some F35 info

Token said:

More UHF than VHF, even a bit of HF from time to time. The Support VHF freqs are the most interesting in the VHF band. And while of course communications can be secure, a surprising amount of interesting stuff is sent in the red. The non-aviation Range activities have moved to digital trunked P25 transmissions, but most of that is still unencrypted. I used the Nellis ranges as an example, however hobbyist monitor across the nation. Nellis seems to receive a bit of extra push in the hobby world.

T!

Click to expand...

I could tell you that during the time the Soviet aircraft were operated there "while classified", their designations were never openly spoken over the radio, and if they were it was not on purpose. ATC may need to know aircraft type for control separation but would always revert back to the mission call sign. Be advised that there was also a lot of disinformation as those who are at they site know they are being monitored.

Token said:

More UHF than VHF, even a bit of HF from time to time. The Support VHF freqs are the most interesting in the VHF band. And while of course communications can be secure, a surprising amount of interesting stuff is sent in the red. The non-aviation Range activities have moved to digital trunked P25 transmissions, but most of that is still unencrypted. I used the Nellis ranges as an example, however hobbyist monitor across the nation. Nellis seems to receive a bit of extra push in the hobby world.

T!

Click to expand...

If they are using P25 equipment, it would most likely have the encryption key in place, as the GSA procured huge blocks of radios when the digital mandate deadline approached.

I seriously doubt any radios would have passed through the shop and placed in service without encryption loaded. When the freqs are loaded, so is the key and ID data.

FLYBOYJ said:

I could tell you that during the time the Soviet aircraft were operated there "while classified", their designations were never openly spoken over the radio, and if they were it was not on purpose. ATC may need to know aircraft type for control separation but would always revert back to the mission call sign. Be advised that there was also a lot of disinformation as those who are at they site know they are being monitored.

Click to expand...

That does not negate the fact that all the designators were heard on radio at one time or another, but I never said it was common. I heard some of them myself over the years, I have heard recordings of others. Also keep in mind what I said about Support and Range services, and don't fixate on the use by pilots or ATC. I am specifically talking of the later time during Constant Peg and its overlap with the F-117 operations, and before the 117 went public in 1988. I am not talking about during Have Drill / Ferry / Doughnut, I have no knowledge of what it was like during those projects.

Yes, I know folks there are somewhat aware they are being monitored. To some extent they have always been aware of it, although less so in years gone by. In the 70's and 80's the site was much less cognizant of hobby monitoring, and the use of encryption was less common.

GrauGeist said:

If they are using P25 equipment, it would most likely have the encryption key in place, as the GSA procured huge blocks of radios when the digital mandate deadline approached.

I seriously doubt any radios would have passed through the shop and placed in service without encryption loaded. When the freqs are loaded, so is the key and ID data.

Click to expand...

P25 can be used encrypted or not, not all of the Nellis talk groups used encrypted P25. All of the Area 51 frequencies were encrypted from day one, the NTTR and NTS / NNSS groups were a mixed bag of encrypted and not with a gradual shift towards encryption. This is not a guess, I can tell you this as fact.

The last time I listened to them myself was in 2010 but I have heard that today some groups can still be monitored. Think of monitoring for me as a busman's holiday.

DoD P25 systems in general are slightly chaotic with regards to encryption. Some of the ones you think would be encrypted are not, and others that seemingly have no real need are 100% encrypted. For example I have heard EOD nets that were in the clear, and I know of Public Works maintenance channels that are encrypted. Before we converted locally to P25 encryption was never a serious concern, as soon as we went P25 we went encrypted for everything.

Personally I am not a fan of digital radio. And the EF Johnsons that our command purchased as part of the DoD conversion to P25 are junk. We traded in our analog Motorolas and Kenwoods for these, and few users were happy with the switch.

T!

E.F. Johnson has been garbage for a long while...however, the Kenwoods are at the top with Motorola a close second.

It seems that the Bendix-King has an in with GSA, because the majority of feds use them (USFS fire LEO, BLM, NPS and some Secret Service) although FBI, IRS, DHS and some Secret Service assets use the dual mode (high-band/low-band) Motorola XTL series. It's been my experience that when a two-way is assigned to a unit (swapout or fresh install), it's pre-loaded with freqs, ID and key from the service center...complete with an asset tag and an infinite paper trail...

FLYBOYJ said:

Look at the test report that's causing all this BS - the F-35 flew VR, no sensors, no radar, all the advantage to the F-16, and it really wasn't a true dogfighting test! Someone posted for about it several pages back.

Again - this aircraft WAS NOT designed to be a dedicated air-to-air fighter. The word "STRIKE" was used in copious amounts through out it's development.

Click to expand...

Just wanted to post about the test, because I haven't seen it covered in this way yet here: Not only was it not a true dogfighting test, but the test wasn't really about dogfighting at all. It was just looking at the F-35's software control laws at high angle of attack. Having an F-16 there was just a way to make it more "realistic" compared with, say, just having the pilot pull back really hard on the stick.

The test report that the "F-35 vs F-16 dogfight" article was based on can be found here (as well as many other places):

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psHLxerf7t8

* The F-35C's fuel burn rate is roughly that of a Super Hornet. It holds much more internal fuel though (19,750 lb vs ~14,000 lb). This implies its range is that much greater; again, it also won't suffer as much from carrying things externally.

There have been a few statements that the F-35 is comparable or better than F-16 and F-18 in combat configuration; I'll have to dig those up though. (I want to say I saw one while reading this thread, but too lazy to go back and find it now.)

We'll see in the coming years how well it really performs. But I think right now the public perception that it won't be able to handle itself in close quarters is likely pretty far off the mark. This is even without getting into its improved situational awareness, which will really help in close combat and in multi-plane situations.

Vanshilar, thanks for that post and welcome to the forum - evidently you have read some of the discussion here and this is the type of information that actually puts a perspective on the whole F-35 argument, I'd wish more people would explore information like this instead of relying on 7 year old half truths and BS. Again, welcome to the forum, hopefully you'll participate more.

Vanshilar said:

One thing I've noticed is that when the military officials make statements about the performance of the F-35, they're careful to say that it's comparable or better to F-16's or F-18's when combat-configured. My takeaway is that yes, flying "clean" then other planes will perform better. But when loaded up for a mission, the internal carriage (both payload and amount of internal fuel) means that the F-35 will suffer a lot less than other planes, and thus the result is that it has decent performance in an actual fight scenario. In short, claiming that it won't be able to dogfight is bogus, unless the other plane has run out of missiles, fuel tanks, and most of their internal fuel.

Click to expand...

With the pricetag that the '35 comes with, surely you want better than a decent performance in combat, right? I don't think that the pilots would like the thought of having a decent chance either...

Still trying to find that blasted info on the Meteor missile....pain in the tailpipe!

Is this a good website? Meteor - Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile (BVRAAM) - Airforce Technology

It's interesting how it made it more effective against stealth, by just switching the band frequency it was using, it became 25% more effective or sensitive, don't quote me on this though, I think that it was 25%, this is why I try to find that blasted website!

Found out about this as well, that the Meteor has a large No Escape Zone - many times larger than that of current MRAAM's...don't think that I've that expression before..and that it's rather quick, Mach 4!

Anyhoo, with development in missiles moving along and also being rather competitive, how long before being stealth meaning nothing?

Oh....btw, don't worry, it wasn't one of those propaganda websites! That's one thing that I've learned here!

Lucky13 said:

With the pricetag that the '35 comes with, surely you want better than a decent performance in combat, right? I don't think that the pilots would like the thought of having a decent chance either...

Click to expand...

They would if they're flying a fighter bomber that could at least compete with any front line fighter that might come across when carrying a full bomb load. And don't forget the F-22s that will be along to feast first!

I quote our new member - "In short, claiming that it won't be able to dogfight is bogus, unless the other plane has run out of missiles, fuel tanks, and most of their internal fuel."

Lucky13 said:

With the pricetag that the '35 comes with, surely you want better than a decent performance in combat, right? I don't think that the pilots would like the thought of having a decent chance either...

Click to expand...

Actually, the improvement in aerodynamic performance between 4th generation and 5th generation aircraft is relatively limited. It simply isn't worth it to design a more maneuverable fighter (in terms of structures, reduction in payload, increase in cost, etc.) when it won't really be able to outmaneuver missiles, just like how the 1950s and 1960s focused on speed until radars on fighters became commonplace (so you could no longer sneak up on an enemy via speed). Instead, the focus has been on better sensors so you can detect enemy aircraft from farther away, better computational power to process the data from those sensors, stealth so that you deny those advantages from the enemy, situational awareness so the pilot has a better understanding of the battlefield, etc. There are some minor improvements to aerodynamic performance (supercruise, thrust vectoring, etc.) but they're more geared toward air superiority fighters, which are bigger and more expensive, to try to screw every last ounce of performance out of their airframes.

The F-35 is geared more toward a strike role, rather than air superiority. This means it needs to be maneuverable while carrying a significant payload. Even so, it's not designed to outmaneuver other planes as its method of "winning". Rather, it's designed to be able to detect other planes from far away, and let its missiles do the maneuvering, while the F-35 stays far away. It doesn't mean that the F-35 *can't* maneuver, just that maneuvering is not its focus. Similarly, the F-22, far as I know, in exercises usually beats other planes by means of its superior radar and stealth, rather than its maneuverability.

So the F-35 has decent aerodynamic performance, likely on par or better than other multi-role fighters that it's replacing (F/A-18, etc.) when combat-loaded, but its advantage over 4th generation aircraft is really its sensors and stealth.

Also, the F-35 in a few years should have a comparable cost compared to other fighter planes. It is already cheaper than the Eurofighter Typhoon, and by the 2019 time, it should be slightly cheaper than the Rafale. Sure, the development costs have been very high, but that's the price the U.S. pays to stay ahead of everybody else.

Lucky13 said:

It's interesting how it made it more effective against stealth, by just switching the band frequency it was using, it became 25% more effective or sensitive, don't quote me on this though, I think that it was 25%, this is why I try to find that blasted website!

Anyhoo, with development in missiles moving along and also being rather competitive, how long before being stealth meaning nothing?

Click to expand...

Um, I think you misunderstand what stealth means. It's not some invisible cloaking device like in Starcraft, where you just stick a detector unit nearby and suddenly cloaked units are just as vulnerable as regular units and targetable by everybody. Stealth just means the plane is difficult to detect on radar -- the effective range at which the plane is detected (and tracked, etc.) is significantly less than for non-stealthy aircraft. So any improvements in detecting stealth aircraft will have a corresponding improvement in detecting non-stealth aircraft. So if in the future missiles are able to engage stealthy aircraft, would you want to be flying in a non-stealthy aircraft when it means the enemy will know you're coming from that much farther away, and can launch missiles at you from that much farther away?

The proper comparison here is not the F-35 against some hypothetical magic technological advances in stealth detection and missile technology, it's the F-35 versus other aircraft when placed against the same hypothetical magic.

Really enjoying your input, Vanshilar...and welcome to the forums!

The people that said the probability of a twin losing an engine is twice that for a single obviously haven't taken a class in mathematical probability. It isn't true. On another forum one guy posted that if the probability of an engine failure was 50% for a single, then the probability of an engine failure ona twin was 50% + 50% = 100%.

I spit out some beverage laughing ... until I realized that many people don;t know how far wrong he was. People like that are a testament to our rather obviously faltering school system. If he seriously thinks that is true, he'd best never play cards for money. Any non-idiot can take him for all he's worth.

Of course I'm assuming engine failures that are independent from one another, not engine failures that are interrelated, such as flying through a flock of geese near the Hudson River. That is another calculation entirely. But probabilities of independent failure of engines do not add together. They are independent parallel events, not serial events.

And you have to be a real idiot to get on a plane with an engine probability of failure of 50% to start with. In fact, it could never be sold because too many would have crashed. They grounded the Concorde for just ONE crash.

But it IS good for a humorous evening of wondering why people who don't know math assume they do and argue as if they actually knew.

GregP said:

Of course I'm assuming engine failures that are independent from one another, not engine failures that are interrelated, such as flying through a flock of geese near the Hudson River. That is another calculation entirely. But probabilities of independent failure of engines do not add together. They are independent parallel events, not serial events.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure where you learned your math, but at the probabilities that we're talking about, adding the probabilities of failure is a good approximation, in the same way that Newtonian equations of motion is a good approximation at speeds very much lower than the speed of light.

Take a dice roll, 2 dice. Assume their rolls are independent of each other. The probability of each die individually coming up "1" is 1/6. The probability of "1" showing up on either (or both) die is 11/36. This is just 1/36 less than adding them up. The difference is the probability that both were "1", i.e. 1/36.

Basically, if p is the probability of "true", if there are two independent events, the probability that one or the other or both will be "true" is:

p + p - p^2 or 2p - p^2

One way to see this is to look at what is the probability that neither event will be true. The probability of one event not occurring is (1-p), and the probability of the other event not occurring is also (1-p). So the probability that neither event will occur (i.e. that neither die will show 1) is (1-p)^2, or 1 - p - p + p^2.

If you don't believe this, you can throw dice around if you want, or just logically count up all 36 possible events, and do this using dice of different numbers of faces.

I don't know if this is what you're talking about for serial events, but when you're looking at the probability of two independent events not occurring, you do use serial (i.e. multiply the probabilities of not occurring). Otherwise, what do you think is the proper way to calculate it?

It should be fairly obvious that as p decreases, p + p - p^2 ~ 2p because p^2 will go to 0 much more quickly than p. This is what people are talking about when they say you double the probability of an engine failure if you have two engines.

Without bothering to work out the math, it should also be intuitively obvious that for low p, if one engine failing causes the other engine to fail 50% of the time, then your overall chance of both engines failing would be about the same as the probability of engine failure for a single-engine plane. (This is assuming there isn't an outside event causing both engines to fail, such as the Hudson River crash. In fact, that crash demonstrates that having multiple engines won't save you.)

Vanshilar said:

Um, I think you misunderstand what stealth means. It's not some invisible cloaking device like in Starcraft, where you just stick a detector unit nearby and suddenly cloaked.....

Click to expand...

Aaawwwwww....d*mmit!

I know, I used to work for a company that delt a lot with the SAAB 39 Gripen....

Vanshilar said:

I'm not sure where you learned your math, but at the probabilities that we're talking about, adding the probabilities of failure is a good approximation, in the same way that Newtonian equations of motion is a good approximation at speeds very much lower than the speed of light.

Take a dice roll, 2 dice. Assume their rolls are independent of each other. The probability of each die individually coming up "1" is 1/6. The probability of "1" showing up on either (or both) die is 11/36. This is just 1/36 less than adding them up. The difference is the probability that both were "1", i.e. 1/36.

Basically, if p is the probability of "true", if there are two independent events, the probability that one or the other or both will be "true" is:

p + p - p^2 or 2p - p^2

One way to see this is to look at what is the probability that neither event will be true. The probability of one event not occurring is (1-p), and the probability of the other event not occurring is also (1-p). So the probability that neither event will occur (i.e. that neither die will show 1) is (1-p)^2, or 1 - p - p + p^2.

If you don't believe this, you can throw dice around if you want, or just logically count up all 36 possible events, and do this using dice of different numbers of faces.

I don't know if this is what you're talking about for serial events, but when you're looking at the probability of two independent events not occurring, you do use serial (i.e. multiply the probabilities of not occurring). Otherwise, what do you think is the proper way to calculate it?

It should be fairly obvious that as p decreases, p + p - p^2 ~ 2p because p^2 will go to 0 much more quickly than p. This is what people are talking about when they say you double the probability of an engine failure if you have two engines.

Without bothering to work out the math, it should also be intuitively obvious that for low p, if one engine failing causes the other engine to fail 50% of the time, then your overall chance of both engines failing would be about the same as the probability of engine failure for a single-engine plane. (This is assuming there isn't an outside event causing both engines to fail, such as the Hudson River crash. In fact, that crash demonstrates that having multiple engines won't save you.)

Click to expand...

....and now I've got a headache!

GregP said:

The people that said the probability of a twin losing an engine is twice that for a single obviously haven't taken a class in mathematical probability. It isn't true. On another forum one guy posted that if the probability of an engine failure was 50% for a single, then the probability of an engine failure ona twin was 50% + 50% = 100%.

I spit out some beverage laughing ... until I realized that many people don;t know how far wrong he was. People like that are a testament to our rather obviously faltering school system. If he seriously thinks that is true, he'd best never play cards for money. Any non-idiot can take him for all he's worth.

Of course I'm assuming engine failures that are independent from one another, not engine failures that are interrelated, such as flying through a flock of geese near the Hudson River. That is another calculation entirely. But probabilities of independent failure of engines do not add together. They are independent parallel events, not serial events.

And you have to be a real idiot to get on a plane with an engine probability of failure of 50% to start with. In fact, it could never be sold because too many would have crashed. They grounded the Concorde for just ONE crash.

But it IS good for a humorous evening of wondering why people who don't know math assume they do and argue as if they actually knew.

Click to expand...

Instead of using math to determine twin engine failures, worry more about what's going to happen when ONE engine fails, and train as if its going to fail 50% of the time as this kills more people and simultaneous engine failures!!!

Lucky13 said:

It's interesting how it made it more effective against stealth, by just switching the band frequency it was using, it became 25% more effective or sensitive, don't quote me on this though, I think that it was 25%, this is why I try to find that blasted website!

Click to expand...

Because missiles have a pretty limited frontal section I am going to assume this statement is caused by the use of a Ku band active seeker, vs an X band seeker.

A statement such as that, "25% more effective against stealth", is overly simplistic and can only be used with regards to a single specific platform. RF Stealth encompasses multiple techniques, but shape and coatings are the primary. As such each platform has different performance. So 25% better against which Stealth platform? Because they will not all have the same response to the Ku seeker.

While typical RF Stealth is probably optimized for H, I, and J bands (where the majority of shooters can be found) specific platforms might have Ku band performance in mind also.

Lucky13 said:

Anyhoo, with development in missiles moving along and also being rather competitive, how long before being stealth meaning nothing?

Click to expand...

Vanshilar provided a pretty good response with regards to this, but I will expand on it.

The answer to your question is never, as long as the enemy uses a detection method for which the Stealth provides improvement.

While we tend to fixate on the RF characteristics of Stealth, a proper Stealth design goes beyond RF to include IR, visual, and audio signature reduction techniques. However lets consider only RF for this discussion.

As has been stated several times so far in this thread, Stealth is not a Klingon Cloaking device. No Stealth aircraft has ever been, or was ever intended to be, invisible to radar, they are only harder to see, sometimes very hard to see. This means that EVERY Stealth aircraft can be tracked by radar, the technology just reduces the detection range for the radar. This increases the survivability of the aircraft in combat.

Aircraft with RCS reduction as part of their design will always have some detection advantage over aircraft designed with no consideration of RCS reduction. With improved techniques the detection range of an RCS reduced platform can be increased, but the same techniques will also allow for an increase in detection ranges of platforms that are not RCS reduced.

To NOT design with some thoughts of RCS reduction places your aircraft at an immediate detection disadvantage to airframes that are RCS reduced.

The basics are pretty easy to look at for any given radar. Using a theoretical radar we can see how RCS plays into detection (but I am not going to break out the radar range equation ... lol). The following numbers are rough, math in public, kinds of things. No calculator was used, there was some rounding, and some numbers selected for convenience. With that said they should be pretty close and are intended to show the general idea, but if I am a dB or a few percent off, don't be surprised, any such errors that are present should be pretty small. By the way, RCS for any shape other than a sphere is frequency dependent, so an aircraft that has a 100 square meter RCS (expressed as +20 dBsm) at X band will not have that same RCS at C or Ku band. A value of RCS implies a specific frequency even when not stated. An aircraft with a +20 dBsm RCS (this is one number sometimes bandied about for the B-52H) may be detectable for a given theoretical radar at say 200 miles. It takes reduction by a factor of 16 (12 dB) to halve the detection range, and a factor of 10000 (40 dB) to reduce the detection range by a factor of 10. A number sometimes stated for the B1B is about 0 dBsm, or 1 square meter. This means that the same radar could not detect the B1B until it was roughly 60 miles away.

According to this document ( http://faculty.nps.edu/jenn/EC4630/RCSredux.pdf ) the F-35 has an RCS of about 0.0015 square meter (-28 dBsm), while the F-22 has an RCS of about 0.00015 square meter (-38 dBsm). This means that a radar that can detect the +20 dBsm B-52 at 200 miles (detection threshold limited and not some other limit) can detect the F-35 at about 8 miles. This is slant range on the nose, meaning closer than that on a map. Or the radar can detect the F-22 at roughly one tenth the range it can detect the B1B and roughly one fifteenth the range it can see an F-16.

Even if the radar is improved against stealth it will STILL detect the F-22 at one fifteenth the range it can detect the F-16. If unimproved it can detect the F-16 at 100 miles it can detect the F-22 at 7 miles, and a 25% increase in performance against stealth means it can now detect the F-22 at a bit over 8 miles, and the F-16 at 125 miles.

And even if the missile has a 25% improved range on Stealth, the missile does not act alone. Some other detector has to find and target the aircraft.

First to sight, first to fight. If I can kill you before you know I am there I don't really care if your new missile can engage me 25% further than your old one could.

T!

I am not worried about the F35s ability to dogfight I am worried that it is so expensive, acquired in such small numbers and comparitively so vulnerable to good old fashioned lumps of supersonic metal being thrown at it that no airforce apart from the USAF/USN/USMC will dare risk it anywhere near a warzone. I can imagine the political shitstorm if an insurgent brings one down with an ancient 14.5mm or 23mm cannon aimed over a ring sight with early warning and direction provided by a man with a walkie talkie or sat phone. A 9 figure gold plated aircraft downed by a $2 cannon shell, jeez the Brass hats would **** themselves and worry about their pensions.

If the USAF plans to use the F22s to do top cover for the F35 they are going to spread all those 187 planes very thinly. Dont know what the servicablity rate of the 22 is but it better be 100%.

fastmongrel said:

I am not worried about the F35s ability to dogfight I am worried that it is so expensive, acquired in such small numbers and comparitively so vulnerable to good old fashioned lumps of supersonic metal being thrown at it that no airforce apart from the USAF/USN/USMC will dare risk it anywhere near a warzone. I can imagine the political shitstorm if an insurgent brings one down with an ancient 14.5mm or 23mm cannon aimed over a ring sight with early warning and direction provided by a man with a walkie talkie or sat phone. A 9 figure gold plated aircraft downed by a $2 cannon shell, jeez the Brass hats would **** themselves and worry about their pensions.

Click to expand...

But in all honesty, what aircraft in any nation's inventory at the moment (A-10 excluded), is immune to conventional AA?