F-35 deployment to Ukraine?

[shift8]

2 hours ago, IMHO said:

MIMO+DSP+Many intelligent things? Good enough?

No, if I am understanding the tone of this accurately. 

 

You cannot signal process your way around physics without limit. Increased computational power and other tricks still have to work within the confines of the real capabilities of the radar and geometry of the target and environment. Low frequency radar is limited by hard factors that force design requirements into the radar that are generally impractical, especially for airborne use. For this reason, low frequency radar are only useful for early warning or perhaps iff or jamming as the power and size requirements to make a useful FCR are too great. Hence the entire reason we use high frequency radar. Contrary to popular myth, the proponents of expensive stealth aircraft did not suddenly forget about ww2 era radar when designing stealth. 

[IMHO]

6 hours ago, shift8 said:

No, if I am understanding the tone of this accurately. 

You cannot signal process your way around physics without limit. Increased computational power and other tricks still have to work within the confines of the real capabilities of the radar and geometry of the target and environment. Low frequency radar is limited by hard factors that force design requirements into the radar that are generally impractical, especially for airborne use. For this reason, low frequency radar are only useful for early warning or perhaps iff or jamming as the power and size requirements to make a useful FCR are too great. Hence the entire reason we use high frequency radar. Contrary to popular myth, the proponents of expensive stealth aircraft did not suddenly forget about ww2 era radar when designing stealth.

Correct me if I'm wrong but stealth designs are normally optimized for monostatic. Plus absorption and wave cancellation designs work in a rather narrow frequency bands. So it makes detection easier if one uses non-standard setup, certainly I don't imply tracking. I mean one can crudely replicate a strategic early warning radar approach. Crudely. THEN you'd need computational power.

PS The tone is just a friendly smile.

Edited March 11, 2017 by IMHO

[shift8]

5 hours ago, IMHO said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but stealth designs are normally optimized for monostatic. Plus absorption and wave cancellation designs work in a rather narrow frequency bands. So it makes detection easier if one uses non-standard setup, certainly I don't imply tracking. I mean one can crudely replicate a strategic early warning radar approach. Crudely. THEN you'd need computational power.

PS The tone is just a friendly smile.

My reference to tone was just my impression of the content of the post, that you could use computation to fix the problems of low frequency radars. 

Yes, the designs are optimized for certain frequency bands. All I am saying is that not being as stealthy in L-Band or VHF is really not all that important because those frequencies have inherent usefulness limits. As you appear to have mentioned, they cannot be used for target tracking or weapons employments. Depending on the array size, the data you get from one might just be azimuth, and not even altitude etc. No amount of computational wizardry can overcome the inherent limits of the actual radar beam. 

[IMHO]

2 hours ago, shift8 said:

My reference to tone was just my impression of the content of the post, that you could use computation to fix the problems of low frequency radars. 

Yes, the designs are optimized for certain frequency bands. All I am saying is that not being as stealthy in L-Band or VHF is really not all that important because those frequencies have inherent usefulness limits. As you appear to have mentioned, they cannot be used for target tracking or weapons employments. Depending on the array size, the data you get from one might just be azimuth, and not even altitude etc. No amount of computational wizardry can overcome the inherent limits of the actual radar beam. 

We may well mean the same thing just from different perspectives  You somehow make an implicit assumption that it's just one receiver (and one transmitter per se). I'm saying with a MIMO setup it will be much more difficult to prevent detection - too many angles, an insane aperture increase etc. And processing MIMO data is something that was not possible 15-20 years ago but feasible now. Though just like you said - no luck with fire control within any practical limits  Agree?

Edited March 11, 2017 by IMHO

[c3k]

The designs are also optimized for direction.

[shift8]

2 hours ago, IMHO said:

We may well mean the same thing just from different perspectives  You somehow make an implicit assumption that it's just one receiver (and one transmitter per se). I'm saying with a MIMO setup it will be much more difficult to prevent detection - too many angles, an insane aperture increase etc. And processing MIMO data is something that was not possible 15-20 years ago but feasible now. Though just like you said - no luck with fire control within any practical limits  Agree?

Detection yes, engagement with the same system, no. So it would seem we are on the same page. Albeit detection would still be hindered somewhat since the effectiveness of the system is going to affected by the layout of the separate emitters relative to the target...or targets. For example, the useful angles produced by separation of the emitters would be hindered by such things as terrain, setup time, etc. Which means that detection from direction would not be as effective as it would be from another, depending etc. You would also have a problem where the efficacy of the entire system would be threaten potentially even if only one of the emitters was jammed or eliminated. The only point I mean to make is that by being stealthy in the higher frequency ranges you complicate things for the defender such that the methods needed to work around it are increasingly difficult or impractical, and also generally easier to find holes in. 

Although it would seem as though we are on the same page so I might very well just be preaching to the choir. 

[shift8]

This post is not directed at anyone specifically, it is especially has nothing to do with the conversation I was just in regarding L-Band specifics. 

 

The context for this goes back more than a week, and I have been deliberating on how to extol this for some time. I want to get rid of some of the mythology and misconceptions regarding BVR combat that have been mentioned several times already. Rinaldi and Panzerwerfer (omg that name is too long to type  have already mentioned some of this. 

 

For starters, it is important to understand that the emphasis on BVR is not an American exclusive doctrine. Everyone is on board with BVR being the order of the day, more or less. This includes the Russians. Differences in expenditure on specific aircraft characteristics have much more do with how much money respective nations have to spend, and less to do with differing ideologies on what the "ideal" would be. The cutting edge tends to be expensive. If you have alot less cash to throw around, it is usually wise to spend that money perfecting aspects of your technology that are still within the realm of feasibility. Historically this is has always been case. Hence why some nations do not buy planes at all, or very nearly, but may possess a decent MBT. 

The first problem with understanding the BVR vs WVR debate is understanding that these terms mostly mean nothing. What really matters is whether or not existing tech limits merge possibilities. The debate between the two sides on this issue tends to revolve around (especially with the F-35) the idea that reliance on BVR is dangerous because aircraft designed exclusively for this at the expense of all else will not be able to "dogfight" effectively. There are many issues with this concept, but chief among them is the concept of "dogfight." Engagement geometry, of which range to target is a function, does affect tactics. However, until you "merge" the dog fighting performance of a airplane is more or less moot. Being smacking the face by a AMRAAM, R-77, or Sidewinder at 2-3nm is just as much not a dogfight as being love tapped by the same AAM at 25nm. Neither is a dogfight. Neither requires exceptional turn rate or radius etc. 

The age of the dogfight is dead. The age of the all aspect spear chucking contest has begun. In this battle the main deciders will be situational awareness, weapons performance, and lastly speed and altitude kinematics. Low RCS and powerful radar or ECM decide the first, and are prerequisite to the other two. Speed and altitude kinematics will augment the performance of weapons etc. So in other words, the hardest to spot plane that can find the enemy first, and can attach that to a combination of weapons or weapons augmented by kinematics has the best chance for winning for all practical purposes. 

So lets go through the hurdles you have to cross to even think about the possibility of a merged engagement involving BFM. Ill leave stealth out here, and let everyone use their imaginations as to how being extremely hard to detect would affect the following. I cant describe absolutely every facet of these, so try to forgive certain omissions because this is extremely complex. 

SO. You have two sets of planes, lets say 16 vs 16, trying to engage each other. Lets assume with is a ideal world and both groups manage to spot each other at the same time. Having similar kinematics, and being close enough to start, they increase throttle or altitude to achieve the best kinematic geometry to increase their missile performance to the max. Once within missile range, there are a few options depending on how conservative they desire to be with their weapons. Tactics would be dictated by relative speed, altitude, weapons performance etc. You get the idea. In many cases one group may decide to abort due to unacceptable odds. It just depends. But we will assume equivalent weapons and kinematics, and sensors etc. Both groups therefore begin cranking maneuvers, placing the other groups on their radar coverage limits. If the enemy were not to do the same, they would gain a range advantage though geometry, allowing them to push deeper into the enemy weapons envelope before firing. At some point one or both sides might start firing spoiler missiles at each other in order to disrupt the other sides maneuvers. Depending on range, these shots may force enemy aircraft to go defensive to avoid the shots. Given human nature to self preserve, and a non-omniscient knowledge of enemy weapons or even how far they fired from, these defenses will be less than perfect. Many pilots will defend too aggressively and surrender the initiative and their SA too early. Pilots who take too many risks will fly themselves into enemy AAMs. Either of these options is bad news. Most modern AAM's wont give you a launch warning, so you wont know how long a missile has been in the air per se until said weapon turns on its own radar. So at this crucial decision point, whether to defend or commit, sensors will be key. Etc etc. The next part will be chaos for the side with the least situational awareness. Some aircraft will have gone defensive, other will have been killed, and still others may be racing to close further with the enemy to follow up shots or going after different targets. There are so many conditions at this point it is hard for me to fit here. Planes still pressing the attack will be gambling that they know where relevant enemy threats are, how many missiles they have left, OR if there are already missiles en-route to them. The greater the engagement size, the harder this is. Planes that are defensive will be trying to defeat said threat. They have to positively determine the missile has been defeated, and then make a risky determination as to whether they can reengage or not. You could be turning yourself around only to find that an enemy aircraft was chasing you down, or a missile. Then there is everything in between. Tools that aide or disrupt situational awareness will be far more important than anything else. Period. The side that better understands the battlefield will be better able to make the above decisions. Making the wrong decision means death. 

But lets say you somehow get visual. You still are not in a dogfight. Two planes that see each other visually are likely to simply shoot each other, just at closer ranges. What is worse, at these ranges HOBS missiles are a problem. IR missiles will give no warning as to launch. They will be near impossible to defeat by maneuver in many cases, and in the case of something like the aim 9x flares will be useless. 

But lets say you merge, so to speak, and for some reason you are both mystically our of all aspect IR AAMS, Radar AAMS, etc. Just the guns. And for some reason you know for certain the enemy also doesnt have them, and decide to be Tom Cruise. If you spot the enemy first, you might very will decide the engagement by a blind bounce....which is again.....not a dogfight. 

Oh and I almost forgot, at any point some jerk 15nm away might decide to fire missiles into your red baron impression. Or several jerks, in the plural. Or a Sam. 

 

So in summary, a dogfight only happens when"

You survive the missile exchange at long range (of which there will probably be several), suicidal or incidentally press aggressively enough to run the chance of visually spotting enemy fighters, then somehow not kill each other pre-merge, upon merging decide risk that your opponent doesn't have any missiles left, then neither of you manages to score a non-BFM guns kill.......now you have a ww1 style dogfight. And someone could at any time ruin your fun.

And for some reason, you have the fuel to do all this.

 

There were several engagements in desert storm that got close enough to be visual. Only one involved dog-fighting, and one of the planes flew into the ground. Enough said. 

 

 

 

 

[IMHO]

@shift8,

What do you think about MIMO setups? Like fusing the data from heterogenious radars, improving detection at the areas of overlap, may be improving detection for older radars? Or may be older and noisier signal processing won't allow extracting additional information?

Edited March 12, 2017 by IMHO

[Thewood1]

The game Command at Matrix does a good job of laying a lot of this debate out.  You can simulate BVR/WVR through several generations of aircraft/ECW/AAW to see how both tactics and strategy evolve with new technology.  I have gamed out F-22, F-35, and SU-35 encounters with and without ECM and AWACS support on both sides.  And you can do the same with varying SAM generations.  There was a fairly recent debate on the S-400 that was interesting.  

SOme of you are most likely playing it already.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

If CMANO had even the simple quick battle capability that CM does, I'd buy it.  But it just looks like a lot more work than I have time for to create the scenarios I'd be interested in (which are mostly air to air and air to ground anyway, naval is meh to me).

[shift8]

18 hours ago, IMHO said:

@shift8,

What do you think about MIMO setups? Like fusing the data from heterogenious radars, improving detection at the areas of overlap, may be improving detection for older radars? Or may be older and noisier signal processing won't allow extracting additional information?

As you already mentioned, the processing capacity is readily available. I do not see it as a anti stealh silver bullet however. Improved detection would only occur in the areas of overlap, and while you would improve detection by incorporating returns from non-frontal angles, you would still have significantly worse detection if you were operating in higher frequency bands. Stealth is worse from the side, not horrible. As before, effectiveness is going to be limited by the angles between emitters etc. 

Where I think this would be of real use would be in the creating the ultimate LPI radar, enhancing stealth overall, not nullifying it.

[IMHO]

5 hours ago, shift8 said:

As you already mentioned, the processing capacity is readily available. I do not see it as a anti stealh silver bullet however. Improved detection would only occur in the areas of overlap, and while you would improve detection by incorporating returns from non-frontal angles, you would still have significantly worse detection if you were operating in higher frequency bands. Stealth is worse from the side, not horrible. As before, effectiveness is going to be limited by the angles between emitters etc. 

Where I think this would be of real use would be in the creating the ultimate LPI radar, enhancing stealth overall, not nullifying it.

Sure, as you were quite right to point - it does not give engagement information. Except for the time bomb bays are open  So in my humble inexperienced opinion a funny application for older radars may be adding an upgraded parallel signal processing path plus fusing signals from adjacent radars. That would mostly leave an "old" radar signature but void possible least detection route calculation as "overlap" would increase significantly.

Wideband should be good should it not? I mean even for given bands it should not work the same for all frequencies. Excitement in the coating would happen differently.

Edited March 13, 2017 by IMHO

[Thewood1]

6 hours ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

If CMANO had even the simple quick battle capability that CM does, I'd buy it.  But it just looks like a lot more work than I have time for to create the scenarios I'd be interested in (which are mostly air to air and air to ground anyway, naval is meh to me).

Yeah, Command isn't for everyone.  You have to be pretty committed because it can get very complex very quickly.  But in a simple sandbox scenario, like an F-35 vs an S-400, you can build that in less than 5 minutes.

It does have over 400 scenarios, with maybe half of them being air only with some CAS thrown in.  But, again, it is so detailed you really have to have a pretty good understanding of the subject.

[cool breeze]

Its really fun, Ive had some of my more exciting gaming moments on it.  Yesterday I spent all day racing the Russians to disarm North Korea, much fun!  Managed to ground at least 150 aircraft by hitting the runways and taxiways, made it a lot easier.  The most shocking and dramatic thing I've had happen is seeing an "vampire" steaking in out of nowhere ungodly fast, into my Amphibious Assault group, sinking one of my huge Marine Amphibious assault docking ship with over 1500 digital souls into the deep.  Turned out China got a bead on me with one of its anti ship ballistic missiles.  Needed to keep their long range surveillance off my capital ships.  

[shift8]

CMANO is a fun game. Clearly the best attempt at any such game so far. Although some of their modeling is preposterous. Some of that I dont mind due to the extreme scope of the game, so I would expect there to be quite a few errors. Although some of it is due to the autistic views of the devs. Things like the ludicrous modeling of IRST, or how the Su-35 comes with L-Band Radar it has never been fitted with for production. Or how an Amraam will somehow score a kill against a high energy target at 50nm, but miss a low energy target at 5nm due to the RNG nature of countermeasures which is entirely too powerful. 

[Vergeltungswaffe]

17 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

But in a simple sandbox scenario, like an F-35 vs an S-400, you can build that in less than 5 minutes.

It does have over 400 scenarios, with maybe half of them being air only with some CAS thrown in.  But, again, it is so detailed you really have to have a pretty good understanding of the subject.

You may be able to whip together simple scenario's quickly, but there wouldn't be any surprises and it's almost all a single player experience...

As far as the subject, I'm very well versed in modern air combat.  I just don't have the time to do much about it.

[Thewood1]

My point all along was that you can test what is being discussed.  Not that you would necessarily enjoy it.

[IMHO]

@shift8, so RUS AF can just buy a CMANO and finally sort out any questions about detection probability/distance relative to angles, probability-to-kill etc.?  Just joking... Is it possible to configure parameters of hardware simulated in the game? Is it like ARMA 3?

[Thewood1]

No, the database is locked down.  You can add and remove sensors and weapons, but you can't alter platforms.  You joke about the use in other countries, but now that they are a DoD provider, I think it has become a concern.

[IMHO]

@Thewood1, may be they just developed a nice training platform, not because they're super-precise in guessing the parameters?

[Thewood1]

I would assume so.  But as DoD involvement develops and they start feeding in more precise data, I would assume there would have to start thinking of export controls.  That would mean building a wall between pro and retail versions.

 

But one thing I will point out, they probably know more about most their covered topics in aggregate than us.

[shift8]

8 hours ago, IMHO said:

@shift8, so RUS AF can just buy a CMANO and finally sort out any questions about detection probability/distance relative to angles, probability-to-kill etc.?  Just joking... Is it possible to configure parameters of hardware simulated in the game? Is it like ARMA 3?

Not that I know of, or I would have fixed alot of things in the game myself already...such as the games preposterous IRST modeling.