Comments by "ZIPZ" (@zipz8423) on "Can Russia and China Detect the F-35 Stealth Aircraft?" video.

"Quantum radar" Do you know what the concept is and where it originated? It wasn't in China. I like the fact you guys keep talking about the F-35, which means its relevant and scares you guys to death. It should.
3
And Va-China says it has magical mulsamic ray guns that can shoot down burritos at 1,000 kms...
3
@Tommy Tanker You sir, are full of shit.
3
Sorry pal you are incorrect, tactical doctrine was "not" followed which led directly to the loss of the F-117. My own estimation of the events was a mixture of methods used including electro optical data made available to the Serb SAM installation C2 , to HUMINT on the ground at Aviano and COMMINT, all tied together to make the difficult, possible. You have to remember and many people do not was that the range for the F-117 SAM kill was just 9 nm from the battery. That`s pretty damned close in terms of range, I would be disappointed as a SAM Regimental Co NOT to have gotten that shot when i had everything going for me that night. If what you have said is true, can you tell me why the B-2`s which dropped ordnance on Belgrade just before those F-117s were not tracked and attacked or even detected? Secondly, computational power had increased exponentially between each generation of stealth platform, from faceting to blending as had composites technology and RAM compounds, IR countermeasure applications etc etc. A comparison between the F-117 and F-22 is really Apples and Oranges. Another point, the F-22 of 2017 is a very different aircraft than that of 2001 in ways you probably do not appreciate. You guys can carry on thinking in one dimension and imagine VHF radar as your panacea , hold onto it if it makes you feel warm at night, Russian defence planners know better than the Russia supporting social media cohort / anti F-35 bandwagon horror show ill informed no hopers et al.
2
@Pablo, you are still thinking in one dimension, we aren't going to play into the hands of your county's super duper "see all radars" , all of those "brochure" numbers you constantly regurgitate are "best case" test scenarios where the "opposition" walks right into the teeth of those systems like a Duck crossing a highway. Real life isn't like that son, every air war the US has taken part in should inform you of that fact. Show me an air war in the last 40 years where the USAF was scythed down by Russian SAMS? Or the Israelis for that matter? Thats right you cant , for good reason. Counter AD is what we do. We`re good an no , we dont take anything lightly, we plan, we test, we work around air defences, we train, we start the cycle again. That S-400 system set up in Syria hasn't made the USAF or USN pause a single day in operations over Syria. Hell the Israelis would tie it up in knots.
2
@Jacko Theyve built over 100 operational THAAD rounds and the budget has just asked for more which have been approved.
2
The problem with your thesis is the very radars searching for stealth aircraft will be detected up to 3 X the range by passive systems before the threat radar gets any usable returns.
1
LOl
1
Stealth isnt about "hiding" from anybody or anything, its all about "RANGE". if you can reduce actionable engagement range and reduce the threat systems MEZ you've won as long as you have weapons you can release before a threat system can lock you up. That is what stealth is all about and it works.
1
Paul you just don`t understand how difficult it is to counter these stealth platforms, the Russians and Chinese have invested billions to attempt to do so. You seem to think Stealth is irrelevant, maybe you should tell the PAK-FA designers your findings in case they are missing something or wasting their time.
1
Already told you, its not about "hiding" its about "range".
1
These guys need to think more laterally before they post. They need to think of Stealth as a "system" within a "system" in force tactical doctrine. Their thinking is very one dimensional because "VHF" radar , even radar in general, used in isolation is just not enough to defeat what we have, it amuses me when I read that. The people flying Stealth platforms know their strengths and weaknesses better than anybody else and they leverage "both" to achieve their aims, they are bloody good at it, not just in counter air warfare but in tactical strike be it Naval operations or land ops. They use every technical and operational means at their disposal, its a pretty big library too. The F-22 and F-35 are going to surprise them by not playing into the hands of their opponents. They had better make sure that those "stealth" platforms they see on their scopes are really F-22`s and they aren't chasing ghosts we put there for their processors to play with.
1
The Iranians used Phoenix to knock down Iraqi jets during their war but the biggest barrier to using BVR weapons is ROE not technical, you need a VISIDENT and usually 3 or 4 other confirmations, "electronic" , before a shot is authorized give or take depending on the tactical position.
1
@ Dominik "But I reality it is a group of systems and measures". That is pretty much how I meant it to come across, sorry we got crossed wires. LO is a valuable asset, I was in the Navy for 22 years and know its worth and if you look at where its being used, ie, in virtually every aspect of weapons design where military equipment would benefit from radar LO , its already been done. I served on the very first major naval hulls to eliminate all right angles / corner reflectors, were built with reduced sig` in mind from conception, directly from lessons learned in the Falklands War. Those lessons were shared with NATO. Today we have every major surface combatant on the planet designed with reduced RCS as a design feature and every nation is doing so or has already got there, from China to Russia to the UK to the Euro Navies. If the naysayers took a moment to have a close look they would see it for themselves, in every hull in every picture posted on line. Then they can take a look at Cruise missiles of all flavours, UAVs, hell even MBT designs. The detractors have their own agenda which pretty much reduces their credibility to zero in scientific and technical terms.
1
@Jacko The connection I use is heavily software moderated it does some screwy things, Yotube doesn't display correctly. NO, Russia and China do not "spend a couple of billion", they spend BILLIONS. You think counter stealth is cheap?? Are you kidding? The computational power alone to design and prove processing algorithms costs a small fortune after you've spent another small fortune building your super duper pseudo AESA VHF / HF radars. THAAD is not the same class of weapon as S400 so stop comparing the two. Sorry you are wrong about the THAAD battery numbers as well. THAAD is co operated , they are sited in the middle east, Guam, the ROK, CONUS The South Koreans are deploying 6 batteries total, they have decided to roll out the remaining 4. Your Russian equipment acronyms arent impressing anybody you dont even know how 90% of those systems are employed so I dont know why you are quoting them in the first place.
1
@Davey Open Skies?? It escapes me why you mentioned Open Skies. By the way, Russia has begun to restrict Open Skies flights and the US has reciprocated because the Russians, typical of them have significantly upgraded the sensor packages allowed by the Treaty. The USA, UK, Canada etc have all carried out dozens of Open Skies flights over Russia, Ukraine and Belarus so whats your point? The Russians are obligated to take UN Observers in their military exercises when they involve more than 13,000 personnel but they consistently lie about the participating numbers. As such, there have been ZERO observers of any Russian Military exercise since Putin has been in power. It seems Russia has created its own bogeyman, called Russia.
1
@Davey Filtering. Those aircraft normally fly with luneberg lenses attached.
1
@Davey1123 Of course you don`t have to agree with me but I am telling you stealth is worthwhile. If it were worthless the Chinese and Russians wouldn't be building their own, they know its worth really rather well.
1
What you are talking about is a multi static sensor network, which would be just that, static. If we know where it is and what it can do we will just choose the right weapons to circumvent it, history is replete with examples.
1
Like the TLAM / TACTOM strike with 60 missiles into Syria, your S-400 couldn't have done shit about that because you have no airborne radar network , you absolutely HAVE to have airborne radar as a kill chain component to kill cruise missiles. You`d better hurry because the next generation of US cruise missiles are going to be even harder to detect.
1
The Iksander is still a ballistic missile using INS Gains strapdown as its primary guidance system, im not particularly worried about it , it isnt going to be evading a SAMP-T for example.
1
@Jacko, ""That S-400 system set up in Syria hasn't made the USAF or USN pause a single day in operations over Syria" Instead of answering that one you just pushed some kremlin hyperbole. lets have an honest quasi technical discussion without the BS propaganda?
1
@frederick. Are you talking about a Multistatic radar set up? Long wavelength systems are only part of the story, on their own they are not the answer to stealth. Defeating stealth is not easy even if you think you have an AD set up to counter it. They also have some VERY good IR countermeasures. Ive served on ships working with these aircraft. And no don`t ask, thanks.
1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=42&v=AzyH0M4C8TY
1
LOl :P
1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=42&v=AzyH0M4C8TY
1
1. Those L band arrays on the SU will emit detectable RF energy which can be used to get a tally on them. 2. Several aircraft stooging around emitting trying to find Stealth aircraft will have to worry about the guy who is not emitting, flying at high altitude supercrusing behind them launching AMRAAMs at BVR ranges in salvos in their direction, being cued from his buddies and his ALR-94. 3. F-22`s dont fly around using their radars on full power, in fact they have dialed down the power requirements which was a consequence of tactical lessons learned during training. The down size is the detection range reduction but the plus side is being less detectable. 4. LPI means "Low probability" not "No probability". 5. Pretty much every system which emits anything on the F-22 and F-35 is an LPI design.
1
No, the F-22 was designed with all aspect stealth in mind, the F-35, not so. The B2 even more so than the F-22. B2 `s were flying over Belgrade minutes before the F-117 was shot down, the Serbs never got a whiff of the B2. Also, the authors video is fundamentally flawed in regards to RAM coatings and what they are for. they have a very specific and narrow function.
1
For airborne radar yes, but not for ground based surveillance radars. You would be right if you consider the faceted F-117 which had a computed flight attitude control system that "presented" the aircrafts lowest return aspect to the threat radars. The F-35 was just not designed to be as stealthy as the F-22 but In some ways it's better, others not much I would suggest.
1
Its much more likely the F-117 was just too close to the SAM site, the range was 9 Nm.
1
And the aircraft's own radio and radar.
1
The F-35 has had a lot of work around IR sig / UV index management. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=42&v=AzyH0M4C8TY
1
Japan never shot it down for quite a few reasons, none of which can be understood by someone of your poor technical or geopolitical understanding.
1
True but that is against western systems, what they would love to do and absolutely require is to see the performance against Russian and Chinese systems. For this we need to provoke their radars, we have done this for decades. The F-35 was recently flown into the Baltics , accompanied by several USAF ELINT aircraft for this purpose for example.
1
They also had a reputation for killing their pilots with impunity.
1
What should bother us more is the USN deployed 60% of its aviation strength just to defeat Iraq in 03. it was massive overkill.
1
Nobody has made such a claim in regard to stealth aircraft. Ever.
1
More interesting is the fact the Serbs didn't see the B-2s which bombed Belgrade just before the F-117s.
1
the B-1 is not a stealth aircraft.
1
id have some respect for Sprey if he actually designed either of them, which he didnt.
1
The Russians have thrown their hat into passive detection as well as active , ie detecting data links, uplinks etc to localize threat aircraft. The S-400 complex has a large passive RF detection component but the truth is nobody is saying whether it works against a 5th gen Stealth aircraft. At any great range, I doubt it.
1
You'd be wrong in thinking current stealth platform designers have not considered all radar bands in their design work. You still aren't going to get long range detection against stealth aircraft hoping to rely on the ,longer wavelengths. The F-22 community are all about using the range advantage they have right now regards detectability, they "shoot and scoot" keeping that range after launching AIM 120`s at supercruise imparting a significant range advantage, going active very late in the engagement if at all, I wouldn't be surprised if they used AMRAAM in some very smart ways.....
1