifs", no "buts". A VHF radar jammer that is currently being used as a radar jamming equipment. Fine, even an old piece of obsolete crap will do.
Control algorithms are also dumb. Otherwise US Airforce would at least be able to differentiate it's own vehicles from enemy's. I mean ISIS does not use american APCs yet for US to bomb. Alas shit like this still happens. And since friendly fire attacks happen to this day, we have not seen any evidence of these intelligent algorithms.
I expect the area to be littered with potential targets. After all, Russia or especially China are not like Iraq desert. There will be all sorts of communication equipment, starting from satellite dishes and all the way to electrical supports that are virtually the same in shape as VHF radar recievers:

So you expect to fly close enough to a radar station, that can detect you way earlier, and guide your missiles to their radar emmiters AFTER they already launched their surface to air missiles? Just to be clear? Does anyone else see the potential problem with that? Do you also consider that short wave emitters can be a third party platform altogether, that was using data from the VHF radar to point it's systems in the right direction, and that even if you destroy it, the long range radar would still be in place? Sort of like local surface to air battery that gets target information from a distant VHF radar? After all we do expect the system to be guarded. It is not so outrageous to think that surface to air cover is done by a separate unit like S-400 with independant s-l targeting systems and not dumb surface to air installations with no targeting of their own. Or maybe it is a newer 3D system like NEBO that can actually guide missiles using VHF close enough for x-band terminal targeting systems of these missiles to kick in even against stealth target? Back to square one - can you pinpoint a VHF radar using a plane? At what distance?
I am definitely not worried of hitting a wrong target. Especially if we are talking about a collateral damage for the enemy nation (hypothetically of course). I am worried that out of a myriad of available targets, scoring an actually useful hit would be like winning a national lottery. It can happen, but I would not count on it. Unless my previous question was true and you actually expect to target them after they already locked your craft with short wave targeting systems that you can actually detect with smaller than a schoolbus sensor. Also, I am worried that an aircraft will not live long enough to even be in range for a strike, unless it is a stealth aircraft flying at less than 500m. But here we go to square one - there is no equipment available to the US airforce not only to jam, but to even detect a VHF radar, that can also be mounted on a stealth plane. Any other is going to be target locked from 400km or even further. Do you actually see a problem in it, or are you about to present a miraculous piece of technology that solves that? I am genuinely interested, really. Because if we strip all patriotic feelings and blind beliefs in "mighty military forces" of whatever country you are from, this situation smells like a fish waste container that has been left to bake in the sun for a week.

[Kellhound]

Great publication on the VHF and UHF

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...d_applications



- - - Updated - - -



Any sources you could provide i could read on that?

Your quote backs up what I am saying, as it points out that it is possible, and that all available jammers are not limited to comms jamming.

Its simple math because the radar itself is a simple radar.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you actually understand english? I know that sometimes I have problems expressing my thoughts exactly when using this language, since it is not my first (or even the second). But can you please provide a SINGLE piece of technology that is used for VHF radar jamming and can be mounted on an aircraft? No "ifs", no "buts". A VHF radar jammer that is currently being used as a radar jamming equipment. Fine, even an old piece of obsolete crap will do.
Control algorithms are also dumb. Otherwise US Airforce would at least be able to differentiate it's own vehicles from enemy's. I mean ISIS does not use american APCs yet for US to bomb. Alas shit like this still happens. And since friendly fire attacks happen to this day, we have not seen any evidence of these intelligent algorithms.
I expect the area to be littered with potential targets. After all, Russia or especially China are not like Iraq desert. There will be all sorts of communication equipment, starting from satellite dishes and all the way to electrical supports that are virtually the same in shape as VHF radar recievers:

So you expect to fly close enough to a radar station, that can detect you way earlier, and guide your missiles to their radar emmiters AFTER they already launched their surface to air missiles? Just to be clear? Does anyone else see the potential problem with that? Do you also consider that short wave emitters can be a third party platform altogether, that was using data from the VHF radar to point it's systems in the right direction, and that even if you destroy it, the long range radar would still be in place? Sort of like local surface to air battery that gets target information from a distant VHF radar? After all we do expect the system to be guarded. It is not so outrageous to think that surface to air cover is done by a separate unit like S-400 with independant targeting systems and not dumb surface to air installations with no targeting of their own.
I am definitely not worried of hitting a wrong target. Especially if we are talking about a collateral damage for the enemy nation (hypothetically of course). I am worried that out of a myriad of available targets, scoring an actually useful hit would be like winning a national lottery. It can happen, but I would not count on it. Unless my previous question was true and you actually expect to target them after they already locked your craft with short wave targeting systems that you can actually detect with smaller than a schoolbus sensor. Also, I am worried that an aircraft will not live long enough to even be in range for a strike, unless it is a stealth aircraft flying at less than 500m. But here we go to square one - there is no equipment available to the US airforce not only to jam, but to even detect a VHF radar, that can also be mounted on a stealth plane. Any other is going to be target locked from 400km or even further. Do you actually see a problem in it, or are you about to present a miraculous piece of technology that solves that? I am genuinely interested, really. Because if we strip all patriotic feelings and blind beliefs in "mighty military forces" of whatever country you are from, this situation smells like a fish waste container that has been left to bake in the sun for a week.

I have provided you with enough information for you to understand based on open sources that I am correct. I will not go further. If you do not understand the implications of what I have linked, so be it.

Actually, ISIS does/did have US equipment, thanks to the Iraqi Army. But we are not talking about APCs, we are talking about semi-portable VHF radars generally mounted on large wheeled trucks or trailers that provide a very discernible target.

The radars used with the SAM systems are right back into the heart of US ECM/SEAD. While air defense is a complex system, so to is SEAD. It is a very complex game, the loser dies, and both players know this full well. History does not favor the ground systems though.

VHF is not used as targeting radar, though they have made goo strides in getting them to be more accurate.

[Gaaz]

Your quote backs up what I am saying, as it points out that it is possible, and that all available jammers are not limited to comms jamming.

Its simple math because the radar itself is a simple radar.

- - - Updated - - -



I have provided you with enough information for you to understand based on open sources that I am correct. I will not go further. If you do not understand the implications of what I have linked, so be it.

Actually, ISIS does/did have US equipment, thanks to the Iraqi Army. But we are not talking about APCs, we are talking about semi-portable VHF radars generally mounted on large wheeled trucks or trailers that provide a very discernible target.

The radars used with the SAM systems are right back into the heart of US ECM/SEAD. While air defense is a complex system, so to is SEAD. It is a very complex game, the loser dies, and both players know this full well. History does not favor the ground systems though.

VHF is not used as targeting radar, though they have made goo strides in getting them to be more accurate.

No, you have provided me with something like "hypothetically this can exist". I have not seen any evidence that it actually does. You know, hypothetically interstellar travel through a wormhole can also exist. There is even some math to back it up. However, it is all that - hypothetical.
We are talking about all shapes and sizes when it comes to VHF recievers. Some of them can look like large electric supports, some of them are like grape garden posts lying on the ground. They can be quite different and come in different sizes. Even as small as this:

Or have unusual antennae configuration like this:


A building can actually act as a VHF radar.
Again - how close do you have to be to identify it? And if it is camouflaged? This particular radar has a signature of a large car. And if a radar is located near a warehouse or large metallic structures? You can probably hide a Tall King near your average aircraft hangar and no s band targeting sistem is going to pick it up in it's shadow.
VHF can be a targeting radar. It CAN be used as a targeting radar by russian long range anti air missiles like AA-10 or AA-12. Newer systems like NEBO are able to guide missiles close enough for not only heat seekers to ackquire target, but also for x band targeting missiles. It is not theory, it is already real. Granted that NEBO 55j6y is larger than the one above, but it still is very mobile. Latest modification can be intalled in less than half an hour. Any VHF radar with 3D designation can be used for missile targeting on its own. Also, 3d capabilities can be retrofitted to older stuff. Even to P-18.
And we are back to the original question - can you jam the VHF radar with anything that can be installed on a military plane?

[Kellhound]

No, you have provided me with something like "hypothetically this can exist". I have not seen any evidence that it actually does. You know, hypothetically interstellar travel through a wormhole can also exist. There is even some math to back it up. However, it is all that - hypothetical.
We are talking about all shapes and sizes when it comes to VHF recievers. Some of them can look like large electric supports, some of them are like grape garden posts lying on the ground. They can be quite different and come in different sizes. Even as small as this:

Or have unusual antennae configuration like this:


A building can actually act as a VHF radar.
Again - how close do you have to be to identify it? And if it is camouflaged? This particular radar has a signature of a large car. And if a radar is located near a warehouse or large metallic structures? You can probably hide a Tall King near your average aircraft hangar and no s band targeting sistem is going to pick it up in it's shadow.
VHF can be a targeting radar. It CAN be used as a targeting radar by russian long range anti air missiles like AA-10 or AA-12. Newer systems like NEBO are able to guide missiles close enough for not only heat seekers to ackquire target, but also for x band targeting missiles. It is not theory, it is already real. Granted that NEBO 55j6y is larger than the one above, but it still is very mobile. Latest modification can be intalled in less than half an hour. Any VHF radar with 3D designation can be used for missile targeting on its own. Also, 3d capabilities can be retrofitted to older stuff. Even to P-18.
And we are back to the original question - can you jam the VHF radar with anything that can be installed on a military plane?

Fully fixed sites are going to see a lot of attention from cruise missiles in the opening stages of combat.

The NEBO has a reported 1.5 deg X 0.5 deg X 200m accuracy. That means even at 50 miles you are looking at an error area about 2400m x 800m, about 3X the area of the Big Bird (at 100 miles it twice that). Better than nothing, but not very good either against a high speed target. There is a reason the SA-21 still has higher freq radars.

There is a reason long range radars have integrated ECCM in them, and it isnt for ground based jammers....

[Gaaz]

Fully fixed sites are going to see a lot of attention from cruise missiles in the opening stages of combat.

The NEBO has a reported 1.5 deg X 0.5 deg X 200m accuracy. That means even at 50 miles you are looking at an error area about 2400m x 800m, about 3X the area of the Big Bird (at 100 miles it twice that). Better than nothing, but not very good either against a high speed target. There is a reason the SA-21 still has higher freq radars.

There is a reason long range radars have integrated ECCM in them, and it isnt for ground based jammers....

And you only need to guide your missiles to an 8km radius for terminal system guidance to kick in. In case you have not noticed - IR targeting of AA-10 and AA-12 missiles does not particularly care if the aircraft is stealth or not. And since they can use IR and radar homing at the same time, or have virtually any other type of guidance system, it is a problem for any airborn target.
The main reason that VHF radars have ECCM when it comes to airborn targets is this:

Theoretically survailance aicraft of this type can supress or detect VHF radars that are in active mode. It has not been achieved yet (the jamming part) but again, we are talking hypothetical here. The problem is that even large survailance suites like this do not have the ability to actually produce required wavelengths of sufficient power. This A-50 craft for example CAN listen to frequencies as low as 50MHz (medium VHF range). However, it does not have the ability to produce the signal any lower than 500MHz. That is mid decimetric, whereas you require metric frequencies to interact with a radar. It also does not mean that it can pinpoint locations accurately in the lower frequency regions. Same goes for Grumman designs. More so, these aircraft are extremely expensive and are very easy target.
So basically yeah. ECM and ECCM on VHF radars is more against ground based targets and to prevent low power communication jamming equipment transmissions from interfering. There is also a question of one time use ECM like CHAFF or similar systems, that can have an effect on targeting effectiveness if you do not plan for it.
And in the hypothetical scenario that these planes can actually pinpoint VHF location, what do you think is the accuracy going to be? It definitely will not fly closer than 400km (out of self preservation if nothing else). Even if it has the same accuracy as the NEBO (which I seriously doubt), at that distance it is going to be like a 100 square kilometers area in your average scenario. Too much to go for even for an average nuke. And in the worst possible, this is a 400 square kilometer spot.

[Skroe]

I just wanted to post this.

http://www.defensenews.com/articles/...ly-says-bogdan

It's exactly like I said.

WASHINGTON – The F-35 joint program office is eyeing the middle of the next decade for when major upgrades to the engines on the joint strike fighter can proceed.

Lt. Gen. Chris Bogdan, who heads the JPO head, said at last week’s Air Force Association conference that the “mid-2020s” is when the power plant on the joint strike fighter could be refreshed, whether through improvements to the Pratt & Whitney F135 design currently used or through a new engine design from another competitor.

“I would expect ... that somewhere in the mid-2020s much of the work being done in the labs right now with our industry partners will find its way onto the F-35,” Bogdan told an audience Sept. 21. “Whether it finds its way onto the F-35 in the current engine or some modified engine remains to be seen, but we do fully expect in the mid-20s to include some advanced technologies on engines.”

The Air Force is currently funding the early stages of the Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) competition, with both Pratt and General Electric Aviation participating. The goal of AETP is to see if the companies can successfully add a third stream of air inside the engine. The program’s goal is to “demonstrate 25 percent improved fuel efficiency, 10 percent increased thrust, and significantly improved thermal management,” according to an Air Force statement.

Both companies received contracts worth $1.01 billion over the summer to fund the research under AETP, with a period of performance ending in September 2021.

While the AETP competition will likely be the source of the F-35 power plant of the future, its official focus is whatever the service decides to do with the so-called “sixth generation” fighter development. Theoretically, engine improvements could also be rolled into the B-21 Raider bomber, which is expected to enter production by the mid-2020s. Pratt & Whitney is the engine supplier on the program; and although neither they nor Northrop Grumman, the prime on the B-21, have said what engine is being used, speculation is that some form of the F135 engine will power the bomber.

Bogdan made it clear it is too early to make any decisions about how engine improvements could be rolled into the F-35 program.

“We have to take a look and see if they are 1) applicable and can be integrated into the F-35, and 2) the right time and place to do that,” Bogdan said. “A lot of that comes from the warfighter telling us what he or she needs and wants on the airplane, but relative to engine technology, just like sensor technology, just like materials technology, engine technology is moving along also. And there is a lot of work being done in the labs right now to improve the range [and] capability of our engines, the thrust capability on the size and weight of our engines.”

AETP is the current name of ADVENT by the way.

F-35 detractors have purposefully ignored the evolution of the F-16 and F/A-18 from their "A" models into their current ones. They ignored the airframe changes. They ignored the sensor changes. They ignored the engine changes. They ignored them because the F-35 wasn't what, in their opinion, the US should be buying (often they wanted something akin to a A-10-II or akin to the T-X trainer also being built).

One more time, the Air Force won't actually buy 1700 F-35As. It'll probably be around 700, followed by 1000 "F-35E" or "F-35A block 50" or something after 2025, that will see the F-35As shifted to the national guard and reserves.