I just hit upon something.
If the F-35, J-31 and the F-3 all make it into service, pilots are going to have a real hard time with visual recognition!
Is it just me or do they all look remarkably similar...especially the J-31 and the F-35. Maybe its the fact that those planes have two engines?
The best airframe configuration has been found and nothing is there to make a change from that basic design.
ReplyDeleteLet's hope their IFF is up to par.
US Forces flying into Vietnam airspace and out around the Fleet knew that 9 of 10 aircraft were US friendly forces, The Gomer's took advantage of this by sending in small agile fighters to make runs against strike packages knowing the delay in getting a visual would aid them.
ReplyDeleteUS Forces had to close inside gun range to ID a Bandit as a target most US fighters had no guns and then had to go for separation out to missile engagement range. By then the Gomer had struck and run.
D-Day type markings may make the air superior force easier to spot, but if IFF gets spoofed there will be hell to pay.
Given that the F-35 was built around a fully fused avionics suite and that it uses 3 times the amount of info to make an ID than even the F-22... I think the F-35 wins this argument.
ReplyDeleteThe AN/APG-81 can actively track targets but risks giving away the aircraft's position to enemy RWR/Multi-spectral receivers. LPI isn't a panacea and can be overcome with modern MMIC based superhet receivers with multiple channels and FFT processing...like the Khibiny M on the Su-35...
DeleteBottom line is you don't wanna emit in a peer adversary's territory if you don't have to. Not to mention those returns aren't red or blue, they are simply returns.
What's the difference between the RCS of a Russian Su-27 and an Ukrainian Su-27? There is none, because they are physically the same aircraft flown by two different factions. <---- Very realistic scenario for NATO considering the fighting that's been going on over there.
The AN/ASQ-239 can passively locate emission sources of enemy aircraft... That's if they're dumb enough to emit in the first place. Even then you still don't know who that is, you just know someone is emitting radio energy at some X/Ku Band frequency from some clock and azimuth. Not enough to put an AMRAAM out, that's why you have to have the APG-81 cued first. ("fused avionics").
So the fall back is the EOTS coupled with the AN/AAQ-37 DAS, however the globe is chin mounted for the look down and is optimized for ground tracking. Not A2A optimized thermal telescopes like PIRATE or OLS-35. DAS is short range IR and laser detection primarily for defensive purposes and not for target ID at range.
So then you fall back on IFF interrogation schemes, which involve transmitting a "friendly" signal to other friendly aircraft to ID who's a friend. Not only are you emitting (not stealthy) you also only know who your friends are (or who's transmitting on your frequency). Targets that don't respond to IFF aren't enemies by default. They could be non combatants or a friendly on the wrong signal, so you're never gonna get clearance to engage with that much uncertainty.
Finally there is AWACS...a large radar emission source in the sky over a peer adversary with the latest anti-radiation tech (Read anti-radiation tipped R-27P and K-100 series missiles)... not a good combo, the existence of these weapons alone is enough to discourage AWACS from the entering the airspace.
So, in the end, as in all previous wars, the ROE and IFF limitations will push pilots to the merge to visually ID.
The only 100% positive ID is a visual one. Granted the EOTAS may be able to "make the visual" before the enemy pilots eyes can. That's if he isn't in a modern Flanker variant with OLS-35. Then it's debatable since he's using the same tech (IR spectrum) and its A2A optimized.
In GW1 we saw numerical superiority, the F-15's NCTR, an incompetent enemy, and AWACS to sort out coalition aircraft, which contributed to several BVR kills with verifiable ID.
It wasn't the F-15's technology alone that did this, it was everything rolled into one. The whole picture.
The conditions in GW1 won't be the same against a peer adversary. Saddam, ISIS, Al-Queda, Al-Assad, aren't/weren't peer adversaries...
So no...the F-35 doesn't necessary win anything due to it's technology alone.
The problems present with IFF in all past wars are still present today.
Sol,
as I've said before,
A balance between Experience, Training, Tactics, Technology, Numbers, and Strategy are what will ultimately win the argument (and any war for that matter). The F-35 program places a HUGE bet on the tech, while letting things like Numbers, Training, and Tactics slip...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou might want actually research the tech involved.
DeleteRecent Australian Parliamentary testimony revealed:
"Air Vice Marshal Osley: And so the strength of the joint strike fighter—and I use this as an example—is that it has the ability to have up to 650 parameters by which it will identify a potential threat out there. Other aircraft, such as the F22 have about a third of that and fourth-generation aircraft have perhaps half a dozen. So if you are in an F18 or in some of the other Soviet aircraft you only have a very limited understanding of what the threat is and being able to identify it at a distance. If we are able to do as we plan with the F35, and that is to have good access to the software and to be able to program it appropriately with mission data, it will have the ability to identify hostile aircraft at quite a considerable distance. Then decisions will be made within the formation, it will play to its strengths and it will defeat it, but not by going within visual range. "
Throw in that the APG-81 is actually a functioning part of the ESM and not just a separate piece of equipment means that it has tremendous capability, even passively. On the ESM, it’s not just “active emitters” that are detected but “leaky” ones as well. Even the best non-LPI AESA Superhornets have problems detecting the F-22s before they are shot. Btw, the F-35’s ESM can self-geolocate an emitter that is good enough for an AMRAAM and has the fallback of using EOTS and other F-35s to create a weapon’s grade solution, the radar never NEEDS to be used.
On the IRST Issue, the EOTS has demonstrated better abilities than the OLS-35. Public docs on the OLS-35 show its forward detection (not a weapon track) range of 35km and a track range of 20km. The EOTS has demonstrated twice that much. Btw, being chin mounted is not an issue for IRST as even the F-22’s proposed IRST was not mounted on top of the nose. If the IRST is needed to view higher than +5 degree that it already can, then the F-35 simply raises the nose for a moment.
http://defenseissues.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/qrkpwi.jpg
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/24491da5.jpg
Then there is EODAS. Not only will it track everything in WVR range, it can be used to automatically que other sensors to optical anomalies. Think about the sun glinting off your SU’s canopy at 50+km. IF it’s bright enough then EODAS will see it and EOTS can then be used to check passively.
Finally, MADL. This has to be one of the greatest benefits that the F-35 has. It will automatically share data without the fear of giving its position away. The amount of data that it shares is phenomenal and all automatic.
The combination of a VLO airframe, LPI radar, EOTS, and an LPI/LPD datalink gives the F-35 the edge today. Tomorrow could be another story, but we will have to wait and see.
(Sorry for the double-delete... damn my fingers)
None of the above answers the IFF issues. You can detect and track, granted I never said you couldn't, but how do you know who that is?
Delete"If we are able to do as we plan with the F35..."
If.
Even "if" you can locate a target using the ASQ-239 and provide enough resolution for a lock on (which I doubt) you still have to ID it before "Fox".
Also at BVR ranges the AMRAAM needs it's mid course update, your ASQ-239 can't send it because it's passive. So you'll need have to have it sent via radar, datalink, or have an accompanying aircraft illuminate the target and relay that data to the missile for you.(F-22's do this in spotter-shooter deployment packages)
Either way you'll have to break the "emission seal" at some point to conduct a real combat mission at BVR ranges.
MADL still uses the radio spectrum, which means it can be jammed or detected. We use the radio spectrum to communicate, and so does the enemy. Granted, the benefits can be gained when used within short range (think Bluetooth for B-2s and F-35's).
As I said before, LPI is not a panacea:
www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA456960
The ATF IRST called for dual modules in the wing roots. This would give great forward upper and lower quarter visibility. You scan the upward quarter because the background atmosphere is cooler and there is less diffusion(function of altitude). Heat of stagnation from the transonic/supersonic flight regime and engine EGT light up very well against a -30 F background for ALL aircraft, stealthy or non.
"If the IRST is needed to view higher than +5 degree that it already can, then the F-35 simply raises the nose for a moment."
Changing it's aspect relative to any active radar in the area in the process.
That second image is a FLIR image of the Stratosphere Tower in Las Vegas...in the middle of the desert...(during the day?) at low altitude. Not the same as detecting heat of stagnation at ~30kft and Mach .8 at ranges greater than +50km. There are different bandwidths at play here: Typically 3-5 mm and 8-10 mm depending on atmospheric conditions, range, emission size, etc.
As I said, the EOTS is mainly A2G optimized as that's the JSF primary mission, a strike fighter. The look down for FLIR is unmatched, so it's a good design decision considering the mission priority.
"Then there is EODAS. Not only will it track everything in WVR range, it can be used to automatically que other sensors to optical anomalies. Think about the sun glinting off your SU’s canopy at 50+km."
50km is not WVR. Even if you were to "detect" an IR anomaly like "sun glinting off the canopy" how do you know it's from an enemy aircraft and not a Cessna?
End of the day, you'll have to go take a look at him and confirm he is who your sensors say he is or close enough to get a visual with your optics, but by then you're already beginning to merge.
I agree we'll have to wait and see.
SpudmanWP
DeleteOk, explain how the F-35 is supposed to survive in a situation like this.
The Chinese Su-35 is flying at 60K feet, and has located the F-35 10K feet down below with its L-Band radar and EO. The Su-35 locks its R-77 on the F-35's back where its RCS is 1 m2 or more and launches. The R-77 dives on the F-35 and blows it out of sky.
In the meanwhile, all the AMRAAMs launched by the F-35 lose kinetic energy while climbing to Su-35's altitude, making it easy for Su-35s to evade. So it's 5 dead F-35s, zero dead Su-35.
The truth is that the F-35 is not survivable in the ages of L-band radars and EO, and this is why Japan is trying to integrate AESA Meteor into its F-35, in order to keep the Su-35 and other advanced Chinese types away as far back as possible.
@Occultus
DeleteThe first paragraph answered the IFF and “you still have to ID it before "Fox"” issue or did you not understand “650 parameters by which it will identify a potential threat” when the F-22 only uses ~200 and 4th gen ~6 and “it will have the ability to identify hostile aircraft at quite a considerable distance.”?
The quotes above were from over 2 years ago and the program has not scaled them back. In fact, they have reinforced them in recent interviews to the point of saying that the F-35 can be more “invulnerable” than the F-22 when flown in groups of more than 4. This goes to the superiority of the F-35s avionics and data sharing capabilities that the F-35 holds over the F-22.
Mid-course updates: Ah, now I understand what you meant about the radar. As you said, any accompanying F-35 can update the missile so that does not put the shooter in jeopardy. You still end up with an AMRAAM on the way to hit the target without the target knowing who is shooting him – Advantage F-35.
MADL is directional which means that unless you are sitting between the transmitter and receiver, you cannot jam the signal. Btw, MADL is not “short range” and has actually outperformed the spec by “several multiples”.
In the IRST position, note that the J-20 and the ASH (Advance Super Hornet) have placed their IRST under the nose rather than above. I am still trying to track down the F-22 location that they tested after the wing-root location was cancelled.
“Changing it's aspect relative to any active radar in the area in the process.”
If there are Active radars emitting then there is no need for the IRST. Btw, a few degrees up angle is not going to present much (if any) more of an RCS.
“That second image is a FLIR..”
Pay attention to the SIZE of that tower at 36nm in relation to the overall FLIR picture. It’s HUGE and a fighter sized object at that same range would easily be identified.
“50km is not WVR. Even if you were to "detect" an IR anomaly like "sun glinting off the canopy" how do you know it's from an enemy aircraft and not a Cessna?”
Really? Um, I don’t know... maybe EOTS.. duh. ;) The point is that because you have EODAS looking 360, you do not need the EOTS to be looking at the glint the moment it happens. No other system has this capability today.
“End of the day, you'll have to go take a look at him and confirm he is who your sensors say he is or close enough to get a visual with your optics, but by then you're already beginning to merge.”
No you will not… This is the whole reason why the F-35 is given the “650+” ways to ID you, so it DOES NOT have to wait for the merge to make an ID.
@Slowman
L-Band fighter radar is a fallacy and nose mounted EO cannot look down. Then there is the issue of how did the Su know where to find the F-35s, why did the F-35s blindly fly towards them, etc.
To stick to your fanciful scenario, the F-35’s would have launched well outside the 35km detection range of their EO and the AMRAAMs would only give them a 5km warning (the passive detection range of their MAWS).
LOL. I have heard similar exaggerations used in industry before so forgive me if I dismissed it as PR fluff. I honestly didn't think you were serious...
DeleteThose "650+ parameters" would be?
Put it this way:
In this universe, light (electromagnetic spectrum) behaves according to Maxwell's Equations.
We're dealing with three parts of that spectrum here: Radio, Infrared, and Visual(White).
A Russian Su-27 and Ukrainian Su-27 are in the same airspace at BVR, non-emitting. Whose who? The only difference between these aircraft...are there colors and markings. (plus some electronics, etc.)
Go ahead. List some of those "650" 100% certain ways to distinguish between these two aircraft at BVR without betraying yourself or your friends by emitting.
Is a Crystal Ball one of them?
Either way, you'll have to either emit (risk lighting up every modernized RWR/EWS in the area, which isn't necessarily a bad thing) or close for the visual (either with IR optics or eyes which again, ain't bad) or some variation of the two within your formation (IR/Eyeball spotter- Radar shooter?). Period. We've already discussed the threat to AWACS.
I think that's why they practice these tactics, after all.
http://theaviationist.com/2014/02/21/red-force-exposed-nellis/#disqus_thread
LOL at the lone LPI guy in the comments! Should send him that thesis Spud ;)
"MADL is directional which means that unless you are sitting between the transmitter and receiver, you cannot jam the signal."
Granted, but that would also imply that you and your wingman need to be in line of sight to the emitter/receiver. That's why I said short range (WVR). I wondered what the MADL module looked like when I first read about it. You know if its an embedded array or is it an R2D2 style pod that sits off and can direct it's beam? The later would make sense, I can see the former working as well but that depends on where the arrays are located. I'll look into it.
The point about the tower in Vegas is that its a ground target.
FLIR and IRST are two different things, same basic tech, but two purposes. It has to do with attenuation of the atmosphere, the design of the Focal Plane Array, and what the bandwidth its set to search, processing gain, etc, etc.(if you look at the EOTS module you'll see two different FPAs)
More on FPAs: http://www.photonics.ucla.edu/host/ieee_photonics_la/documents/James_Beletic_OPN.pdf
Basically seeing the Stratosphere Tower at those ranges doesn't directly translate to visually identifying a fighter at the same/different range and altitude. Throw in atmospheric conditions and it's further degraded. This goes for ALL IRST and FLIR systems. Still very impressive for ground targeting as I stated.
Appreciate your responses btw. It's not often I get to go back an forth like this. Not many outside industry walls that can comment on this kinda stuff. Us engineers typically stick to what's on our desks.
I just hope Sol doesn't mind ;)
I have seen stills from TCS in which a Phantom's weapons load was clearly identifiable at 'ten times Mk1B range'. In one photo, you could also tell that the Phantom (an F-4S as I recall from the intake ECM antennas) was camouflaged in N-TPS.
DeleteThat /kind/ of resolution, from a 1970s design base day-TV sensor (going back to the TVSU of ACEVAL/AIMVAL days) would be vastly bettered today by the likes of the Rafale OSF's TV aperture.
Since the F-35's forward-upper DAS fairing (below the windscreen) is actually a two-holer with only one side filled, I have a feeling that it hasn't finished being developed yet.
If you want to go active RF, you can 2D ISAR them, lay an extinction pulse ontop of that multi-centroid return and remove the possible (for that aspect) radar waveform modulations that could be another jet until you end up with 'just the one'. If you amplify this, by sending an IFF request that says: "Turn on your amplifiers for a sec" you can fine tune the FQ signature analysis by essentially giving the radar 3-4 spaced strobe repeaters with which to further that ID as a function of spacing between the micro-repeaters. While it can be certainly be spoofed into false interrogate lightoff, it's actually fairly hard to misrepresent something like that on a jet because the angular spacings (to an AESA) are fairly discrete as far as wing-tail-nose geometries.
Conversely, there haven't been multi-on-multi dogfights since Bekaa` at least. With the number of competitive jets in-theater fairly small and multiple ground and even space (Teal Ruby did not die, it just went micro) based surveillance sources, the ability to track targets from their launch or border crossing point remains a viable system for sorting sheep from goats.
In this, you have to recall two other things:
1. The threat doesn't necessarily know you're there either and thus they have to launch on warning from their own, low-band active or Tamara type super-ESM suite. This means YOU get to dictate who 'meats' them, coming out of their baselanes or tanker tracks.
2. If you want to be 'absolutely positively certain', blow up their HAS Farm, underground fuel, weapons igloos and BOQs. Because that's what pushes the threat sortie generation and without it, even if you can force an on-the-turn compression of active CAPs they have no way to stay in the game.
Fighter pilots make movies. Tomahawks make OCA history. As in vae victis: 'that's all she wrote'.
The biggest threat to tomorrow's airpower is going to be hunting weapons. A drone which costs 2-5 million and can be launched from the back of a 5 ton truck with performance similar to the ADM-160 MALD: 10ft Long, 300lbs, 500nm range, 50nm @ 1.25.
DeleteWith this kind of capability, you can go to OPTICAL ALL OVER (sensors and datalinks) and simply fly skirmish lines of drones through the sky with parachute recovery if they find no targets and such massed dogpile (one Su-35 = 16 drones @ 5 million each) as fearless-swarm capacity that EVEN IF every AMRAAM you fire hits a drone (and we all know how 'cooperative' a BQM-74 that loses augmentation is), they will still keep coming. And if they miss, they will come around around again. Because they have a _fuel tank_ and atmospheric oxidizer, just like the jets they are hunting.
They don't have a pilot so they aren't subject to GLC constraints. And they don't have a flying brick wall worth of frontal area which means that, even with fairly low installed thrust, they will have superior acceleration, turn and reversal capabilties, including possibly negative G as 'look ma, no roll!'.
The transition to these weapons will be simple (they are based on 1950s Target Drone technology and it will be ubiquitous by threat forces that realize they cannot match a 400 jet expeditionary air force with 60 Super Flankers or 20 PAK-FA.
Then there will be the SSL or Solid State Lasers which come next and which are already (2010, Northrop Grumman Gamma Firestrike) already putting out peak loads of 108KW or weaponized threhsold energy. By 2030, when the JSF has been in service for less than 10 of it's projected 40 year lifespan, you will see 1MW SSLs and they will use aerostat-on-sounding-rocket relay mirrors to reach out 40-60km.
And between the pair of them, those two threats, by themselves, will ring the KT Boundary bell on subsonic, sub-100K, dino-tacair.
Solomon
ReplyDeleteThat's an old old fan rendering.
The current official one looks like a cross between YF-23 and PAK-FA.
Having said that, the fate of the F-3 is uncertain as the Japanese purchase of 142 F-35 drains funding and Japanese actually want to merge the F-3 program with the USAF 6th gen F-X program by 2018. If the US says no, then Japan will have to get a partner nation(Presumed to be Australia) and build one itself, but the indigenous solution won't be operational until 2030s.
So far, the only western alternate 5th gen fighter guaranteed to go ahead and be ready in the next decade is the KFX.
*Maybe its the fact that those planes have two engines?*
ReplyDeleteThe F-35 has one engine. Less safe and big, bright IR target.
Filippo Neri
DeleteThe F-3 will be as easy to tell apart as the J-20 because of its distinctive YF-23 like shape.(I repeat, the current F-3 does not look like the above fan rendering) It will be J-31 that will be confusing with the F-35. The pilots will have to look for how many engine exhausts are there.