F-35 Lightning II
- Viestiketjun aloittaja Hejsan
- Aloitus PVM
Lawmakers pressure Lockheed to pay back Pentagon for F-35 parts problems
The Pentagon wants financial compensation for F-35 parts that are not ready to install upon delivery.
www.defensenews.com
Panssari Salama
Respected Leader
Tää oli mielenkiintoinen:Pitkä juttu.
Lengthy F-35 Upgrade List To Transform Strike Fighter’s Future Role | Aviation Week Network
Leaps in computing power, sensors and weapons will benefit the F-35 in the next eight years—if Lockheed can keep modernization on track.aviationweek.com
Avaa todella mielenkiintoisia näkymiä ELSO rintamalle, kun saatu data on monipuolisesti eri taistelujärjestelmien käytössä.
Teräsvilla
Eversti
Mitä tuo Armyn ja Navyn kuvaus käytännössä tarkoittaa, eli mitä on interceptors?
Panssari Salama
Respected Leader
Tulkitsen että ilmataisteluhävittäjät kuten F-15 ja F-16
Muoks wiki kuvaa näin
Eli hävittäjät(yypit), joita käytetään vastustajan hävittäjien ja pommittajien tuhoamiseen ennen kuin ne ehtivät omille maalialueilleen.
Teräsvilla
Eversti
Kummallakaan ei taida olla noita koneita.
Panssari Salama
Respected Leader
Ihan totta, Armeijalla ainakin aiemmin oli kielto ylläpitää kiinteäsiipisiä ilmataistelukoneita, helikopterit ja maataistelukoneet o(li)vat sallittuja. Ja Laivastolla tosiaan Huurnetteja. Ilmavoimat toki sitten oma lukunsa.
Teräsvilla
Eversti
Mietin kans että jos Suomelle ollaan hankkimassa salamoita ykköslinjan hävittäjiksi, niin siinä ei ainakaan muita taistelukoneita enää oo tukemassa. Tai no Hawkithan varmaan ampuu sakaramiinoja =D
Mielenkiintoinen yksityiskohta. Olis kiva kuulla jos foorumilta löytyy käsitystä mitä tuo voi tarkoitaa. Ja sitten keskustelu kuumaksi mitä se tarkoittaa meidän kannalta.
Gyllis1
Respected Leader
Tuo viittaa CEC-kykyyn.
Eli käytännössä esimerkiksi laivaston alus tai armeijan ilmatorjuntayksikkö ampuu torjuntaohjuksen F-35:lta tulevan maalitiedon perusteella.
Gyllis1
Respected Leader
Eli tässä kontekstissa termiä interceptor ei käytetä hävittäjistä vaan:
The Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) is an endo-atmospheric interceptor, which uses a blast-fragmentation warhead to engage cruise missiles, aircraft, and ballistic missiles in the terminal phase. as its kill vehicle. The U.S. Navy is also upgrading the SM-6 to perform strike missions
How the F-35 could be a game-changer for Singapore
What would change for Singapore if it purchases the stealthy fighter jet? And where will it train the pilots?
www.defensenews.com
CEC tarkoittaa sensoriverkkoa, jossa eri lavettien sensorit on yhdistetty yhtenäiseksi tilannekuvaksi ja jossa lavetit ohjaavat toistensa sensoreita. Maalinosoitustieto voidaan saada myös pelkästään datalinkin välityksellä, kunhan sen tiedonsiirtokapasiteetti riittää käyteettävän aseen ja kohteena olevan maalin yhdistelmään.
The Goldfein Years | Air & Space Forces Magazine
Chief 21’s Legacy is His Vision for the Future: A Highly Connected Joint Force.
www.airforcemag.com
Siis torjuntahävittäjä
F-35s Nest In Big New Alaskan Facility Marking Strategic Shift For Critical Region
Eielson Air Force Base's huge new F-35 wing will rapidly become one of the U.S. Air Force’s most important units.
www.thedrive.com
Torjuntahävittäjä.
Panssari Salama
Respected Leader
Näin siinä käy kun lukee melkein pelkästään englanninkielisiä artikkeleita ja kirjoja. Suomenkieli unohtuu.
Kohta käy kun Sämpylle siinä vanhassa Uuno Turhapurossa, jossa sen hahmo aloitti ruotsin opiskelun kirjekurssina, ei oppinut, mutta unohti kyllä suomenkielen ... Mikä se hahmo oli. Tossavainen?
14 years ago it was believed that F-35’s RCS was slightly inferior to that of F-22. Real world RCS testing revealed F-35 exceeding its RCS requirement. Since then, pilots and people having access to the program such as former commander of Air Combat Command, Gen. Hostage, points to the notion that F-35 is actually stealthier than F-22. So in worst case, let’s consider F-35’s RCS similar to the F-22 (i.e. “metal marble” = 0.0001 m^2)
91N6E is S-400’s primary Search radar. Based on public data, it can detect a normal fighter aircraft (RCS: 4 m^2) from 390 km maximum. Using radar equation, for F-35 (0.0001 m^2 RCS) this corresponds to <30 km.
Worth noting that this is not the range a S-400 can engage F-35. For that, the Fire-control radar 92N6E Gravestone must be able to track it. The only reliable data about Gravestone (that I know of) is from Aviation Week.
Almaz-Antey says the S-400’s 92N6E “Gravestone” fire-control radar can detect a 4-m2 radar-cross-section target at 250 km.
Source: Measuring Stealth Technology's Performance. You can read full article here: Stealth - Part 1 - Measuring Stealth Technology's Performance
That figure corresponds to 17.6 km against a 0.0001 m^2 target.
None of these figures include on or off-board EW/jamming, something the F-35 is very capable of and having such low RCS makes jamming much more effective.
There might be some Low Frequency radars that could potentially detect F-35 at slightly longer range and provide Early Warning but they’re incapable of providing any kind of targeting information, something the question gives emphasis on. Not to mention that they’re much more prone to jamming (by other platforms) due to lower operational bandwidth.
This is the closest you get with the public information.
Edit: As pointed out by Chuck Hunter, it’s important to remember that these detection ranges are not accurate for LO aircraft like F-35. Because in reality, there will be enormous difference in background noise between a 4 m^2 class target vs. a marble or golf-ball class target – something the radar equation used for calculation doesn’t account.
So in real world, the detection range for F-35 will be even lower than the corresponding figures. This also explains why most radars are incapable of detecting/tracking VLO aircraft like F-22 or F-35 in real world even from close ranges.
These figures only provide a context into the subject and shows how big of a tactical advantage F-35 has against S-400 compared to non-stealthy platforms.
91N6E is S-400’s primary Search radar. Based on public data, it can detect a normal fighter aircraft (RCS: 4 m^2) from 390 km maximum. Using radar equation, for F-35 (0.0001 m^2 RCS) this corresponds to <30 km.
Worth noting that this is not the range a S-400 can engage F-35. For that, the Fire-control radar 92N6E Gravestone must be able to track it. The only reliable data about Gravestone (that I know of) is from Aviation Week.
Almaz-Antey says the S-400’s 92N6E “Gravestone” fire-control radar can detect a 4-m2 radar-cross-section target at 250 km.
Source: Measuring Stealth Technology's Performance. You can read full article here: Stealth - Part 1 - Measuring Stealth Technology's Performance
That figure corresponds to 17.6 km against a 0.0001 m^2 target.
None of these figures include on or off-board EW/jamming, something the F-35 is very capable of and having such low RCS makes jamming much more effective.
There might be some Low Frequency radars that could potentially detect F-35 at slightly longer range and provide Early Warning but they’re incapable of providing any kind of targeting information, something the question gives emphasis on. Not to mention that they’re much more prone to jamming (by other platforms) due to lower operational bandwidth.
This is the closest you get with the public information.
Edit: As pointed out by Chuck Hunter, it’s important to remember that these detection ranges are not accurate for LO aircraft like F-35. Because in reality, there will be enormous difference in background noise between a 4 m^2 class target vs. a marble or golf-ball class target – something the radar equation used for calculation doesn’t account.
So in real world, the detection range for F-35 will be even lower than the corresponding figures. This also explains why most radars are incapable of detecting/tracking VLO aircraft like F-22 or F-35 in real world even from close ranges.
These figures only provide a context into the subject and shows how big of a tactical advantage F-35 has against S-400 compared to non-stealthy platforms.
