Stealth-Killer: How Russia or China Could Crush America’s F-35

File: JY-26-radar counter stealth.jpg (51KB, 725x483px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 725x483px

>>33540671
>Another traditional limitation of VHF and UHF-band radars is that their pulse width is long and they have a low pulse repetition frequency [PRF]—which means such systems are poor at accurately determining range. As Mike Pietrucha, a former Air Force an electronic warfare officer who flew on the McDonnell Douglas F-4G Wild Weasel and Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle once described to me, a pulse width of twenty microseconds yields a pulse that is roughly 19,600 ft long—range resolution is half the length of that pulse. That means that range can’t be determined accurately within 10,000 feet. Furthermore, two targets near one another can’t be distinguished as separate contacts.

>Signal processing partially solved the range resolution problem as early as in the 1970s. The key is a process called frequency modulation on pulse, which is used to compress a radar pulse. The advantage of using pulse compression is that with a twenty-microsecond pulse, the range resolution is reduced to about 180 feet or so. There are also several other techniques that can be used to compress a radar pulse such as phase shift keying. Indeed, according to Pietrucha, the technology for pulse compression is decades old and was taught to Air Force electronic warfare officers during the 1980s. The computer processing power required for this is negligible by current standards, Pietrucha said.

File: F22 a kill.jpg (23KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 480x360px

>>33540673
>Engineers solved the problem of directional or azimuth resolution by using phased array radar designs, which dispensed with the need for a parabolic array. Unlike older mechanically scanned arrays, phased array radars steer their radar beams electronically. Such radars can generate multiple beams and can shape those beams for width, sweep rate and other characteristics. The necessary computing power to accomplish that task was available in the late 1970s for what eventually became the Navy’s Aegis combat system found on the Ticonderoga-class cruisers and Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. An active electronically scanned array is better still, being even more precise.

>With a missile warhead large enough, the range resolution does not have to be precise. For example, the now antiquated S-75 Dvina—known in NATO parlance as the SA-2 Guideline—has a 440-pound warhead with a lethal radius of more than 100 feet. Thus, a notional twenty-microsecond compressed pulse with a range resolution of 150 feet should have the range resolution to get the warhead close enough—according to Pietrucha’s theory.

>The directional and elevation resolution would have to be similar with an angular resolution of roughly 0.3 degrees for a target at thirty nautical miles because the launching radar is the only system guiding the SA-2. For example, a missile equipped with its own sensor—perhaps an infrared sensor with a scan volume of a cubic kilometer—would be an even more dangerous foe against an F-22 or F-35.

tl;dr

American stealth is easily defeated.

It was only a matter of time really. But then again, conventional wars are a thing of the past.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/stealth-killer-how-russia-or-china-could-crush-americas-f-35-19511

>Dave Majumdar is the Defense Editor of The National Interest.

>Recent Posts

>China and Russia are Catching Up to the U.S. Military
>Boeing Wants to Build a 'Super' F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
>The Simple Reason Why America's Aircraft Carriers Are So Powerful
>For Sale: A New Version of Russia's Deadly Su-30 Flanker
>April 23: The Day China Launches Its New Aircraft Carrier?
>Russia's Most Dangerous Nuclear Attack Submarine Ever Is Ready for War
>China's Next Aircraft Carrier: Everything We Know (So Far)
>China's New Amphibious Assault Ship: A Big Waste of Time?
>Air War: What if America's Lethal F-35 Battled Russia’s Su-35?
>The U.S. Military's V-22 Osprey: “Everything Is An Option”
>ARES: The Light Attack Aircraft America Needed (But Never Happened)
>OA-X: Is the U.S. Air Force Ready to Purchase a New Light Attack Aircraft?
>F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Joining Massive Wargame Next Month
>Is Germany Getting Ready to Build Its Very Own Stealth Fighter?
>Get Ready, NATO: Russia's New Air Defense Tech (Think Missiles and Lasers) Looks Dangerous
>5 Shocking Weapons North Korea Could Use To Start World War III

>>33540703

>>Is Germany Getting Ready to Build Its Very Own Stealth Fighter?

can't even afford transport planes

>>Get Ready, NATO: Russia's New Air Defense Tech (Think Missiles and Lasers) Looks Dangerous

my dick looks dangerous too

>>5 Shocking Weapons North Korea Could Use To Start World War III

SHOCKING

File: 1481393134537.png (59KB, 262x439px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 262x439px

>>33540703
So the guy runs a tabloid. Neat.

>>33540703
ad hominem

nice.

File: 1426789864294.jpg (139KB, 877x768px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 877x768px

>>33540679
>With a missile warhead large enough, the range resolution does not have to be precise. For example, the now antiquated S-75 Dvina—known in NATO parlance as the SA-2 Guideline—has a 440-pound warhead with a lethal radius of more than 100 feet. Thus, a notional twenty-microsecond compressed pulse with a range resolution of 150 feet should have the range resolution to get the warhead close enough—according to Pietrucha’s theory.

>The directional and elevation resolution would have to be similar with an angular resolution of roughly 0.3 degrees for a target at thirty nautical miles because the launching radar is the only system guiding the SA-2. For example, a missile equipped with its own sensor—perhaps an infrared sensor with a scan volume of a cubic kilometer—would be an even more dangerous foe against an F-22 or F-35.


Makes sense for the HQ-9 to have a huge 180kg warhead, then. With modern tungsten fragmentation charges, a lethal radius of more than 200 feet would be easily achiveable.

File: hf5mAEt.jpg (74KB, 548x288px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 548x288px

>>33540671
>It is a well-known fact within Pentagon and industry circles that low-frequency radars operating in the VHF and UHF bands can detect and track low-observable aircraft
Ahem...

>>33540732
>arbitrary unsourced numbers

And 1 sqm is easily trackable.

>>33540738
You know there's another column to the right, right?

>>33540732

This is why we need flags.

>>33540748
It'd be great to see all the Russian and Chinese flags

>>33540746
Still unsourced numbers. And last time I checked, Lockheed builds both F-22 and F-35.

And if VHF/UHF is so bad, why is the US using those bands on their new E-2D?

Guys, guys....Guys...This a top level military piece of equipment, there are no "for sure, 100% fact" facts online. All of it is theoretical at best and guesstimation as worst.

Believing that the latest gen stealth jet can be spotted with simple and commonly owned equipment is asinine.

Srysly....

>>33540716
Go to bed, Dave. Your shitty tabloid article full of "ifs" is garbage just like you.

Sure, but try mounting such a radar on an airplane or better yet an AAM, this is just another round in measures vs. countermeasures

>>33540762
Because China / Russia have inferior stealth tech - also: http://www.google.com/patents/US8325079
>The composite material is capable of absorbing radar in a frequency range from between about 0.1 MHz to about 60 GHz.

File: 1472539015632.gif (3MB, 252x263px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 252x263px

>>33540671
>>33540673
>>33540679

>>33540671
>>33540673
>>33540679


This is ignoring the inherent range limitations involved with uhf bands. You won't get the beastly 400km ranges you would with xband search. All public info has it at around 100km or so detect with a 1sqm target. (stealth planes that are desgined for xband still have decent uhf/vhf stealth characteristics by cutting down on vertical surfaces, etc)

100km is not enough, even for modern SEAD/DEAD. AARGM has a range of 150km. Jassm has a range of about 400km, er version over 1000.

File: Chinese_Cloaking_Tech_Ultra-Thin_Radar-Absorbant_Stealth_Material_Intelligent-Electronics-Institute-Huazhong-University-of-Science_and_Technology_1-660x330.jpg (112KB, 660x330px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 660x330px

>>33540809
your source is nothing, apparently.

Here, have some source:

http://www.defensereview.com/chinese-develop-new-ultra-thin-lightweight-uhf-microwave-radar-absorbing-cloakingstealth-material-for-manned-and-unmanned-combat-aircraft-and-ships/

>Chinese Develop New ‘Ultra-Thin’, Lightweight ‘Tunable’ UHF Microwave Radar-Absorbing Stealth Material Cloaking Technology for Manned and Unmanned Combat Aircraft and Warships

>>33540716

The guy literally makes a career out of righting defense industry related clickbait, how is that not relevant to choosing whether to take his article seriously? He even ends the first paragraph with the classic phrase

>"""according to some experts."""

>>33541891
Doesnt mean this assertion is wrong. Afterwards he actually quotes a USAF veteran.

>>33540716
Ad Hominem would look something like the following;
>Dave is a rancid cumwhore who only write articles to get money for his rampant cock addiction
Calling an authors credibility into question by pointing to his previous works is a perfectly valid thing to do.

>>33540792
>This a top level military piece of equipment
And so is the radar tech.
>>33540792
>Believing that the latest gen stealth jet can be spotted with simple and commonly owned equipment is asinine.
By the same reasoning, believing it can't be spotted is also insane.

>>33540671
>Nationalinterest

>>33541800
>its fine mesh chicken wire

fucking LEL

>>33541800
>chinese just discovered faraday cages

>>33541898
People quote Chuck Yeager all the time, but it doesn't mean he's right.

File: Anti Air Ballistic Missile.png (2MB, 1706x1558px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1706x1558px

>>33540729
The new super-long range AAM is equipped with ImIR secondary seeker for that matter.

>>33542176
What Pietrucha states isnt wrong, though.

Meter wave used to be bad in the day, but modern signal processing technology (1970s Tech) , as well as pulse compression makes it possible to narrow down the area of uncertainty and achieve acceptable accuracy to get weapon-grade tracks.

>>33542220

The range limitations in the long wave radars still exist however.

>>33542228
Of course, but still it would achieve more detection range vs. low RCS targets than X-band or S-band radars, as commonly used on fighters, AWACS or Aegis-equipped ships.

File: f35-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.jpg (132KB, 2050x615px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 2050x615px

let's just cut to the chase
the thread will devolve to this eventually anyway

>>33540754
it be great when the mods ban everyone whos from a country that cant own guns

>>33542251
By the way, googling F-35 lemon yields some really shitty political cartoons and even shittier websites.

File: F-35 cartoon.003.jpg (85KB, 1150x514px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 1150x514px

>>33542265
Here's one of my personal favorites.

>>33542251
F-35 is shit, but not the topic at hand.

Counter-stealth technologies work both ways. The West also profits from that technology, as it is clear that future warfare will involve a lot of RCS reduced hardware.

>>33542276
actually a truthful one, for once.

>>33542243
I think L-Band is a good compromise.

Which is why the Type 45 is the best ship in the world.

>>33542243
>low RCS targets than X-band or S-band radars, as commonly used on fighters, AWACS or Aegis-equipped ships.

Current mobile ground based UHF radars however dont have enough range not to get SEAD'ed.

Does this mean that a SAM UHF/VHF radar targeting a stealth aircraft would need to continually illuminate the target so as to guide the missile until it's within detection range of its ARH or IR seeker?

>>33542480
Of course.

>>33542471
UHF radars are rather hard to be engaged, because their emission is so low power that EW planes cant even pinpoint their location.

Meterwave literally has inherent counterdetection resistance. Note that it doesnt mean that they cant be jammed, though.

>>33542555
If an anti radiation missile was able to data link with the launch aircraft, could you triangulation (biangulate?) The radar position by taking the difference and comparing?

>>33540703
>nationalinterest

>>33540679
>tl;dr

>American stealth is easily defeated by someone with the military budget to build their own stealth fighters.

Of course nobody expected stealth to work forever, but suggesting that you need an Arleigh Burke level of radar hooked in to a grid of SA-2s in order to shoot down an F-22 30 nautical miles away means that it isn't "easily defeated".

First of all, there are probably less than 10 countries on earth that could even engineer and produce that themselves. Of these countries, something like half of them are developing their own stealth fighters and would have little interest in sharing the technology.

Second of all, this does nothing to actually upset the supremacy of stealth in A2A combat.

Third, large, static ground based radar arrays would obviously just be bait for cruise missiles in a real shooting war, just like how they became bait for Wild Weasels in Vietnam.

>>33542555
>because their emission is so low power that EW planes cant even pinpoint their location.

Ridiculous. AN/ALQ-218 can pinpoint short and long bands. Thats what the wingtip receivers are for.

>>33540679
>Phased arrays magickally have tighter beams
No, they don't.

File: R-77 seeker displaying slotted waveguide antenna.jpg (454KB, 1292x2944px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 1292x2944px

>>33542365
>I think L-Band is a good compromise.
Not for a missile seeker. It's wavelength is still a whole fucking foot, good luck getting any real gain out of that with a tiny missile seeker antenna.

File: f22a-vs-f111[1].gif (37KB, 768x571px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 768x571px

The point of stealth isn't to be immune to anti air missiles. Stealth aircraft create giant gaps in a defending country's IADS. Detection ranges are a lot more narrow for stealth aircraft which requires more radar and anti air weapons. It also makes it easier for aircraft to slip through when holes are punched through an IADS.

Friendly reminder that Majumdar has regularly clickbaited with things like the F-35 gun doesn't work and the F-35 can't fly with hot fuel.

>>33542220
No, it doesn't.

>>33543866
So, E-2D doesnt work? Nice to know.

>>33540671
Commie shits hope mud slinging will sooth the burned assholes of their dead pilots when they get torched by missiles launched from planes they never locked.

>>33543764
>dat picure
>I believe it so strongly, it must be true

>>33543764
Even if your picture ISN'T true and the enemy DOES place air-defense radar close enough together to keep stealth aircraft from sneaking between, there are usually still NOE gaps that can be exploited, and a VLO RCS allows an aircraft to locate the threat radars and find these gaps without being detected itself. And even as radar technology advances, this will still remain true because the stealth aircraft's own RWR/ESM equipment will advance at a similar pace (assuming the operating air force upgrades them regularly).

>>33540703

Dave Majumdar is the worst of their defense writers, Kyle Myzokami and especially Sebastian Roblin are much better.

>>33540703

Attack the writer due to editor's choice on headline. Ad hominem, 21st century.

>>33546218
Headlines tell you a lot about the author.

>>33542126

more like a salisbury screen in this case

>>33540703

>"Nationalinterest"

Oh look, a right-wing shill who fear-mongers to justify our ridiculously huge military budget.