How do you deal with the R-37M effectively without low observability?

How do you deal with the R-37M effectively without low observability?

Damn thing has a range of near 400km, what's to stop a mig from dumping then skedaddling as soon as they see contacts on radar. You can't even get close enough for a Meteor let alone an AMRAAM assuming it's guidance is good and migs have decent radar.

Does this basically shit fuck Gripen and F-16/F-15s? Seems like a Foxhound can carry two and fire them with decent effect against Mig-29s and Su-27s.

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Stealth.
    This is why F-35 is the best boy.
    Simple as.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      But F-35 radiates like a whore from every aspect but direct frontal.

      As soon as it deflects away from the MiG-31 radar receiver, it will be picked-up and tracked.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >stealth
        >tracked
        Nope
        Stealthlets ares seething. Checkmate, radar trannies.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >He thinks stealth is a magic force field that's uniform around the entire airframe...

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Su-27 and derivatives RCS 15m2
            Mig-29 RCS 5m2
            F-35 RCS 0.005m2
            Just let this sink in for while.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >F-35 RCS 0.005m2
              0.0001m^2*

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >F-35 RCS 0.005m2

                Hello lockheed martin. This table is BS, also it's much easier to develop radar that can detect and track "stealth" than it is to build stealth planes. You can an S band/low freq radar to detect, a 2 way data link to get the missile in close then use an X band radar on the missile to target. Next gen AESA radars that can switch freq will render F-22/35 no better thsan current 4th and it will cost 100's of billions to develop new stealth.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >You can an S band/low freq radar to detect, a 2 way data link to get the missile in close then use an X band radar on the missile to target
                So you fire the missile to get to a rough location but then rely on a very narrow search aspect from the missile to get it pitbull?
                That's not going to work reliably in real life

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The idea is to use a low band radar to detect current stealth planes which are only effective against high band radars - but the issue is you can't track/target with low band radars.

                Current top line radars can track and target stealth planes at around 20 miles (as opposed to 80+ miles for non stealth planes). The issue is that by the time you're in that 20 miles range you are dead or can't get a target soultion in time. Having a radar that can switch between bands gives you the range detection which means you can prepare better for a shot once closer. This combined with 2 way data link missiles (i.e. the meteor) + AI/machine learning will be reliable, the pilot won't have to do anything different, the radar will be switching bands automatically amnd the plane AI will be the missile guidance.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >The idea is to use a low band radar to detect current stealth planes which are only effective against high band radars
                No, they're not, as evidenced by the F-35 's CNT RAM. They can also be 100s of lm off from the true location of the platform detected. Meaning you're going to need a missile with 500mi+ plus range just to get a chance at finding something.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The idea is to use a low band radar to detect current stealth planes which are only effective against high band radars - but the issue is you can't track/target with low band radars.

                Current top line radars can track and target stealth planes at around 20 miles (as opposed to 80+ miles for non stealth planes). The issue is that by the time you're in that 20 miles range you are dead or can't get a target soultion in time. Having a radar that can switch between bands gives you the range detection which means you can prepare better for a shot once closer. This combined with 2 way data link missiles (i.e. the meteor) + AI/machine learning will be reliable, the pilot won't have to do anything different, the radar will be switching bands automatically amnd the plane AI will be the missile guidance.

                The 2 way data link is a key component here - providing mid course updates to the general area of the stealth target using low band then switching to high band to target when in close.

                The japs and brits are already working on putting an AESA radar on the meteor missile that can do the band switching itself - not even needing the parent plane radar.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                The Americans are developing the same thing? Our goal is for the AIM-120D replacements is to be guided in by some E-2 or E-7 this isn’t new something new that the Brits and Japs are only developing.The difference is that since the F-35s can get closer before detection they can more effectively close to engagement range with the targets. Any ground based radar systems would be dumb, and transmissions would get sniffed out and they just get a strike package of AARGMs to come there way from well outside their 20mi detection range. I’m not familiar with the implementation of AI into the munitions but as for the F-35s the stealth capabilities are fine for the expected ranges they are engaging.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Stealth does not stop a plane form being detected - as stated low band radars can detect them from long ranges, what stealth does is stop you from being targetting at long ranges.

                The combination of band switching AESA radars/data link/AI solves this problem in theory.

                But the main point is that although stealth planes render most current and older SAM/AA systems obsolete, it will always be cheaper to produce anti stealth systems - thus winning in attrition.

                This means it makes more sense for a peer rival to mass produce these kind of systems than invest in expensive stealth, and we can see that kind of thing with the current trend of using dumb drones en mass.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Stealth does not stop a plane form being detected - as stated low band radars can detect them from long ranges, what stealth does is stop you from being targetting at long ranges.

                The combination of band switching AESA radars/data link/AI solves this problem in theory.

                But the main point is that although stealth planes render most current and older SAM/AA systems obsolete, it will always be cheaper to produce anti stealth systems - thus winning in attrition.

                This means it makes more sense for a peer rival to mass produce these kind of systems than invest in expensive stealth, and we can see that kind of thing with the current trend of using dumb drones en mass.

                Also all the figures and data on stealth is mostly propanganda and always in the best possible situations - remember a 1st gen stealth F117 was shot down with a 1960's SAM+radar in Serbia after it opened it's bomb bay doors for a few mins.

                Any kind of weather effect/maintenance issues/damage/wrong positioning (most stealth is frontal aspect) can expose stealth, again making the investment a bad idea for most countries.

                I can see maybe small scale production of very expense stealth planes used as motherships from drones etc, but the mass production of F-35 is a waste - unless you are only gonna use them do bomb third world countries with 1980's tech.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >US gets complacent with repeating the same bomb route over and over again
                And out of luck spots it with its doors open
                >This makes stealth obsolete
                Kek

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >>This makes stealth obsolete

                Didn't say that - learn to read. The investment in mass production stealth fighters is a waste of money when it can (and will) be beaten by next gen radar systems - it's an arms race and stealth is too epensive vs the systems that can beat it. Like I said it is only useful vs third world shitholes without modern systems, not peers, and in this case cheaper mass produced drones would be better.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                > it's an arms race and stealth is too epensive vs the systems that can beat it.

                Show your economic calculations for this.

                Oh, you dont have them.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Stealth adds a massive cost not just in expensive materials but also maintainance over life time and there are a lot of failure points in stealth combined with newer radar making it less effective.

                Also you fuck the plane up - the F-35 can only carry 4 AA missiles or 2 AA and 2 small bombs internally. For any decent mission package you need to add external stores which fucks the stealth up and makes you no better than a 4th gen plane.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                says the dumb idiot in an armatard thread in a world where every single fucking major military player is developing stealth tech and even smaller ones hop onto the train

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                No need to get angry - maybe you're fat and diabetic and forgot to inject your insulin?

                Just because everyone falls for the meme doesn't make it right, or effective, or the best uses of resources. What kind of idiotic argurment it that?

                Trillions used to develop the F-35 alone, for what use case? Bombing ragheads in caves? A cheasp drone or tucano is a better use of resources. Peer to peer vs russia or china? Good luck with the shitty load out of 4 missiles and anything more gimps your stealth on top of development of better radar. The F15 already outclasses anything they have.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Just because everyone falls for the meme doesn't make it right, or effective, or the best uses of resources.

                Yes, half a hundred countries and their MIC and military development experts are all wrong, but you, a retard armatard on PrepHole, is right.

                Sure thing.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                What's that? you don't agree with me and lochheed martin and the MIC? Ah you must be an "armatard"

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, that's generally how it goes, because the MIC is generally right.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >the MIC is generally right

                Is a welfare program to prop up businesses and scientific research and has nothing to do you using resources optimally.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Is a welfare program to prop up businesses and scientific research and has nothing to do you using resources optimally.
                cope and seethe

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Your existence is a welfare program. Leave the West, you inbred diaspora leech.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You must be a tard to not see the advantage of enemy aircraft not being able to lock onto your plane from further away than 15 miles.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't read what people say and argue against things I make up in my own head.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Panzer, can you still not convert square inches to meters? It was fun BTFO you on the other forum. Stay stupid.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Stealth adds a massive cost not just in expensive materials
                20 years ago.

                It's a lot cheaper now and will continue to do so in the future.

                >but also maintainance over life time
                Also getting cheaper.

                >are a lot of failure points in stealth combined with newer radar making it less effective.
                And improvement in stealth will make it more effective. Furthermore, stealth isnt mutually exclusive from radar development. A high stealth plane with high quality radar will always defeat a low stealth plane with high quality radar.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >with high quality radar.

                If the radar neutralises most of the stealth advantages. which next gen AESA can, then this evens things out, on top of the stealth plane being gimped with it's shit load out.

                The point is that it is cheaper to fit better radars in planes than to develop better stealth planes.

                You will get to the point of busting you're entire defence budget, for an advantage that is situational, can be overcome by cheaper anti systems and gimps your planes with less loadouts.

                Better to have mass produced cheaper systems like drones with maybe a small expensive stealth system acting as a mothership/recon etc. - ofc the idiots in this thread will ignore what i said he and try to make out im saying stealth doesn't work is isn't better - it is in some limited cases and uses and not mass produced like tjhe F-35.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >cheaper anti systems
                Sure would be a shame if something happened to those expensive anti-stealth radar systems you rely on existing.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You gonna get your fatass F-4 near my radar?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >leaves radar on
                >gets tomahawked
                Sucks to suck, retard.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >gets tomahawked

                You a stealth tomahawk would be a better investment than a stealth fighter.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                They work fine against russhit air defense already and let the stealth planes mop up the leftovers. Gotta make some aces somehow.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >if the radar neutralises most of the stealth advantages

                It isnt able to do that, though. If next gen AESA can detect&track modern stealth at normal ranges, it will detect&track non-stealth at even further ranges.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >which next gen AESA can
                Proof? What China is still on their first gen of AESA, decades behind the West, and Russia still can't produce one.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Also you fuck the plane up - the F-35 can only carry 4 AA missiles or 2 AA and 2 small bombs internally.

                Su-35 can carry 6, while having no stealth at all.

                > For any decent mission package you need to add external stores which fucks the stealth up and makes you no better than a 4th gen plane.

                Except you chuck the long range shit externally and once you lob them you retain your stealth advantages.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >gets shitter Gen 3.5 shot down endlessly by planes it can't detect.
                0 return on investment means it was a bad investment.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                > makes you no better than a 4th gen plane.
                That’s not how it works you fucking mong

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Watch/play some simulators where you put outnumbered stealth craft vs 4th gen. Even if the 4th gen have awacs you can’t get a lock. Almost all these sims work out the same way, the 4th gen craft know where the stealth is but by the time they are close enough to lock they already all have a fox3 coming their way and die before launching. Stealth is just too op, especially in the air where you can’t have hundreds of crafts overwhelm the enemy.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >F-35 can only carry 4 AA missiles
                With side kick block 4 will carry 6. And be able to go mach1.6 with them.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >remember a 1st gen stealth F117 was shot down with a 1960's SAM+radar in Serbia after it opened it's bomb bay doors for a few mins
                No, it was shot down with an almost point blank shot - 8 miles - and the first missile still lost track.
                The F-117 had no RWR and no means to shoot HARMs back.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >The japs and brits are already working on putting an AESA radar on the meteor missile that can do the band switching itself
                Proof? What bands?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >You can an S band/low freq radar to detect, a 2 way data link to get the missile in close then use an X band radar on the missile to target. Next gen AESA radars that can switch freq will render F-22/35 no better thsan current 4th and it will cost 100's of billions to develop new stealth
                Seems like a volley of Tomahawks, MALD decoys, EW and the next gen HARM could take care of it.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Hello lockheed martin.
                Seethe
                >This table is BS
                Cope
                >also it's much easier to develop radar that can detect and track "stealth" than it is to build stealth planes.
                No it isn't. To double your detection range you need to increase your power 16 times.
                >You can an S band/low freq radar to detect, a 2 way data link to get the missile in close then use an X band radar on the missile to target.
                Easy to say, extremely hard to do. Low freq radar can be off by 100km+ and introduce phantom tracks. S-band isn't going to have the range, especially with the F-35's CNT RAM being extremely good at absorbing L, S, and X bands.
                >Next gen AESA radars that can switch freq will render F-22/35 no better thsan current 4th and it will cost 100's of billions to develop new stealth.
                They already switch freqs, brown brain. Do you mean bands? What AESA does this? What is the S/N of said radar? Average power output? You're retarded and don't know shit. Go back to pakidefense or sinodefense as it's clear you got your info there panzer; )

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        ???che cosa

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            bro u stooooopid

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >The F-35 relies on shaping and CNT fiber mat RAM baked into the composites to achieve its RCS figures.

              >The F-35 also has excellent RAM bonded to the composite panels, making it extremely difficult to detect - if not impossible.
              >The composite absorbs radar in a frequency range from about 0.10 Megahertz to about 60 Gigahertz. The CNT-infused fiber material forms a first layer that reduces radar reflectance and a second layer that dissipates the energy of the radar.
              >Radar absorbing composite materials of the present invention are particularly effective, for example, in the L- through K-band as described herein further below.
              https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100271253

              https://www.ineffableisland.com/2010/06/lockheed-martin-discloses-carbon.html
              https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=197759
              https://www.key.aero/forum/modern-military-aviation/136859-advanced-in-ram-make-low-frequency-radar-much-less-effective-in-future
              https://theaviationist.com/2020/07/05/new-and-old-f-35-coatings-compared-in-recent-photo-of-two-italian-lightning-ii-jets/
              https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=53014

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Wait so the newer planes just have huge flat radar returns instead of actually being stealthy? Wtf

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you are not reading the scale correctly

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Take those with a grain of salt. They don't account for the inlet radar blockers, nor the afterburner radar blockers on the F-22 and F-35. Which, the F119 and F135 in those two are the only fighters on earth to use a rear radar blocker. Nor do they account for structure/panel materials or RAM coatings.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It’s still stealth, but the trade off of the f22 and f35 was less stealth for gained maneuverability compared to an f117. It’s all relative, if you’re comparing an f35 or f22 to an su35 it’s still much harder to detect. Even from behind, you won’t likely “see” an f35 let alone get a weapons grade lock until you’re within 30/40km of it

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >but the trade off of the f22 and f35 was less stealth for gained maneuverability compared to an f117.
                Not really. Both the F-22 and F-35 have lower RCS than the F-117. The F-117 was 60% shaping and 40% RAM when it came to RCS reduction. As Ufimtsev show: it's not the size of your platform that determines the RCS, it's the shape. The computers and Echo 1 just couldn't process such fine mesh when calculating RCS, hence the huge flat panels. With the F-22 and F-35, the computers and programs could.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >As soon as it deflects away from the MiG-31 radar receiver, it will be picked-up and tracked.
        The pilots know exactly where the RCS spikes are for the F-35, brown brain. They would be spiking the Nig-31, especially with it's shit radar.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          People miss the fact that previous generation aircrafts ain't round balls either. For example Su-27 and it's 15m2 RCS. It's average across 60 degrees frontal aspect. On side aspects it's RCS spikes to more than 100m2. That makes radar detection possible. Radars working against old generation targets don't work against "just 15 or 5m2" RCS.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >radiates like a whore
        Even from the rear it’s RCS is still insanely small relative to actual size. Stop making subjective uneducated statements porco dio

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        LPI AESA basically makes that a non issue, the MiG will just see random noise until it has 6 AMRAAMS up it's ass.

        The only issue is F-35s are latest gen and quite expensive, also we don't wanna give that tech to just anyone.

        Point being how does a 4th gen aircraft deal with this? Dazzlers? Wild weasel teams?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          notching. it's meant for taking out giant non maneuvering aircraft, it doesn't have the energy to deal with a maneuvering fighter

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >as soon as they see contacts on radar.
    Here’s your problem. F35 low radar profile, or Rafale’s french electronic warfare that turns your radar screen into green soup.
    Also, russian radar, kek.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Damn thing has a range of near 400km
    >actually trusting russian paper stats, especially max range estimates
    also the fact that the mig-31 radar doesnt get anywhere close to that

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Damn thing has a range of near 400km
      >actually trusting russian paper stats, especially max range estimates
      >also the fact that the mig-31 radar doesnt get anywhere close to that
      It probably has a range of 400km against an airliner travelling in a straight line at 36,000ft

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >How do you deal with the R-37M effectively without low observability?

      By being able to pull more than 3g in any direction, this thing is designed for shooting down airliner sized targets, it won't do anything to a fighter.

      Seems like wild weasel and flying in packs of 4+ would be effective then, fly fast and high, get in range, dump your AAMs and whoever is unlucky enough to get targeted spins like a ballerina to out KE the thing.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How do you deal with the R-37M effectively without low observability?

    By being able to pull more than 3g in any direction, this thing is designed for shooting down airliner sized targets, it won't do anything to a fighter.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >By being able to pull more than 3g in any direction
      that rules mig-31 out, ironically

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because the west just shuts off GPS and the thing falls out from the sky lol

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Russian equipment really good, according to Russia
    Haven't heard that one before

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >range of near 400km, what's to stop a mig from dumping then skedaddling as soon as they see contacts on radar.
    The inability of any radar fitted to a MiG to get a target track anywhere near that far out. And at any sort of appreciable range its not hitting anything thats maneuvering even a little bit.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The missile is actually shot in the general direction of the enemy. It then gets guidance from various sources(awacs, land radars and other airplanes). It's like an A2A cruise missile. Once close to the target it switches to its own radar. There are dual seeker variants. IR/radar homing.

      Not a bad idea

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >awacs
        lol
        >land radars
        US planes are invisible
        >and other airplanes
        implying BBC POC wouldn't ground them

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          In the context of 4th gens tho it's still a problem. The USAF would clearly dunk on the VKS, that's not up for debate.
          The issue is would this make supplying F-16s or Gr*pens to partner nations less useful?

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    `
    like all russian wunderwaffen, it fucking sucks tierisch cock and was used to enrich some corrupt bastard who also paid off Shoigu and Putin

    Shoigu is the bag man, how else does he get away with the shit he has done?

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >have gigantic, low-maneuverable anti-bomber/AWACS etc. missile
    >dump at enemy fighter from extreme range, with low to zero chance of hitting

    Well, that's a quick way to run down your missile stock without achieving anything other than drawing the air battle out a slight bit.

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >without low observability
    With stealth. Miggers can't see an F35 until a range of like, 15-20 miles and most migs aren't maintained to a state where they can keep up a high operational tempo.
    So you just use the plane that practically all russian enemies have and curb stomp the 3.5 Gen planes.

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The main counter is allowing Russia to continue to not manufacture them in significant numbers to matter, and the second is Russian jets absolutely pissing radar radiation in all directions lit up like Christmas trees. You can see their jets coming a long way away.

    Also stated range will be for a BIG, visible target with high RCS, flying directly towards the launching aircraft, with the launch aircraft flying at top speed at high altitude. If the target simply turns away from the missile the range will drop like a stone, moreso if the target flies fast, cranks defensively, drags the missile into thicker air, etc.

    If the target has a smaller RCS, the range will also be smaller. So there's a lot that can happen to reduce that range to a quarter of the number stated.

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    How do you deal with Armatard sucking all those donkey dicks?

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    > assuming it's guidance is good and migs have decent radar.
    You have found the issue

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Damn thing has a range of near 400km
    If you're firing at anywhere close to maximum range you're going to miss unless the target is closing with you and not maneuvering in the slightest.

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    By not flying straight and level on the same course for 100km after getting spiked by enemy radar.

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It looks like OP made this thread almost immediately after getting blown the fuck out in his last thread.

    [...]

    He was using baseless sources that backed up none of what he said because he didn't bother to read it. When some anon pointed out how full of shit he was, he evaporated out of his own thread and made this one 30 minutes later talking about the exact same topic but this time without the bullshit sources. Posts linked below is someone who bothered to read his "sources"

    [...]

    [...]

    [...]

    What a fucking embarassment. Do shitskins and vatmorons have no shame? Why do they leave their own threads behind like that?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >It looks like OP made this thread almost immediately after getting blown the fuck out in his last thread.

      [...]


      Do you smell it? This smelly smell of Armatard?

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Let's try for an actual answer instead of normal sarcastic PrepHole shit.

    In order to launch the missile at all you're going to need to have a target on your fire control radar, regardless of how long the engine can burn. The Zaslon-M radar used by the MiG-31 can pick up really large 20m^2 RCS targets like an E-3 at 400 km, but only around 280 km against fighter-sized targets like an F-16.

    The main issue though is that these super large anti-bomber/AEW&C missiles are very heavy, very fast, and not very maneuverable. The maximum g-load of a missile is lift coefficient * wing area * velocity / g * mass. The similar to the AIM-54, R-37 is a 600 kg missile, it very likely can't pull more than 2.5 gs. This is fine for its intended targets of bombers and AEW&C, it is not against maneuverable targets like fighters.

    Beyond that, it suffers from the normal problems of super-long range radar. Relies on SARH which has poor resolution with range, conical scanning makes it vulnerable to simple swept square waves, doesn't appear to have any datalink or track-via-missile capability, so its performance at range is likely pretty limited. Broadly seems pretty vulnerable to maneuver and ECM

    So why are the Ukrainians having such a hard time with it? My guess is shitty Soviet EW. Self protection jamming is pretty limited on Soviet aircraft, and RWR is infamously terrible, pic related. Harder to dodge or jam if you don't know it's there until too late.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >ukies are having such a hard time
      according to op who doesn't bother showing us any proof of it being employed

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Let's try for an actual answer instead of normal sarcastic PrepHole shit.
      Do you think vatmorons and their shitskin cattle care about having an actual answer? There is a reason they dropped out of the thread after the source was shown to be bullshit. It's weird how morons like you go into troll threads and take them seriously where your post is only ever going to get ignored by the """"people"""" you are desperately trying to reach.

      Maybe you don't get it fuckwit, they don't want a discussion. They want you to accept that Ukraine is losing. Not hear what they will think is your own fan fiction on military weapons.

  18. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Does this basically shit fuck Gripen and F-16/F-15s?
    It's meant to target AWACS, tankers, and large recon planes and shit from standoff range. Not so much small nimble fighters. The 'targeting AWACS' part is important because a large part of the F-35s effectiveness hinges on network centric warfare (being fed data from AWACS and using that to guide their missiles while keeping their own radars off).

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      They can literally use DAS, EOTS, their EW suite, and their LPI AESA radar to detect, track, and get a firing solution. No need for AWACS to feed it data. The F-35 is a literal AWACS itself. Other F-35s or RQ-180s are more likely to be sending targeting data to an F-35 than a dedicated AWACS. Where do people get the F-35 can't use its radar in contested theaters? That's literally what LPI radar was designed to do, and why the R&D budget for the F-35's radar was $900 million a lone. On top of the money already spent on the F-22's radar, as it comes directly from that.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Can you explain the intricacies of some of these? I am interested

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          An LPI uses freq sweeping or hopping; low power but long duration pulsing; "randomized" scan patterns; high gain; a very low signal-to-noise ratio; and very tight control of side lobe leakage to keep RWRs and EW systems from being able to detect their signal, or pick it out from background noise. The EW system uses its conformal antennae located all around the plane to triangulate the position of an emission at double the detection distance of the emitting radar due to the inverse square law that dictates radar detection range. Can't beat or break physics; a RWR will always be able to detect a radar at double the distance it will be able to detect the plane, as the signal only has to travel in one direction, instead of to and then from the plane back to the receiver. The EW suite on the F-35 and F-22 are ultra wide band, too. The DAS/EOTS are just EO/IR sensors able to detect rocket launches at 1200km+, planes at 100km easily. The F-15's IRST pod has been used to get a firing solution and launch its AIM-120s.

  19. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >How do you deal with the R-37M effectively without low observability?
    Start with an EW suite that isn't of purely archaeological relevance.

  20. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >How do you deal with the R-37M
    When your RWR goes off 400km from the threat, just notch it sometime in the next 8 minutes and you're fine

  21. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Put up decoys and let the Russian waste what they have until they run out.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *