F-35 Joint Strike Fighter

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Kakve su realne mogučnosti izbegavanja rakete?

Koliko sam razumeo, potrebno je vizuelno uočavanje iste.

Ako optička vidljivost nije idealna, pilot če ju teško primjetiti.

Gledao sam intervju sa pilotom iz 99.

Kazao je da nije video raketu, samo mu je avion bacilo u stranu kao u sudaru automobila.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

mean_machine ::Sto rece na ares blogu, neki amer operater Patriota, PAK-FA sa antirad. raketama=njegova najveca nocna mora
Zato sto je to duuuud koji radi svoj posao. Price o vojnicima...

Citat:Da li mislite da bi mi oborili F-117 da je kojim slucajem isti mogao da ima jedan harm pri ruci?
Kao i '99 krenuo bi na emiter radarskog zracenja i bio oboren.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Citat:abudabi i mean_machine
Obojici za poslednje postove po od mene.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Leonardo ::
Citat:Da li mislite da bi mi oborili F-117 da je kojim slucajem isti mogao da ima jedan harm pri ruci?
Kao i '99 krenuo bi na emiter radarskog zracenja i bio oboren.

Ne bi krenuo na emiter radarskog zracenja jer emiter nije opasnost. Emiter simulira radar koji pretrazuje nebo koliko je meni poznato. Nisam siguran da postoje emiteri koji simuliraju "lock-on"

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Eto 3.rd 250 rbr su gadjali 23 puta i nikad ih nisu pogodili.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

zixo ::Eto 3.rd 250 rbr su gadjali 23 puta i nikad ih nisu pogodili.

Ali bi morali prekinuti ozracivanje F-117 zar ne? Ili ce da rizikuju da ih pogodi HARM?

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

E moje drage kolege i ja sam ovako mislio kao vi, ali sam sa vremenom promenio mišljenje i mislim da je F-35 jako dobar avion i da nije za podcenjivanje.

Staviču neke stvari koje sam našao o ovom avionu i to ne od nekih novinara več od čoveka koji je učestvovao u stvaranju F-117 i F-22. Samo da vidite kako "oni" razmišljaju:

Vazduh-Vazduh:

Citat:An F-35 does not enter the fight alone. The F-35 who paints the targets with its APG-81 is not the one who will be launching AIM-120s. That will be his three mates who are unseen and launch silently using targeting data passed to them from the first via MADL. This is the method F-22s have used to achieve lopsided scores in exercises against F-15s, F-16s and F-18s.

Citat:Apples and oranges.

Typhoon's MAWs are omni transmitters, otherwise they would not be able to detect approaching missiles. Link 16 is also an omni transmitter. Those two 1980s Typhoon technologies are like a lighthouse beacon at midnight screaming "Here I am! Come kill me!"

APG-81 and MADL are highly directional with extremely low sidelobes. The only way to intercept F-35s comms is to be directly between two F-35s or be a couple of kilometers from one. It is the same with the APG-81. Sidelobes are small, so you have to be close, or have its beam pointed at you and the F-35 must use a waveform that is recognized as a radar. If you detect the APG-81, take a lesson from those killed by F-22s in exercises and watch out. The guy who paints you with his radar is not the one shooting AIM-120s at you using target quality data passed via MADL/IFDL.

Citat:The level of stealth incorporated into an airplane can allow you to operate at several levels. Levels of operation for stealth airplanes are, in descending order (most stealthy to least stealthy):

Covert: Your airplane is so stealthy the enemy has no idea you are operating in his airspace. Note: You lose "covert" when you start bombing stuff.

Unalerted: The enemy knows you are operating in the area, but your airplane is stealthy enough to avoid sensors that would normally alert him to your presence.

Uncued: Your enemy has inspecific knowledge of your location, but your stealth does not allow him enough precision to achieve a fire control solution with his IADS.

Survivable: Your enemy can detect and shoot at you, but your stealth combined with countermeasures, allows you to survive hostile fire.

O AWACS-u
Citat:Has anybody wondered why the evil Americans are not talking about replacements for JSTARS, Rivet Joint, or AWACS? With Gen 5 and network centric operations, their importance to the CAOC is greatly reduced.

Vazduh-Zemlja:

Citat:S-300 threat is not eliminated. But the S-300's engagement area is reduced by 75%. And that is without MALD-J in the mix.

Citat:A $1M HARM only causes the target tracking radar to shut down temporarily. Once the HARM impacts the ground several hundred meters away, the TTR is free to start tracking again. This scenario played out several hundred times against Serbian and Iraqi SAM batteries. USAF/USN shot hundreds of HARMs without destroying any SAM batteries.

I won't comment on the 30 nm, but Gen 5 uses stealth to get close enough to geolocate components of the SAM battery without the SAM battery being able to target the Gen 5. Then, a salvo of GBU-63s uses multi-spectral MMW/IIR target recognition to find and K-kill the command, TTR and/or acquisition radar vans.

Citat:This is where a basic understanding of the physics involved helps us understand why nothing short of having the Klingons beam down and gift you a cloaking device will allow your non-VLO Gen 4 to perform the F-35's job.

The IADS forces your non-VLO Gen 4 to stand off a respectable distance to avoid becoming a missile magnet. The huge radiated power and aperture of an S-300 allows him to detect and track at 250 km and hit you with a missile at 150 km.

By standing just outside missile range and using your ESM with 2 degree pointing accuracy, you can determine the S-300's rough position to an ellipse 5.2 km wide by 7.5 km long or about 30 square km.

You can attempt to use your radar to paint a SAR image of that 30 sq km, but realize that your tiny fighter radar doesn't have the radiated power or aperture size to accomplish that task. Even a huge airborne SAR with significantly more radiated power, such as JSTARS, takes several minutes to paint a SAR image at 150 km range. IWO, physics of fighter radar performance over long distance caused you to fail.

If you attempt to use EOIR to locate the S-300, you find your targeting pod's tiny lens cannot resolve truck-sized objects in clutter at distances beyond 65 km. IWO, you have no sensors that can locate the S-300 at the distances involved.

But a VLO Gen 5 can get much closer without becoming a missile magnet. The IADS VHF/UHF radar will know the F-35s are present, but their VLO return is too faint for the S-300's acquisition or fire control radars to find. Distances are classified, but the area to be searched by SAR decreases by an order of magnitide. APG-81 SAR mode can easily paint an image in seconds, and EOIR can easily distinguish differences in versions of S-300. At this point, targeting is a snap. Data is shared with other F-35 in the flight and they take turns watching the S-300 as it knocks down and begins to move to a new location. Of course, SDBs would already be enroute.

Tehnologija:

Citat:
When the Clinton administration started cutting F-22 development funding in 1993, many of the innovations that had been planned for F-22 were abandoned for proven older technologies (to meet schedule at dramatically lower costs). An example are F-22's LO materials, which are derived from those used by the F-117 single configuration fleet modification and bear little semblance to F-35 LO materials. (Its also the primary reason F-22 isn't meeting its maintenance manhour per flight hour goal). And F-35's 2003 vintage LO materials bear little semblance to today's LO materials. Technological improvements continue and will provide better performance with reduced maintenance for future airplanes such as NGB and NGAD.

Citat:RF energy travels along an airplane's exterior surface and will scatter (and increase RCS) any time it meets an abrupt change in contour or an untreated gap in the skin. On the Typhoon pictured, RF will scatter at the UHF/VHF antennas, missiles, control surface actuator fairings and abrupt wing/tail-to-fuselage transition. The RF scattering issues with Typhoon are serious enough to make it's RCS a couple orders of magnitude greater than the F-35. Learn about scattering features and it becomes very easy to tell which airplane has a low RCS and which does not.

Citat:On 4 October 2001, a DSP satellite in geosynchronous orbit (22,000 miles altitude) tracked the launch and flight of a Ukranian S-200 missile that shot down Siberia Airlines TU-154 with 78 passengers and crew over the Black Sea. The Ukranians first tried to deny they shot down the airliner, but confessed after Americans showed them the evidence.

That gives you an idea of what an IR system is capable of doing.
Citat:
Forget about training and consider Israeli F-35s vs Saudi Typhoons will be an uneven match due to technology. And what would seem to be unrelated F-35 subsystems were modified to maximize sensor performance, to allow F-35's ESM to detect faint signals hundreds of miles away.

For example, have you ever wondered why F-35 has a 270 VDC electrical system? The industry standard of 115 VAC 400 Hz three phase electrical power is lighter, cheaper and widely available because it has been in widespread use for decades. But AC puts noise into the airframe's ground plane and that noise adversely effects the performance of ESM sensors as they try to detect faint signals. DC does not have a ground plane noise problem and 270 volts is needed to reduce motor size/weight.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Citat:Ali bi morali prekinuti ozracivanje F-117 zar ne? Ili ce da rizikuju da ih pogodi HARM?

Bilo je svacega.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

@abudabi


Citat:"Teorija je zaista lepa, ali praksa je nesto sasvim drugo"

Apsolutno bi se slozio. Praksa je takva da na jednoj strani imamo tehnoloski najnaprednije vazduhoplovstvo, sa preko 5000 izuzetnih aparata povezanih u integrisani napadacki sistem bez presedena. U praksi imamo vojni savez u okviru koga je jos veci broj namoderniji lovaca. U praksi postoji samo jedna supersila i vojni savez sa operativnim lovcem 5. generacije i sa velikim brojem lovaca 4.5 gen.
U praksi ta supersila ne sedi skrstenih ruku od devedestih kada je poleteo americki 'pak fa'. Niti ce sedeti kada potencijalni protivnici napokon budu imali operativne avione 5 generacije.

Vrlo su interesantne teorijske rasprave kako ce se koji avion snaci u III. sv. ratu. Kada F-22 bude leteo bez Avaksa i bez satelita i kada se bude borio protiv aviona koji jos nisu napravljeni... Sto se mene tice taj dan nece skoro, pa se ne bih rasplinjavao, a jedni ko ce imati priliku da napravi dovoljno brojno vazduhoplovstvo da bi bio ozbiljan igrac je druga ekonomska sila na planeti tj. Kina. Bez novca nema igranja u kolu.

Upravo tako, samo sto si trebao da odes dalje u analizu.

Amerika ima samo 185 F-22 (bez neke ozbiljnije V-Z uloge) i nijedan operativni F-35.
Druga stvar , ako uzmemo Rusiju za primer (ne bi se sluzio primerima Srbije, Iraka i Afganistana, ako me razumes), dubina njene teritorije i najnapredniji PVO sistemi na svetu koji su u operativnoj upotrebi, umrezeni sa mocinm VHF/UHF radarima, predstavljaju nepremostivu prepreku za svih onih 5000 klasicnih, ne stelt aviona. Dodaj tu i avijaciju, koja bas i nije u najsjanijem polozaju, ali koja bi sigurno imala kolikog tolikog efekta.
Dovoljan ti je primer Izraela koji se iz petnih zila trudio da Iran nedobije zastarele S-300 sisteme. To pokazuje koliko je ozbiljna pretnja dobro umrezenog, modernog PVO sistema jedne drzave.
A ako cemo i dalje na scenu stupa Topolj-M itd. . .i odnosmo mi u treci svetski rat!
Ali vidim da ti mislis da su sve zemlje osim amerike i njenih saveznika sedele skrstenih ruku od poletanja americkog "pak fa".
Na kraju krajeva, zasto bi se rasplinjavali, kako si rekao i oko F-35 i njegovih mogucnosti na ovom forumu i ovoj temi, kada on nije ni blizu serijske proizvodnje, posto vidim da ti analiziras samo sisteme koji su u serijskoj proizvodnji.

Citat:Inerciajlno navodjenje u toku srednje faze leta... Dakle nije apsolutno neophodno ozracivati cij iz lovca koji je lansirao . Uz to korekcije putanje putem datalinka mogu doci od treceg aviona ili AWACSa...

O tome sam pisao u prethodnom postu, a ti si samo preveo izraz "inertial mid-course guidance" na srpski. Ono sto vidim je da nisi razumeo problem prilikom takvog tipa samo-navodjenja.

Citat:Before launch, the launching aircraft's fire control system programs the missile's inertial autopilot in the WGU-16/B guidance unit to bring it into a homing basket in the vicinity of the target. The autopilot can receive mid-course updates from the aircraft via a data link.
For the lower portions of the AMRAAM's range envelope (minimum range is said to be 2 km (2200 yds)), where the mid-course guidance updates are not needed, the AIM-120 is a true fire-and-forget weapon.

Evo situacije kada ispalis AIM-120D koji ima domet oko 180km na cilj koji se nalazi na udaljenosti od nekih 100km.
Auto pilot navodi raketu (koja se u aktivnom delu putanje krece brzinom od oko 4M) u programiranu blizinu cilja. To znaci da ce raketi trebati oko 90 sekundi da dodje do mesta "sastanka"
Ako taj cilj napravi zaokret od 90 stepeni i ubrza do 2M, za tih 90 sekundi nacice se skoro 50km dalje po pravcu od programirane putanje rakete.
Da se raketa ne bi nasla toliko daleko od cilja moras da vrsis korekciju putanje preko data linka, sto znaci, da bi dao tu informaciju raketi moras opet da ozracis cilj kako bi imao tacne parametre.
To onda u svakom slucaju ne bi bio "lansiraj i zaboravi" mod, ali ako pilot resi da ne vrsi korekcije auto pilota, onda dobijes mod "lansiraj i zaboravi da ces pogoditi cilj"


Citat:F-35 je izuzetan testbed za razne tehnologije. Razvojni i opitni poligon. To sto na njemu nije demonstrirana izuzetna aerodinamika, ne znaci da su ameri zabroavili kako da je naprave. Ako ne verujemo piloti koji su ga leteli, a kazu da ima bolje letne karakteristike od F-16, nemojmo biti iskljucivi u tome da nema. Videcemo sta ce na kraju biti od ovog aviona... Secam se jedne cigle sa krilima koja je na kraju ispala ubitacna.


Sa ovim se apsolutno slazem, a takodje su interesantni i podaci koje je naveo "atomic", s tim sto bi voleo da cujem sta ima da kaze i druga strana, jer sam siguran da imaju odgovor i na to, pogotovo sto se u tekstu nisu navodili najnoviji PVO sistemi i potencijalni stelt lovci koji ce verovatno uci u serijsku proizvodnju pre F-35.

• 0Niko još nije pohvalio poruku.
  Registruj se da bi pohvalio/la poruku!

Citat:Evo situacije kada ispalis AIM-120D koji ima domet oko 180km na cilj koji se nalazi na udaljenosti od nekih 100km.
Auto pilot navodi raketu (koja se u aktivnom delu putanje krece brzinom od oko 4M) u programiranu blizinu cilja. To znaci da ce raketi trebati oko 90 sekundi da dodje do mesta "sastanka"
Ako taj cilj napravi zaokret od 90 stepeni i ubrza do 2M, za tih 90 sekundi nacice se skoro 50km dalje po pravcu od programirane putanje rakete.
Da se raketa ne bi nasla toliko daleko od cilja moras da vrsis korekciju putanje preko data linka, sto znaci, da bi dao tu informaciju raketi moras opet da ozracis cilj kako bi imao tacne parametre.
To onda u svakom slucaju ne bi bio "lansiraj i zaboravi" mod, ali ako pilot resi da ne vrsi korekcije auto pilota, onda dobijes mod "lansiraj i zaboravi da ces pogoditi cilj"

Teorijski nije "fire and forget" ali u realnosti jeste ako govorimo o taktici koju Ameri primenjuju vec godinama.

Kod Amera je ustaljena praksa da samo jedan ili dva aviona u formaciji odradjuju korekciju kursa, i to su avioni sa AESA radarima, naravno to moze da odradi i AWACS stim sto sada je verovatno bolje koristiti lovce sa AESA tehnologijom barem dok E-3 ne dobije AESA radar.

Dakle ti radari koji rade korekciju mogu biti na sigurnom rastojanju, ne moraju uopste da koriste LPI mod (stim sto za najnovije AESA radare LPI mod ne utice bitno na domet) a avioni koji su ispalili rakete mogu da menjaju polazaj bez problema.