F-35s jets and S-400 missiles

[Silver Cat]

The new collection of essays from Swedish Defence Research Agency.

Beyond Bursting Bubbles – Understanding the Full Spectrum of the Russian A2/AD Threat and Identifying Strategies for Counteraction

States with the ability to use a combination of sensors and long-range missiles to prevent adversaries from operating and thus creating an exclusion zone, are said to possess anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities. This collection of essays uses our previous FOI report on Russian A2/AD...

www.foi.se

Beyond Bursting Bubbles – Understanding the Full Spectrum of the Russian A2/AD Threat and Identifying Strategies for Counteraction

Abstract
States with the ability to use a combination of sensors and long-range missiles to prevent adversaries from operating and thus creating an exclusion zone, are said to possess anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities. This collection of essays uses our previous FOI report on Russian A2/AD capabilities (Bursting the Bubble) as a point of departure. Ten experts analyse five themes: Russian A2/AD capabilities today and in the future; options for counter-A2/AD operations in Europe; concepts for defending or reconquering territory under a hostile A2/AD umbrella; different approaches to managing the long-range precision strike threat; and the impact of A2/AD on the balance of power in Europe. The study does not arrive at any single, overarching conclusion, but there is significant convergence of views amongst a majority of the authors. On the one hand, Russia cannot create impenetrable "bubbles" where NATO forces cannot operate. On the other hand, counter-A2/AD operations are complex, requiring significant assets and capabilities, and carry significant risk of high attrition rates. The critical factors are the assets required, expected attrition rates, the time frames needed - and political will to shoulder costs and risks. A majority of the authors also argue that Russian A2/AD would be at its most troublesome during a short, sharp war, making well-rehearsed countermeasures essential. Compared to Bursting the Bubble, the multi-domain character of counter-A2/AD operations, including i.a. electronic warfare and non-military means, is emphasised, thus deepening the granularity of the analyses. Considerable uncertainty or disagreement remains on topics such as the level of integration within Russian air defences, the impact of stealth, and electronic warfare.

 

[Sonc]

Russia already felt the sting of the US in a heads up battle already. 300 dead Russians with Zero losses on the US side. And a lot of back pedaling by Russia trying to disavow that attack.

They were mercenaries.

 

[Sonc]

You are not giving the F-35B the benefit of it's cross section. Yes, the S-400 has that kind of range but that's against a 3rd or regular 4th gen bomber. Fighters (even 4th gen) will be harder to see and harder to hit. And 5th gen (real ones not fake ones) will even get closer before detected and then be even harder to hit. Since both are "Sooper Secrit" the only way to know is for the Russians and the US to do battle and I don't see that happening anytime soon without a lot of debrea outside my window.

1) F117 was shot down by the s-125 system
The difference between an airplane and a rocket is 20 years (the radar was older)

2) I don't know why you are talking about the S-400?

S-500 missile system - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3) Why are you talking ONLY about s-400?
Air defense consists of many elements

Beriev A-50 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

S-350 missile system - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Buk M1-2-3

Pantsir missile system - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Krasukha - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dayton3]

Not a single surface to air (SAM) missile system, especially not Russian (Soviet) ones has ever worked even remotely as well as claimed.

 

[Sonc]

Oh yeah Pantsir, which became the laughingstock after Israel put a weapon into the driver's side window.

UAWire - Experts: Pantsir-S1 air defense systems unable to protect Russian base in Syria
The Pantsir-S1 anti-air missile systems which are deployed in Russia’s Khmeimim air base in Syria are useless, according to the post published on the Telegram channel "Military Journalists". A similar statement was earlier posted on Facebook by Viktor Murakhovsky, a well-known Russian military expert and editor-in-chief of the "Arsenal of the Fatherland" journal.

Does Russia's Anti-Drone Pantsir S1 System Even Work?
“In Syria, it turned out that the Pantsir was practically incapable of detecting low-speed and small-sized targets, which include military UAVs. At the same time, the complex regularly recorded false targets—large birds flying around the base—rather confusing the operators.”

Not a single surface to air (SAM) missile system, especially not Russian (Soviet) ones has ever worked even remotely as well as claimed.

ага))

Just open the list of US air losses in Vietnam and Iraq 91.
See the composition of the Iraqi air defense
f16 (74 y) VS S-75 (57 y)


dfd


About drones - now it's a problem for everyone.
The Abqaiq oil facility was protected by three Skyguard short-range air defense batteries.[14] Neither the Skyguards nor the other Saudi air-defense weapons — MIM-104 Patriot and Shahine (Crotale) — are known to have brought down any of the attacking weapons

Abqaiq–Khurais attack - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Now there is a new concept for short-range air defense - 57 mm projectiles with controlled detonation.

 

[Dayton3]

Oh yeah Pantsir, which became the laughingstock after Israel put a weapon into the driver's side window.

UAWire - Experts: Pantsir-S1 air defense systems unable to protect Russian base in Syria
The Pantsir-S1 anti-air missile systems which are deployed in Russia’s Khmeimim air base in Syria are useless, according to the post published on the Telegram channel "Military Journalists". A similar statement was earlier posted on Facebook by Viktor Murakhovsky, a well-known Russian military expert and editor-in-chief of the "Arsenal of the Fatherland" journal.

Does Russia's Anti-Drone Pantsir S1 System Even Work?
“In Syria, it turned out that the Pantsir was practically incapable of detecting low-speed and small-sized targets, which include military UAVs. At the same time, the complex regularly recorded false targets—large birds flying around the base—rather confusing the operators.”

Not a single surface to air (SAM) missile system, especially not Russian (Soviet) ones has ever worked even remotely as well as claimed.

Just open the list of US air losses in Vietnam and Iraq 91.

aircraft losses in no way means a SAM system works well or remotely as claimed.

If you launch 5,000 missiles and down a handful of attacking aircraft it means nothing.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You are not giving the F-35B the benefit of it's cross section. Yes, the S-400 has that kind of range but that's against a 3rd or regular 4th gen bomber. Fighters (even 4th gen) will be harder to see and harder to hit. And 5th gen (real ones not fake ones) will even get closer before detected and then be even harder to hit. Since both are "Sooper Secrit" the only way to know is for the Russians and the US to do battle and I don't see that happening anytime soon without a lot of debrea outside my window.

1) F117 was shot down by the s-125 system
The difference between an airplane and a rocket is 20 years (the radar was older)

2) I don't know why you are talking about the S-400?

S-500 missile system - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3) Why are you talking ONLY about s-400?
Air defense consists of many elements

Beriev A-50 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

S-350 missile system - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Buk M1-2-3

Pantsir missile system - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Krasukha - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

How to shoot down a F-117.

Know the exact time it's going to be in exactly the right coordinates
Know the exact flight plan
Know the exact altitude
Narrow your Antennae search down to a very tight search area
Use more than a few Radar Sites to increase the chances for a lock on

I use directional Antenna all the time. I can use an Omni like many radar sites use which covers a broad area but spreads it's signal over a wide area but is weak. Or I can use a directional and get a stronger signal over a narrower beam that has a longer range. I can also use overlapping antenna to increase the chances of station detections. It works both ways. And that is how they brought down one F-117. It was more on the stupidity of the management of the Flights of the F-117 than the brilliance of the Radar Sites. This is why the same plane was much more successful against the Iraqis in 1991 because they didn't fly the same profile, the same speed, the same pathway, same altitude, the same time each and every day.

Comparing the F-117 (which has radar signature about the size of a baseball) to a B-2, F-22 or F-35 which has the radar signature of a Hummingbird means that the modern 5th gen will be able to safely get a lot closer for attack. In the F-35As case, the targets they are going to initially be going after are the radar and missile sites enabling the 4th gen fighters to operate in the area.

 

[justinacolmena]

F-35 stealth jets

"Based" in Alaska, it is rumored. Manufactured? I really don't know of any such facilities or activities on an adequate scale in the entire state.

Either Eielson Air Force Base near Fairbanks or Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson near Anchorage. Pit stops on the way to Russia.

 

[Silver Cat]

Oh yeah Pantsir, which became the laughingstock after Israel put a weapon into the driver's side window.

UAWire - Experts: Pantsir-S1 air defense systems unable to protect Russian base in Syria
The Pantsir-S1 anti-air missile systems which are deployed in Russia’s Khmeimim air base in Syria are useless, according to the post published on the Telegram channel "Military Journalists". A similar statement was earlier posted on Facebook by Viktor Murakhovsky, a well-known Russian military expert and editor-in-chief of the "Arsenal of the Fatherland" journal.

Does Russia's Anti-Drone Pantsir S1 System Even Work?
“In Syria, it turned out that the Pantsir was practically incapable of detecting low-speed and small-sized targets, which include military UAVs. At the same time, the complex regularly recorded false targets—large birds flying around the base—rather confusing the operators.”

Not a single surface to air (SAM) missile system, especially not Russian (Soviet) ones has ever worked even remotely as well as claimed.

Just open the list of US air losses in Vietnam and Iraq 91.

aircraft losses in no way means a SAM system works well or remotely as claimed.

If you launch 5,000 missiles and down a handful of attacking aircraft it means nothing.

The main goal of Air Defence is not "down aircrafts". The main goal is to not allow an enemy to work more or less freely in your airspace against your sites and forces. When the Russians want to destroy a site of pro-Turkish militants in Syria - they use few cheap iron bombs, then control results and repeap if there are some survivors. When the Jews want to destroy a site of pro-Iranian militants in Syria - they can't use cheap bombs, they have to launch very expensive missiles from a large distance.

The main goal of Russian S-400 in Kaliningrads region is not to defend it forever. There is no unbreakable defence, you know. All they need - to buy time for missile launch and deployment of troops.

 

[Sonc]

How to shoot down a F-117.

Know the exact time it's going to be in exactly the right coordinates
Know the exact flight plan
Know the exact altitude
Narrow your Antennae search down to a very tight search area
Use more than a few Radar Sites to increase the chances for a lock on

What are you comparing?
This situation is 1 on 1.
I may be wrong, but in my opinion you were interested in this particular situation.

On the one hand, a super-modern, expensive stealth plane ... on the other ... decommissioned war junk.
These missiles have expired. They are 20 years old. One of the missiles flew close to the plane (the pilot saw it) and did not explode ...
(Radar was 30 years old)!
These were not only the old, but also the cheapest missiles ... with a semi-active guidance system.
These are weapons that were given away because they are cheaper than properly disposed of.

the targets they are going to initially be going after are the radar and missile sites enabling the 4th gen fighters to operate in the area.

How does the pilot know where the radar is?
How does he know how many radars are in the area?
How does he know the number of launchers in the area and their location?

(There are mobile radars of various capacities).
1
2

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

S-400 missiles can hit targets 400 kilometers away. No fighter jets can fire missiles 400 kilometers away.

Stealth is the only sophisticated feature that will save F-35 jets from Russian S-400 missiles. Many countries are buying S-400s when many countries are buying F-35 stealth jets.

F35 is over ..some were even laughing that the pentagon built the f35 to throw the world off

Cause what they have in the pipeline is simply revolutionary

United States Has Flown A Brand-New Fighter Jet

Several defense industry outlets are reporting that the United States Air Force has flown a new fighter jet.

www.planeandpilotmag.com

Several defense industry outlets are reporting that the United States Air Force has flown a next-gen fighter, which has already broken several records on its first flights. The remarkable thing? No one knew anything about it until Tuesday. Here’s what we know now.

And be forewarned: It’s not much. We know, according to multiple sources, that it was developed in secret (duh) and that the program is being conducted unlike any before it, using extensive computer modeling, cutting-edge tool creation and small batch production methods. It’s being referred to as a sixth-gen fighter, which means it’s more advanced than the F-35 Lightning or the F-22 Raptor.

The chi coms are nothing but annoying buzzing little flys

 

[Daryl Hunt]

How to shoot down a F-117.

Know the exact time it's going to be in exactly the right coordinates
Know the exact flight plan
Know the exact altitude
Narrow your Antennae search down to a very tight search area
Use more than a few Radar Sites to increase the chances for a lock on

What are you comparing?
This situation is 1 on 1.
I may be wrong, but in my opinion you were interested in this particular situation.

On the one hand, a super-modern, expensive stealth plane ... on the other ... decommissioned war junk.
These missiles have expired. They are 20 years old. One of the missiles flew close to the plane (the pilot saw it) and did not explode ...
(Radar was 30 years old)!
These were not only the old, but also the cheapest missiles ... with a semi-active guidance system.
These are weapons that were given away because they are cheaper than properly disposed of.

the targets they are going to initially be going after are the radar and missile sites enabling the 4th gen fighters to operate in the area.

How does the pilot know where the radar is?
How does he know how many radars are in the area?
How does he know the number of launchers in the area and their location?

(There are mobile radars of various capacities).
1
2

One on One is not how war is fought. There will never be One Aircraft or even one type of Aircraft. Just like there will never be one Defending Radar Platforms. You keep using 1 on 1 which rarely exists.

For instance, here are the types of defense Radar that may be encountered.

1. Fighters. These are actually the worst radar platforms. They have the worst cross section in the nose which the radar they give off is very short ranged. The only good the have is that they are airborne. But the limiting factor is still you only have X number of space to place a Radar Array. Usually no more than 3 feet. And effective Radar requires power, lots of power which fighters are limited.

2, Ground based. Ground based have the power but are limited to the curvature of the earth. Usually, they are limited to about 400 miles max if things are over the water. Over the land, it's much shorter. Land base may use the lower frequencies to locate possibles. Those lower frequencies cannot be use for Identification or lockons. In fact, they rely on certain design flaws in the Aircraft in order to get return signals. When they do get a return, they have to rely on a shorter band radar to get identification. The problem is, in order to get an ID on something like the F-35A they are also going to get signals from Sea Gulls, Bats, and other Flying Animals. Now, they have to use even a shorter band radar to separate those natural flying animals from the real threats. The good news is, it's usually done automatically where the Human isn't even aware that this is going on. Meanwhile, the threat just gets closer and closer. Yes, you may be able to pick up a F-16 up at 150 miles and know it's a F-16 but really can't fire on it until it hits within 50 miles. Meanwhile, the F-35 may not be picked up and ID'd until 45 miles and you can't actually fire on him until under 35 miles. The problem is, while the F-16 may be stopped, the F-35 has that 15 or more miles to come into his own attack range. And the F-35A has fire and forget weapons that you are going to have to shut down systems and fire up others to deal with. While ground Radar Sites are better they have one problem. When in operation, they aren't mobile. They have to be stationary. But the ground radar is only limited by the power generators they have and have plenty of power.

Large Aircraft EW. As a Radar Platform, the Large Aircraft like EWs have large arrays. Okay, not as large as the Ground but they are yards wide instead of feet. And they are in the air. They have almost all the power the ground station has. They aren't there to do anything themselves. They are there to pass on their information to either smaller assets or ground assets who will do the actual attack. Or they may be used by the Command Posts for planning. Their biggest weakness? They fly with a huge "Shoot Me" sign on them at all times.

Large Stealth Bombers. The Fighters have to take shortcuts to obtain Stealth. But the bomber does not. I won't go into all the things a bomber does to break up or redirect the radar signals but let's just say that every part of the bird is designed to redirect or absorb incoming radar including even the leading edges and intakes. This is why the B-2 is as stealthy as the F-22 from the bottom, sides and the front. From the top, not so much. You just can't do as much with the intakes designed in the 80s. I suspect that this will be addressed much better in the B-21. This means that the B-2 can get within smart bomb range of almost every radar site in existence. But they aren't going to use a 2 billion dollar Bomber when a 80 million dollar fighter can do the same job.

Radar Sites won't go out of business. Since only a handful of nations have real Gen 5 birds, the Radar Sites will still be effective. Those sites have all but left the Gen 4 birds as flying coffins for those that don't have Gen 5 fighters to clean them out. And even then, a lucky shot can be done even on a Gen 5 when he has some sort of damage like his weapons doors won't close or he's taken damage on his radar absorbing skin. Or his Refueling Probe won't recess. Maybe a panel has shifted and left a gap. Welcome to Combat where shit happens.

How does a pilot know where the Radar Sites are? Easy answer. And this applies to almost every bird in the US Inventory and most of the front line birds in the Russian Inventory. They just keep it up on their display. That information is coming via a datalink from his own systems or someone elses including ground and air assets. Even Naval and Satellites. Again, in order to have a Ground Site on line, it's going to have to go stationary and go active. At that point, he's lighting up the Sky, Ground and Space. There are NEVER going to be stealthy ground Radar Sites. And even if you are flying an Aircraft Fighter, flip on that Radar and you have given your entire history away from it almost down to what you had for breakfast. Stealth War Planes fly with their Radar OFF and rely on other systems to see for them. But on their own readouts, it reads like their radars were on.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

S-400 missiles can hit targets 400 kilometers away. No fighter jets can fire missiles 400 kilometers away.

Stealth is the only sophisticated feature that will save F-35 jets from Russian S-400 missiles. Many countries are buying S-400s when many countries are buying F-35 stealth jets.

F35 is over ..some were even laughing that the pentagon built the f35 to throw the world off

Cause what they have in the pipeline is simply revolutionary

United States Has Flown A Brand-New Fighter Jet

Several defense industry outlets are reporting that the United States Air Force has flown a new fighter jet.

www.planeandpilotmag.com

Several defense industry outlets are reporting that the United States Air Force has flown a next-gen fighter, which has already broken several records on its first flights. The remarkable thing? No one knew anything about it until Tuesday. Here’s what we know now.

And be forewarned: It’s not much. We know, according to multiple sources, that it was developed in secret (duh) and that the program is being conducted unlike any before it, using extensive computer modeling, cutting-edge tool creation and small batch production methods. It’s being referred to as a sixth-gen fighter, which means it’s more advanced than the F-35 Lightning or the F-22 Raptor.

The chi coms are nothing but annoying buzzing little flys

You know exactly what they want you to know. Now, let's look at what makes up a 6th gen.

Stealth. So does a 5th gen. But even better. Using the F-35, instead of painting it on, you bake it into the structure. The B-2 and F-22 spend about 2 days for every one day down for repair on their Stealth Painted Surfaces while the F-35 just gets a panel change. Just an improvement

Able to handle Energy Weapons. As the energy weapons come on line so will the F-35A and C. The Fighter has to be so rediculously over powered that it has power to burn to use for electricity for the energy weapon. The F-35 already meets that requirement. But so does the B-2, B-1, B-52, AC-130 and a whole host of birds on both sides. So it's just an improvement, not something new.

Linking to other AC and Swarms. Considering the F-35 already has that capability, the only thing they are doing is improving on it. But the Swarm is still under testing. So they go for improvement only.

Notice, not one single mention of size or dogfighting capability. There is a chance that the Gen 6 fighter will actually be larger than the Gen 5 fighter to the point of being the size of a Medium Bomber. That gets around many problems.

But they ain't saying. Or is what they ARE saying even true.

 

[Sonc]

Oh yeah Pantsir, which became the laughingstock after Israel put a weapon into the driver's side window.

UAWire - Experts: Pantsir-S1 air defense systems unable to protect Russian base in Syria
The Pantsir-S1 anti-air missile systems which are deployed in Russia’s Khmeimim air base in Syria are useless, according to the post published on the Telegram channel "Military Journalists". A similar statement was earlier posted on Facebook by Viktor Murakhovsky, a well-known Russian military expert and editor-in-chief of the "Arsenal of the Fatherland" journal.

Does Russia's Anti-Drone Pantsir S1 System Even Work?
“In Syria, it turned out that the Pantsir was practically incapable of detecting low-speed and small-sized targets, which include military UAVs. At the same time, the complex regularly recorded false targets—large birds flying around the base—rather confusing the operators.”

Not a single surface to air (SAM) missile system, especially not Russian (Soviet) ones has ever worked even remotely as well as claimed.

Just open the list of US air losses in Vietnam and Iraq 91.

aircraft losses in no way means a SAM system works well or remotely as claimed.

If you launch 5,000 missiles and down a handful of attacking aircraft it means nothing.

that means a 30-year-old system ... detects and shoots down the plane.

everything else is questions ...
the presence of reconnaissance aircraft
Their quality and quantity
High Command Training
Junior officer training
etc

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Oh yeah Pantsir, which became the laughingstock after Israel put a weapon into the driver's side window.

UAWire - Experts: Pantsir-S1 air defense systems unable to protect Russian base in Syria
The Pantsir-S1 anti-air missile systems which are deployed in Russia’s Khmeimim air base in Syria are useless, according to the post published on the Telegram channel "Military Journalists". A similar statement was earlier posted on Facebook by Viktor Murakhovsky, a well-known Russian military expert and editor-in-chief of the "Arsenal of the Fatherland" journal.

Does Russia's Anti-Drone Pantsir S1 System Even Work?
“In Syria, it turned out that the Pantsir was practically incapable of detecting low-speed and small-sized targets, which include military UAVs. At the same time, the complex regularly recorded false targets—large birds flying around the base—rather confusing the operators.”

Not a single surface to air (SAM) missile system, especially not Russian (Soviet) ones has ever worked even remotely as well as claimed.

Just open the list of US air losses in Vietnam and Iraq 91.

aircraft losses in no way means a SAM system works well or remotely as claimed.

If you launch 5,000 missiles and down a handful of attacking aircraft it means nothing.

that means a 30-year-old system ... detects and shoots down the plane.

everything else is questions ...
the presence of reconnaissance aircraft
Their quality and quantity
High Command Training
Junior officer training
etc

Vietnam no longer is a good yardstick. A lot of advances have happened to the point we can't use the Primitive Vietnam Era.

 

[Sonc]

How to shoot down a F-117.

Know the exact time it's going to be in exactly the right coordinates
Know the exact flight plan
Know the exact altitude
Narrow your Antennae search down to a very tight search area
Use more than a few Radar Sites to increase the chances for a lock on

What are you comparing?
This situation is 1 on 1.
I may be wrong, but in my opinion you were interested in this particular situation.

On the one hand, a super-modern, expensive stealth plane ... on the other ... decommissioned war junk.
These missiles have expired. They are 20 years old. One of the missiles flew close to the plane (the pilot saw it) and did not explode ...
(Radar was 30 years old)!
These were not only the old, but also the cheapest missiles ... with a semi-active guidance system.
These are weapons that were given away because they are cheaper than properly disposed of.

the targets they are going to initially be going after are the radar and missile sites enabling the 4th gen fighters to operate in the area.

How does the pilot know where the radar is?
How does he know how many radars are in the area?
How does he know the number of launchers in the area and their location?

(There are mobile radars of various capacities).
1
2

One on One is not how war is fought. There will never be One Aircraft or even one type of Aircraft. Just like there will never be one Defending Radar Platforms. You keep using 1 on 1 which rarely exists.

For instance, here are the types of defense Radar that may be encountered.

1. Fighters. These are actually the worst radar platforms. They have the worst cross section in the nose which the radar they give off is very short ranged. The only good the have is that they are airborne. But the limiting factor is still you only have X number of space to place a Radar Array. Usually no more than 3 feet. And effective Radar requires power, lots of power which fighters are limited.

2, Ground based. Ground based have the power but are limited to the curvature of the earth. Usually, they are limited to about 400 miles max if things are over the water. Over the land, it's much shorter. Land base may use the lower frequencies to locate possibles. Those lower frequencies cannot be use for Identification or lockons. In fact, they rely on certain design flaws in the Aircraft in order to get return signals. When they do get a return, they have to rely on a shorter band radar to get identification. The problem is, in order to get an ID on something like the F-35A they are also going to get signals from Sea Gulls, Bats, and other Flying Animals. Now, they have to use even a shorter band radar to separate those natural flying animals from the real threats. The good news is, it's usually done automatically where the Human isn't even aware that this is going on. Meanwhile, the threat just gets closer and closer. Yes, you may be able to pick up a F-16 up at 150 miles and know it's a F-16 but really can't fire on it until it hits within 50 miles. Meanwhile, the F-35 may not be picked up and ID'd until 45 miles and you can't actually fire on him until under 35 miles. The problem is, while the F-16 may be stopped, the F-35 has that 15 or more miles to come into his own attack range. And the F-35A has fire and forget weapons that you are going to have to shut down systems and fire up others to deal with. While ground Radar Sites are better they have one problem. When in operation, they aren't mobile. They have to be stationary. But the ground radar is only limited by the power generators they have and have plenty of power.

Large Aircraft EW. As a Radar Platform, the Large Aircraft like EWs have large arrays. Okay, not as large as the Ground but they are yards wide instead of feet. And they are in the air. They have almost all the power the ground station has. They aren't there to do anything themselves. They are there to pass on their information to either smaller assets or ground assets who will do the actual attack. Or they may be used by the Command Posts for planning. Their biggest weakness? They fly with a huge "Shoot Me" sign on them at all times.

Large Stealth Bombers. The Fighters have to take shortcuts to obtain Stealth. But the bomber does not. I won't go into all the things a bomber does to break up or redirect the radar signals but let's just say that every part of the bird is designed to redirect or absorb incoming radar including even the leading edges and intakes. This is why the B-2 is as stealthy as the F-22 from the bottom, sides and the front. From the top, not so much. You just can't do as much with the intakes designed in the 80s. I suspect that this will be addressed much better in the B-21. This means that the B-2 can get within smart bomb range of almost every radar site in existence. But they aren't going to use a 2 billion dollar Bomber when a 80 million dollar fighter can do the same job.

Radar Sites won't go out of business. Since only a handful of nations have real Gen 5 birds, the Radar Sites will still be effective. Those sites have all but left the Gen 4 birds as flying coffins for those that don't have Gen 5 fighters to clean them out. And even then, a lucky shot can be done even on a Gen 5 when he has some sort of damage like his weapons doors won't close or he's taken damage on his radar absorbing skin. Or his Refueling Probe won't recess. Maybe a panel has shifted and left a gap. Welcome to Combat where shit happens.

How does a pilot know where the Radar Sites are? Easy answer. And this applies to almost every bird in the US Inventory and most of the front line birds in the Russian Inventory. They just keep it up on their display. That information is coming via a datalink from his own systems or someone elses including ground and air assets. Even Naval and Satellites. Again, in order to have a Ground Site on line, it's going to have to go stationary and go active. At that point, he's lighting up the Sky, Ground and Space. There are NEVER going to be stealthy ground Radar Sites. And even if you are flying an Aircraft Fighter, flip on that Radar and you have given your entire history away from it almost down to what you had for breakfast. Stealth War Planes fly with their Radar OFF and rely on other systems to see for them. But on their own readouts, it reads like their radars were on.

I mean, the f-35's advantages are greatest when there is air combat.


If we consider the scenario of a ground operation ... 90% of success comes from reconnaissance. A simple example. If you see the Buk. Its range is 30 km. You don't need a stealth plane. You can take a hot air balloon and a rocket that will fly 30 km + 1 km. But if you don't know where the radars and launchers are .. the plane can be shot down from cheap MANPADS.

How does a pilot know where the Radar Sites are? Easy answer.

Why keep all the radars on?
You can keep several radars in one area ... but turn on in turn ...
Without reconnaissance, the pilot cannot be sure that the radar he sees is not a trap for him.

 

[Sonc]

Meanwhile, the threat just gets closer and closer. Yes, you may be able to pick up a F-16 up at 150 miles and know it's a F-16 but really can't fire on it until it hits within 50 miles.

Why?

Active radar homing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Vietnam no longer is a good yardstick. A lot of advances have happened to the point we can't use the Primitive Vietnam Era.

But rockets from the primitive era shoot down planes 30 years younger.
Time has passed. Technology has evolved. But the principle hasn't changed.
A stealth plane pilot cannot operate without reconnaissance.
He does not know where they will shoot at him ... and where the previously invisible radar will turn on ...
And reconnaissance of the area covered by air defense is a problem.
Because "Their biggest weakness? They fly with a huge "Shoot Me" sign on them at all times."

 

[Daryl Hunt]

How to shoot down a F-117.

Know the exact time it's going to be in exactly the right coordinates
Know the exact flight plan
Know the exact altitude
Narrow your Antennae search down to a very tight search area
Use more than a few Radar Sites to increase the chances for a lock on

What are you comparing?
This situation is 1 on 1.
I may be wrong, but in my opinion you were interested in this particular situation.

On the one hand, a super-modern, expensive stealth plane ... on the other ... decommissioned war junk.
These missiles have expired. They are 20 years old. One of the missiles flew close to the plane (the pilot saw it) and did not explode ...
(Radar was 30 years old)!
These were not only the old, but also the cheapest missiles ... with a semi-active guidance system.
These are weapons that were given away because they are cheaper than properly disposed of.

the targets they are going to initially be going after are the radar and missile sites enabling the 4th gen fighters to operate in the area.

How does the pilot know where the radar is?
How does he know how many radars are in the area?
How does he know the number of launchers in the area and their location?

(There are mobile radars of various capacities).
1
2

One on One is not how war is fought. There will never be One Aircraft or even one type of Aircraft. Just like there will never be one Defending Radar Platforms. You keep using 1 on 1 which rarely exists.

For instance, here are the types of defense Radar that may be encountered.

1. Fighters. These are actually the worst radar platforms. They have the worst cross section in the nose which the radar they give off is very short ranged. The only good the have is that they are airborne. But the limiting factor is still you only have X number of space to place a Radar Array. Usually no more than 3 feet. And effective Radar requires power, lots of power which fighters are limited.

2, Ground based. Ground based have the power but are limited to the curvature of the earth. Usually, they are limited to about 400 miles max if things are over the water. Over the land, it's much shorter. Land base may use the lower frequencies to locate possibles. Those lower frequencies cannot be use for Identification or lockons. In fact, they rely on certain design flaws in the Aircraft in order to get return signals. When they do get a return, they have to rely on a shorter band radar to get identification. The problem is, in order to get an ID on something like the F-35A they are also going to get signals from Sea Gulls, Bats, and other Flying Animals. Now, they have to use even a shorter band radar to separate those natural flying animals from the real threats. The good news is, it's usually done automatically where the Human isn't even aware that this is going on. Meanwhile, the threat just gets closer and closer. Yes, you may be able to pick up a F-16 up at 150 miles and know it's a F-16 but really can't fire on it until it hits within 50 miles. Meanwhile, the F-35 may not be picked up and ID'd until 45 miles and you can't actually fire on him until under 35 miles. The problem is, while the F-16 may be stopped, the F-35 has that 15 or more miles to come into his own attack range. And the F-35A has fire and forget weapons that you are going to have to shut down systems and fire up others to deal with. While ground Radar Sites are better they have one problem. When in operation, they aren't mobile. They have to be stationary. But the ground radar is only limited by the power generators they have and have plenty of power.

Large Aircraft EW. As a Radar Platform, the Large Aircraft like EWs have large arrays. Okay, not as large as the Ground but they are yards wide instead of feet. And they are in the air. They have almost all the power the ground station has. They aren't there to do anything themselves. They are there to pass on their information to either smaller assets or ground assets who will do the actual attack. Or they may be used by the Command Posts for planning. Their biggest weakness? They fly with a huge "Shoot Me" sign on them at all times.

Large Stealth Bombers. The Fighters have to take shortcuts to obtain Stealth. But the bomber does not. I won't go into all the things a bomber does to break up or redirect the radar signals but let's just say that every part of the bird is designed to redirect or absorb incoming radar including even the leading edges and intakes. This is why the B-2 is as stealthy as the F-22 from the bottom, sides and the front. From the top, not so much. You just can't do as much with the intakes designed in the 80s. I suspect that this will be addressed much better in the B-21. This means that the B-2 can get within smart bomb range of almost every radar site in existence. But they aren't going to use a 2 billion dollar Bomber when a 80 million dollar fighter can do the same job.

Radar Sites won't go out of business. Since only a handful of nations have real Gen 5 birds, the Radar Sites will still be effective. Those sites have all but left the Gen 4 birds as flying coffins for those that don't have Gen 5 fighters to clean them out. And even then, a lucky shot can be done even on a Gen 5 when he has some sort of damage like his weapons doors won't close or he's taken damage on his radar absorbing skin. Or his Refueling Probe won't recess. Maybe a panel has shifted and left a gap. Welcome to Combat where shit happens.

How does a pilot know where the Radar Sites are? Easy answer. And this applies to almost every bird in the US Inventory and most of the front line birds in the Russian Inventory. They just keep it up on their display. That information is coming via a datalink from his own systems or someone elses including ground and air assets. Even Naval and Satellites. Again, in order to have a Ground Site on line, it's going to have to go stationary and go active. At that point, he's lighting up the Sky, Ground and Space. There are NEVER going to be stealthy ground Radar Sites. And even if you are flying an Aircraft Fighter, flip on that Radar and you have given your entire history away from it almost down to what you had for breakfast. Stealth War Planes fly with their Radar OFF and rely on other systems to see for them. But on their own readouts, it reads like their radars were on.

I mean, the f-35's advantages are greatest when there is air combat.


If we consider the scenario of a ground operation ... 90% of success comes from reconnaissance. A simple example. If you see the Buk. Its range is 30 km. You don't need a stealth plane. You can take a hot air balloon and a rocket that will fly 30 km + 1 km. But if you don't know where the radars and launchers are .. the plane can be shot down from cheap MANPADS.

How does a pilot know where the Radar Sites are? Easy answer.

Why keep all the radars on?
You can keep several radars in one area ... but turn on in turn ...
Without reconnaissance, the pilot cannot be sure that the radar he sees is not a trap for him.

Okay, let's look at modern Aerial Combat. You have a flight of 5 F-35s against a flight of 5 SU-35s. Coming in, it's now 5 F-35s against 4 SU-35s and then they merge. At no time is it one on one. It's going to be one side against the other side and EVERY bird can shoot down every other bird. One may be twisting and turning with another but takes the shot on another bird twisting and turning with another. The winners aren't going to be the best AC but the best pilots, weapons and electronics package. And right now, the F-35A is top of the heap. And it can turn and burn with a F-16C so it's not bad in the turn in burn category. Yes, the SU-35 may or may not be better or worse but when you are also having to worry about everyone else bagging you then that will effect your performance drastically. It may just come down to the Pilot at this point and all equipment and Voodoo bets are off. Just remember this, the SU-35 will enter into the fight at a disadvantage from the very beginning and it's going to take one hell of a pilot to make that up.

Outside of mobile sites being mobile, both sides will know exactly where the other side has the ground installations so not having the Radar operating is not a plus. And the second that mobile site goes active, it's no longer mobile. The F-35A can fire much faster than the Mobile Site can at the F-35A. The Mobile Site has to aquire the F-35A, ID and then lockon. His missile must also aquire, lockon and maintain that lockon during the entire flight. The F-35A just has to aquire the site and since the site isn't mobile and MUST maintain active, the F-35A uses the sites own radar signature to stay on target. If the signal is lost, the Missile goes to the location of the last known signal. Meaning, the site still gets hit. The Ground Site doesn't have that benefit since the F-35A is constantly changing direction and altitude. And that is giving the nod that the F-35A is within that distance that the ground site just can't miss. When you are dealing with a flight of F-35As and a squadron of Ground Sites, the advantage will always be with the F-35A. This is not to say that some F-35As won't be lost. Shit happens in war. But it's suffices to say that all the Radar Sites will be lost that turn on their Radar even intermittently. It ain't Vietnam anymore.

 

[Sonc]

Okay, let's look at modern Aerial Combat

1) Modern air combat does not imply close range.
2) How does this relate to the S-400?

His missile must also aquire, lockon and maintain that lockon during the entire flight.

No=)

The F-35A can fire much faster than the Mobile Site can at the F-35A

For Active radar homing (ARH) needed only an approximate area.

The rocket can be launched from a distance of 400 km. She goes much higher than the F35 flies.
the radiation power depends on the distance quadratically ...
Therefore, the closer she is to the plane, the better she sees.

You think the launcher is in the same place as the radar.
But it could be right under the plane.
Or 20 km behind. Or 10 km to the right.

Once again - without reconnaissance, the plane is like a man walking through a minefield.
He can prepare to attack an object 500 m away, but he will be shot at close range with a shotgun from around the corner.

Good air defense can only be overcome with "brute force". If in some region there are 300 air defense missiles ... then you need to launch 400 cruise missiles, and then planes.

 

[Dayton3]

Okay, let's look at modern Aerial Combat

1) Modern air combat does not imply close range.
2) How does this relate to the S-400?

His missile must also aquire, lockon and maintain that lockon during the entire flight.

No=)

The F-35A can fire much faster than the Mobile Site can at the F-35A

For Active radar homing (ARH) needed only an approximate area.

The rocket can be launched from a distance of 400 km. She goes much higher than the F35 flies.
the radiation power depends on the distance quadratically ...
Therefore, the closer she is to the plane, the better she sees.

You think the launcher is in the same place as the radar.
But it could be right under the plane.
Or 20 km behind. Or 10 km to the right.

Once again - without reconnaissance, the plane is like a man walking through a minefield.
He can prepare to attack an object 500 m away, but he will be shot at close range with a shotgun from around the corner.

Good air defense can only be overcome with "brute force". If in some region there are 300 air defense missiles ... then you need to launch 400 cruise missiles, and then planes.

People love to use range as one of the great positives of various missile systems.

But they ignore the obvious. A SAM (or an AAM) with long range will be extremely low on energy and unmanuverable at the extreme limits of its range. That's a simple matter of physics. Which is one reason fighter pilots almost never launch a missile at the outer limits of the missiles range and expect it to get a kill.

About the only time they do so is to force approaching attacking aircraft to at least break formation or ideally to jettison their war loads in order to evade.