Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New U.S. Stealth Jet Canít Hide From Russian Radar
The Daily Beast ^ | April 28, 2014 | Bill Sweetman

Posted on 04/27/2014 11:56:53 PM PDT by wetphoenix

America’s gazillion-dollar Joint Strike Fighter is supposed to go virtually unseen when flying over enemy turf. But that’s not how things are working out.

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 is it 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.

These problems are not secret at all. The F-35 is susceptible to detection by radars operating in the VHF bands of the spectrum. The fighter’s jamming is mostly confined to the X-band, in the sector covered by its APG-81 radar. These are not criticisms of the program but the result of choices by the customer, the Pentagon.

To suggest that the F-35 is VHF-stealthy is like arguing that the sky is not blue—literally, because both involve the same phenomenon. The late-Victorian physicist Lord Rayleigh gave his name to the way that electromagnetic radiation is scattered by objects that are smaller than its wavelength. This applies to the particles in the air that scatter sunlight, and aircraft stabilizers and wingtips that are about the same meter-class size as VHF waves.

The counter-stealth attributes of VHF have been public knowledge for decades. They were known at the dawn of stealth, in 1983, when the MIT’s Lincoln Laboratory ordered a 150-ft.-wide radar to emulate Russia’s P-14 Oborona VHF early warning system. Lockheed Martin’s Fort Worth division—makers of the F-35—should know about that radar—they built it.

(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; Government; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: airspace; f35; jsf; military; navy; usaf

1 posted on 04/27/2014 11:56:53 PM PDT by wetphoenix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wetphoenix

I think I have had enough of the extreme liberal views of the Daily Beast today.


2 posted on 04/28/2014 12:36:52 AM PDT by KC_Conspirator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wetphoenix

If we nuke ‘em first, we won’t have to worry about their radar...


3 posted on 04/28/2014 12:46:42 AM PDT by G Larry (In the beginning there was "Right" and "Wrong" and we've been compromising in the "Wrong" direction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wetphoenix
A- and B- Band (HF- und VHF- Radar)
These radar bands below 300 MHz have a long historically tradition because these frequencies represented the frontier of radio technology at the time during the World War II. Today these frequencies are used for early warning radars and so called Over The Horizon (OTH) Radars. Using these lower frequencies it is easier to obtain high-power transmitters. The attenuation of the electro-magnetic waves is lower than using higher frequencies. On the other hand the accuracy is limited, because a lower frequency requires antennas with very large physical size which determines angle accuracy and angle resolution. These frequency-bands are used by other communications and broadcasting services too, therefore the bandwidth of the radar is limited (at the expense of accuracy and resolution again).

The F-35's approach to radar-absorbent material (RAM) is more reliable than that of any earlier warplane. The F-22's surfaces are made of aluminum, which are covered in RAM that must constantly be reapplied. This is, of course, a nightmare for maintenance crews. But the F-35 is made of carbon-fiber composite; Lockheed engineers bake RAM into the airplane's edges in an effort to soak up inbound radar.

The F-35 diminishes its visibility to radar with internal weapons bays, carefully aligned edges, and embedded antennas. Yet the airplane is accused of being more vulnerable to detection than earlier stealth aircraft, such as the F-22 Raptor, due to its more conventional airplane shape. Air Force Association president, retired Lt. Gen. Mike Dunn, slighted the F-35 when he stated that "only the F-22 can survive in airspace defended by increasingly capable surface-to-air missiles."

The F-35 is a multirole aircraft; it must fight other airplanes, bomb targets, and conduct recon; and each mission requires specific payloads. For that reason, its design has tradeoffs that make it less stealthy and less maneuverable than the Raptor, which was designed first and foremost to win air superiority over other fighters.

The F-35 does not have the radar-shunting curves of the Raptor that help mask it from radar at all angles. Engineers designed the F-22 and the B-2 to be unseen at many wavelengths and directions. The Lightning II does not offer many radar returns when the waves strike it from the front, but when they come from the side, the returns are stronger.

Radar waves do not just reflect off objects, they also flow across surfaces, scattering only when they hit a rivet, gun barrel, or other feature that breaks the smoothness of the skin. Aviation Week reporter Bill Sweetman notes that the F-35A's gun is located internally, but it is housed in a "hideous wart" on the airplane's surface—one of several features he says could betray the aircraft's position.

But the Lightning II's key to survival is its own radar, the Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) installed in its nose. Conventional radar systems turn their gaze mechanically—imagine a dish spinning or a flat surface tilting to aim radar beams. Electronically steered radar does not move, but its beams can broadcast in different directions, thousands of times a second and across many frequencies. This agility allows AESA to map terrain and track hundreds of targets.

AESA is built to do more than scan—it can reach out to enemy radars and scramble their signals. A combination of radar and electromagnetic warning sensors alert an F-35 pilot to the threat of enemy radar; he can then dodge the threat or use the AESA to jam the signal, no matter what frequency the radar is transmitting.

...Air dominance is now being fought in a greater swath of the electromagnetic spectrum. The critical part of any 21st-century air combat will be the first invisible duel of flickering AESA beams dancing across each other hundreds of miles ahead of any airplane. It's the same old dogfight rules: The first airplane to spot the other shoots, and quite likely whoever is in the other airplane dies.

Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

4 posted on 04/28/2014 12:54:24 AM PDT by Berlin_Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator

The question isn’t how much we like the daily beast, but how much of a failure is this fighter and this program. Is it, or isn’t it.

If it is a failure it adds weight to the argument that we don’t need manned fighters at all.


5 posted on 04/28/2014 1:22:31 AM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator
I think I have had enough of the extreme liberal views of the Daily Beast today.

Well, they're making a statement which should be testable - that the F-35 is not stealthy to Chinese and Russian radar. So is it or is it not? Asking whether incredibly expensive weapons systems actually do the job they're designed for is always a good question, no matter who poses it.
6 posted on 04/28/2014 1:29:32 AM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

Most long range air defense search radars operate in the L,S and C bands (1-2,2-4, and 4-8 GHz). Air/Air and Target Track/Fire Control radars are generally in the X band (8-12GHz). These radars are what the term ‘stealth fighter’ was designed for. RF absorption coatings, fuselage shaping, etc. are more effective there because of smaller wavelengths and better effectiveness of the coatings.

When you get to radars with wavelengths that are larger than the aircraft itself, about the only thing you can control the reflections with is absorption - the coatings if there are any, and at that frequency, the effectiveness of the coatings is not very good.


7 posted on 04/28/2014 2:13:42 AM PDT by Gaffer (Comprehensive Immigration Reform is just another name for Comprehensive Capitulation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
If it is a failure it adds weight to the argument that we don’t need manned fighters at all.

That is what I think we should start moving to right now. they would be smaller, or the same size with more and better weapons.

8 posted on 04/28/2014 2:31:24 AM PDT by Captainpaintball (Immigration without assimilation is the death of a nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

The “first look” should be the enemy’s look at the fallout of so much shock and awe before their first shot can ever be fired.


9 posted on 04/28/2014 2:31:24 AM PDT by equaviator (There's nothing like the universe to bring you down to earth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

“If it is a failure it adds weight to the argument that we don’t need manned fighters at all.”

Necessity being the mother of invention and Israel having some of the best drone technology, I’d guess the next middle east war will be the one to end manned aircraft as battle weapons. It would not surprise me if Israel currently has a major strike force that’s entirely robotic.

We, on the other hand, are preparing to fight an updated World War Two areal war.

Another thing that may go away is unquestioned air superiority. With enough tiny and stealthy drones it’s almost certain that some will be where you least want them. This was one thought behind the large tanks becoming obsolete. Tanks require a huge fuel logistics footprint and without air dominance you can’t protect those tankers. A little suicide drone is all that’s needed to stop the tanks.


10 posted on 04/28/2014 3:45:03 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

When Obama is done we won’t have any nukes fighters Army Navy or anything else


11 posted on 04/28/2014 3:52:31 AM PDT by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

“If we nuke ‘em first, we won’t have to worry about their radar...”

We don’t know if they work either - haven’t been tested in decades.


12 posted on 04/28/2014 4:13:13 AM PDT by BobL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ballplayer

But we will have gays and women in combat. Hurrah! [/s]


13 posted on 04/28/2014 4:16:42 AM PDT by rbg81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: KC_Conspirator
"I think I have had enough of the extreme liberal views of the Daily Beast today."

I hate to burst your balloon, but this is not an "extreme liberal view". Bill Sweetman is Senior International Defense Editor for Aviation Week and Space Technology. You may have heard about them, but I doubt it. Some folks, many of them deemed knowledgeable, have a high opinion of AWST.

Pointing out the shortcomings of the bottomless money pit known as the JSF is not an "extreme liberal view". Money for defense is getting scarce, and wasting it on this POS means our warriors will have fewer quality tools to do their jobs.

14 posted on 04/28/2014 4:20:34 AM PDT by diogenes ghost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham

Where’s A.A. Cunningham when you need him?


15 posted on 04/28/2014 4:26:40 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

sounds nice... but 0bammy has reduced our stockpile from 23k+ warheads to less then 350


16 posted on 04/28/2014 4:46:02 AM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sten

Get some facts before you post.


17 posted on 04/28/2014 5:02:33 AM PDT by G Larry (In the beginning there was "Right" and "Wrong" and we've been compromising in the "Wrong" direction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: BobL

“We don’t know if they work either - haven’t been tested in decades.”

What makes you think we even have nukes? They could have been cardboard cutouts meant to scare the Soviets silly. For that matter, it is possible the Russians and Chinese are bluffing and hoping that we kill the F35 program because of their statements.


18 posted on 04/28/2014 6:00:11 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz ("Heck of a reset there, Hillary")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gaffer
Most long range air defense search radars operate in the L,S and C bands (1-2,2-4, and 4-8 GHz). Air/Air and Target Track/Fire Control radars are generally in the X band (8-12GHz). These radars are what the term ‘stealth fighter’ was designed for. RF absorption coatings, fuselage shaping, etc. are more effective there because of smaller wavelengths and better effectiveness of the coatings.

Yes, that is the heart of the issue. Being able to detect something and being able to engage it are very different things, and require very different radar wave-lengths.

If I go duck hunting with my eyes closed, I will still be able to detect the ducks with my ears, but my chances of shooting one are about zero.

Large wavelength radar systems require large antennas and these are HARM magnets any time that they turn on.

19 posted on 04/28/2014 6:12:22 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ballplayer

Right you are. All we will have left is his mix-mash, alpha agency, “civilian defense force” which is armed to the teeth with billions of bullets intended for us. God we need a leader to step forward and stop this Country killing BS.


20 posted on 04/28/2014 6:54:37 AM PDT by mcshot (..."And this too shall end.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
Large wavelength radar systems require large antennas and these are HARM magnets any time that they turn on.

There's large antennas and then there are large antennas.

Consider a VHF phased array radar whose elements are dispersed over an area, such that any particular HARM missile would only disable one element, and thus only slightly degrade the radar.

Even if VHF radar doesn't have the resolution to locate the target precisely enough for missile targeting, it CAN be used to vector fighters to the general location, which can then visually locate the aircraft, use their onboard radar (stealthyness decreases the closer the radar gets to you), or use other technology, like LIDAR or IR tracking, against which radar stealth may be useless.

21 posted on 04/28/2014 6:57:07 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

True, in which case there’ll be F-35 losses.

But what happens when the F-35s are flying with F-22s as escort or providing general area top cover? With E-3s monitoring and controlling the engagement?

The F-117 and B-2 have, IMHO, created a misperception that the role of stealth attack aircraft is to operate alone on high risk deep penetration missions against high value targets. That’s NOT what the F-35 is designed to do. It’s designed to act as a light strike fighter bomber (more A-7 than F/A-18) in a tightly integrated combat environment.

The “traditional” lone wolfish stealth attack missions will be left to B-2s and stealthy UCAVs. Like the two different types that have recently been photographed in flight over the Midwestern and Southeastern US.


22 posted on 04/28/2014 7:28:15 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
Antenna dispersion networks, like cell phone towers, work well for receiving, but don't offer the transmission power required; and its the transmitter that is going to suck up the HARMS. Such networked systems, that are totally dependent upon time of arrival, are also inherently open to spoofing; i.e. if I can easily provide 1000 false targets, I don't need to worry about being stealthy or jamming.

Enemy fighters are always a threat. Going to guns on a B-2 bomber is obviously going to make stealth a non-issue. But as impressive as LIDAR is, I'd hate to rely on it alone against enemy fighters that have AWACS support and advanced radar.

23 posted on 04/28/2014 7:28:28 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

I misunderstood your post with my first reply. You are talking about a very, very large phased array transmitter.

Interesting, but I think your wavelengths would be so huge (HF), that the returns would be close to unusable. Obviously it would require a tight Doppler filter, but you’d still be picking up all returns from thousands of miles away (perhaps even world wide). That would mean you’d have to send out single-pulses, seconds apart, to eliminate pulse to pulse return confusion. Because of ground reflection and atmospheric bending accuracy would be in miles or tens of miles.


24 posted on 04/28/2014 7:38:59 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

And yes, a large HF antenna would not be a HARM magnet for a variety of reasons, but such a very large antenna would be a cruise missile and JDAM magnet.


25 posted on 04/28/2014 7:41:31 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: G Larry

you’re right, 0bammy entered office with 5113 warheads... as he disclosed that TS info in June 2010. this was down from the 23k+ we had in 1995

last count has our numbers around 350.


26 posted on 04/28/2014 12:07:40 PM PDT by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sten

Source please?

Your numbers are nuts.

We have more than that on Trident SLBMs.
We have more than that on MM III ICBMs.

Not to mention the numbers of various weapons mounted in and under a variety of aircraft.


27 posted on 04/28/2014 12:14:37 PM PDT by G Larry (In the beginning there was "Right" and "Wrong" and we've been compromising in the "Wrong" direction)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

Two engines are still better than one. The F35 should have been a replacement for the Harriers we have. Does not make much sense to go partial stealth with such a small payload. The strike version of the F22 can carry more ordinance plus carry more air to air.


28 posted on 04/28/2014 6:00:25 PM PDT by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: wetphoenix; blueyon; KitJ; T Minus Four; xzins; CMS; The Sailor; ab01; txradioguy; Jet Jaguar; ...

Active Duty ping.


29 posted on 04/28/2014 6:01:44 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar (Resist in place.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar
And for this turkey we shelved the F-22. The Chinese are licking their chops.



America demands Justice for the Fallen of Benghazi!

O stranger, tell the Lacedaemonians that we lie here, obedient to their command.

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)

30 posted on 04/28/2014 6:14:26 PM PDT by ConorMacNessa (HM/2 USN, 3/5 Marines RVN 1969 - St. Mlichael the Archangel defend us in Battle!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wetphoenix
Take the article with a grain of salt. The author doesn't know what the hell he is talking about or was fed bad information.

Either way its pure bullsh*t


31 posted on 04/28/2014 6:20:06 PM PDT by darkwing104 (Forgive but don't forget)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
 photo ww2vsocare.png

Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

32 posted on 04/28/2014 6:26:14 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: musicman

I’m going to borrow this.


33 posted on 04/28/2014 6:37:57 PM PDT by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: USAF80

(Please do!!)


34 posted on 04/28/2014 6:54:41 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson