Posted on 04/28/2014 5:34:34 AM PDT by Strategy
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - the jet that the Pentagon is counting on to be the stealthy future of its tactical aircraft - is having all sorts of shortcomings. But the most serious may be that the JSF is not, in fact, stealthy in the eyes of a growing number of Russian and Chinese radars. Nor it is particularly good at jamming enemy radar. Which means the Defense Department is committing hundreds of billions of dollars to a fighter that will need the help of specialized jamming aircraft that protect non-stealthy - "radar-shiny," as some insiders call them - aircraft today.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
Just leveling the playing field. Er, battlefield.
All of our stealth aircraft are vulnerable under the right conditions. The F-117 shot down over Bosnia was triangulated. The operators had a fairly good idea of where to look, used multiple systems to pinpoint the usually diminished (not invisible) radar return, and shot it down.
Not exactly. The aircraft was picked up when their bombbay doors were opened. They were within the Radar resolution cell at that point in time and gave a fair return. Once spotted by target acquisition Radars, a target tracker can lock on with relative ease. The SA-3 Goa has a fair Radar suite that used CLOS to shoot down the Blackbird.
You see this (material differences) when you look at cars. Some look red, some blue, etc. That is the different chemical compounds in the paint absorbing or reflecting different frequencies of visible light. Same thing with radars. Different frequencies see different materials better or worse. Or when you look at a car in the sunlight you notice "bright spots" where sunlight reflects off a chrome strip, curve of a fender, windshield, bumper, etc. That is a physical feature that creates a "specular" reflection in the visible light spectrum. Same thing happens at radar frequencies. You can make most of the vehicle disappear, but some features stand out at some frequencies.
VHF radars are relatively low in the frequency bands as search and track radars go. Used to be antennas for these kinds of beasts were huge. Think building/bridge sized. Some of our early UHF radars are the size of small office buildings. (and UHF is higher than VHF) The other problem with lower frequencies is resolution. Used to be you couldn't get a fire control grade track with lower frequencies.
I guess modern antennas and digital processing techniques have taken away some of the negatives of lower frequency operation. You can't build an aircraft that is invisible to every spectrum. As I understand it, the 35 is only supposed to be partial stealth. Basically only from the front aspect (hey it is an attack aircraft). The other consideration is that it only has to be stealthy enough to delay detection such that it can get close enough to launch standoff weapons and take out the radar. So that's the battle, can the air defense system detect it and vector interceptors to it before it is close enough to launch on the radar...
Not a Blackbird - more like a Stinkbug.
A Blackbird (SR-71) has never been shot down, to the best of my knowledge.
Not a "Stinkbug" on that first night over Bagdad.
Cancel the JSF/F-35.
The money would be much better spent on bringing the Northrop F-23 to production; to be manufactured only within Australia, Japan, and the U.S.A.
“Cancel the JSF/F-35.”
That proposal makes too much sense.
It is said that the Blackbirds have had over 4,000 missiles shot at them and none even came close.
WTF was I thinking? Nighthawk... not the Blackbird. Field grade lobotomy taking effect...
Is it just me or is the Pentagon looking at some of the newest high tech aircraft from an ego standpoint rather than practicality? To me it makes no sense to put a lot of money into a program & then find out later that it won’t quite do the job.
Easy mistake. The names are kinda similar. Hawks are birds and nights are black.
I’m sure you meant Gary Powers U2, based on the SA3 in your comment.
No SR-71 Blackbird has ever been shot down.
Go back and look from where it took off. Knowing from where/when it departs is easy enough information for locals there to cue acqs and trackers.
Ridiculous overspending on a handful of sub-optimal aircraft is an excellent way to deplete resources and military capability at the same time.
Wait a minnit!! Isn’t that the POINT??
Powers was shot down by an SA-2.
Agree. The YF 23 is the answer. All it needs besides advanced upgrades is vectored thrust. I hope it is being developed and this JSF nonsense is just a distraction. The unfortunate fact is that the unknown one is taking us down negates any advantage we could develop. Enemy landing craft at our shores after a few select nuke strikes and EMPs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.