Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion

BMD said:
TRD is not stealth and whilst it's towed, it's still near(ish) the aircraft. So if the enemy radar is that good that it can geolocate moving EA,
Click to expand...

Any modern sophisticated radar can detect a TRD or any Jammer if intended to look for it and programmed that way. They just need to find the source of the radiation. The TRD uses a monopulse radar, and uses amplitude comparison monopulse from the two beams ejected by the radar.

Most probably now days ECM Jamming can mostly occur safely from BVR ranges from multiples locations to confuse the ARM. Drop the TRD, or turn off the ECM power is the only way out to protect the HoJ or use of multiple locations to create a Jamming network.
 
BMD said:
TRDs can be destroyed though, as you mentioned, "once the TRDs are expended," in relation to the Israeli's ECM. Why would Typhoon have two plus onboard EA otherwise? But now you're arguing that TRDs can't be expended. You're contradicting yourself. The problem you have is that the TRD is not stealth and whilst it's towed, it's still near(ish) the aircraft. So if the enemy radar is that good that it can geolocate moving EA, the TRD can be used a marker flag to gauge where the aircraft is. It's far easier to track a non-stealth target emitting than a stealth target emitting. A stealth jet towing a TRD constantly is like a submarine towing a marking buoy.

Says who? I think you're making stuff up. It can adapt to threats.
Click to expand...

Nobody knows a lot about the F-35's towed decoy, just that it's far more advanced than other towed decoys in use. It's very easy to make it even more stealthy than the F-35 in fact. It's already such a tiny little thing, much smaller than a missile.

You can do anything with TRDs, you can drop them and allow them to glide for a long distance at high speed, it can run on battery and memory during that time, or simply roll it back inside the airframe for reuse.

And no, it can be used against any threat, not just missiles. As long as it has the antenna for it, it can jam it. Power is provided by the aircraft.
 
sunstersun said:
I swear the Russians and Chinese don't need to do any propaganda smear research on the F-35, they probably just copy and paste strategicfront.
Click to expand...
The problem is most users here already consider Russian plane junk. So even then f-35 is still better..
 
screambowl said:
Any modern sophisticated radar can detect a TRD or any Jammer if intended to look for it and programmed that way. They just need to find the source of the radiation. The TRD uses a monopulse radar, and uses amplitude comparison monopulse from the two beams ejected by the radar.

Most probably now days ECM Jamming can mostly occur safely from BVR ranges from multiples locations to confuse the ARM. Drop the TRD, or turn off the ECM power is the only way out to protect the HoJ or use of multiple locations to create a Jamming network.
Click to expand...
The actual TRD itself can be detected even minus EA. ARMs generally mean Anti-Radar Missiles?? But yes, the aircraft and the TRD could jam an incoming missile to confuse it also, or expendable DRFM decoys could.
Lolwa said:
The problem is most users here already consider Russian plane junk. So even then f-35 is still better..
Click to expand...
The Su-50 clearly has some short-comings as regards stealth design, the EW etc. is anyone's guess.
 
Last edited:
randomradio said:
Nobody knows a lot about the F-35's towed decoy, just that it's far more advanced than other towed decoys in use. It's very easy to make it even more stealthy than the F-35 in fact. It's already such a tiny little thing, much smaller than a missile.

You can do anything with TRDs, you can drop them and allow them to glide for a long distance at high speed, it can run on battery and memory during that time, or simply roll it back inside the airframe for reuse.

And no, it can be used against any threat, not just missiles. As long as it has the antenna for it, it can jam it. Power is provided by the aircraft.
Click to expand...
That makes it more expensive and having a decoy that's less detectable than the aircraft defeats the objective of a decoy.

So battery limited. Hence why you would reserve it for when a missile is fired.

So is it powered by the aircraft or battery, make up your mind? You need to retract to recharge? Bottom line, the F-35 needs and has onboard EA anyway.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: _Anonymous_
BMD said:
That makes it more expensive and having a decoy that's less detectable than the aircraft defeats the objective of a decoy.

So battery limited. Hence why you would reserve it for when a missile is fired.

So is it powered by the aircraft or battery, make up your mind? You need to retract to recharge? Bottom line, the F-35 needs and has onboard EA anyway.
Click to expand...
The whole lot of you guys involved in this discussion including those absent today but have contributed in no small measure in the past 1 month ought to be on board the NGAD design team.

I mean the sheer amount of thought & time you guys have expended on defining & re defining the concept of stealth ought to earn you a place on the High table.

From aircraft stealth we've now plumbed into the stealth dynamics of tools like EA in this case represented by the TRD aka turd in your limited lexicon.

I'm guessing there's still enough material left from one storyteller to go down the rabbit's hole ( which he'd merrily lead you down into without a 2nd thought indulging in deflection , obfuscation , repetition , etc in short doing everything but admit he's lacking comprehensive understanding in the said matter ) & consume another month & a few dozen pages in the bargain sure in the knowledge that the said storyteller will definitely be countered by another storyteller while you as the latter's minion can add grist to the mill .
 
BMD said:
That makes it more expensive and having a decoy that's less detectable than the aircraft defeats the objective of a decoy.
Click to expand...

LOL. Wow, seriously? Can you please tell me why a radar will confuse a towed decoy for an F-35 if it has an extraordinarily high RCS? The goal is for the towed decoy to mimic the F-35 in every single way possible, that's the point of a decoy.

When hunters go out for duck hunting, they go out with a duck whistle, not a bugle.

The decoy needs to be around the RCS of the aircraft, or even smaller. If it is far too reflective, you can teach the missile to reject it as clutter so it can target the actual aircraft.

You are confused about the reason why the decoy exists. If you want a highly radar reflective decoy then you can't have it chasing you around. What you need is something that saturates the air with RF so radars and missiles can focus on it while being as or less reflective than the aircraft carrying it, not more.

It's not a big secret why the F-35's towed decoy doesn't have pictures on the internet.

BMD said:
So battery limited. Hence why you would reserve it for when a missile is fired.

So is it powered by the aircraft or battery, make up your mind? You need to retract to recharge? Bottom line, the F-35 needs and has onboard EA anyway.
Click to expand...

It can be powered by both the aircraft and the battery. When powered by the aircraft, it can perform EA to its full design.

But when discarded, it can retain the signals it needs to emit within a memory bank for the few short seconds it needs to transmit, and a battery to power those few short seconds until it can do its job. So you've got a missile after you, then all you have to do is release the decoy and move away. The decoy would glide for the 10-20 seconds it takes for the missile to reach it, and you are long gone by then.
 
Last edited:
randomradio said:
By that margin there are only a few "good" air forces in the world. The rest are merely "air defence" forces.
Click to expand...
Correct. All nations that fly Russian fighters (or have bought Russian fighter in the last 20 years) are third world nations that can't afford to buy western made fighters or are not allowed to buy western made fighters. Which is why I said list those countries... Those nations air forces are horrid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMD
WHOHE said:
Correct. All nations that fly Russian fighters (or have bought Russian fighter in the last 20 years) are third world nations that can't afford to buy western made fighters or are not allowed to buy western made fighters. Which is why I said list those countries... Those nations air forces are horrid.
Click to expand...

You forget about dozens of countries that are not allowed to buy Russian fighters due to CAATSA.

Wouldn't need CAATSA if the US wasn't worried about Russian equipment.
 
randomradio said:
You forget about dozens of countries that are not allowed to buy Russian fighters due to CAATSA.

Wouldn't need CAATSA if the US wasn't worried about Russian equipment.
Click to expand...
Have you even read CAATSA bill or do you just wing it and post what you think it ONLY is and hope nobody knows what CAATSA really is?

Let me give you a little hint of what it is.... It's another means for the swamp/democrats/neocons to punish Russia financially without directly putting heavy sanctions on Russia.

Each nation is different when it comes to CAATSA like Egypt. We give Egypt $1.3 Billion in military aid to buy American or Western and they go buying Russian fighters?!? Hells no! CAATSA for you!

Now back on topic that you so unclerverly tried to deflect.... The list of nations that fly Russian 4th gen fighters.

Ethiopia.
Angola.
Armenia.
Belarus.
Egypt.
Eritrea.
Ethiopia.
Indonesia.
Kazakhstan
Malaysia.
Mongolia
Myanmar.
Ukraine. They inherited their Flankers but they are looking into F-16's if they can afford them which says a lot.
Uganda.
Uzbekistan.
Venezuela.
Vietnam.

Lulz. Need I say more?
And the best for last... India. And these are just Flanker variants I'm not even going to list nations that fly Mig-29's that list is even worse.

So these are the poor nations that buy or have bought (with exception of Ukraine) Russian Flankers because
that is all they can afford. So yeah there's a reason why so many of the learned think Russian fighters are junk!.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMD
WHOHE said:
Have you even read CAATSA bill or do you just wing it and post what you think it ONLY is and hope nobody knows what CAATSA really is?

Let me give you a little hint of what it is.... It's another means for the swamp/democrats/neocons to punish Russia financially without directly putting heavy sanctions on Russia.

Each nation is different when it comes to CAATSA like Egypt. We give Egypt $1.3 Billion in military aid to buy American or Western and they go buying Russian fighters?!? Hells no! CAATSA for you!

Now back on topic that you so unclerverly tried to deflect.... The list of nations that fly Russian 4th gen fighters.

Ethiopia.
Angola.
Armenia.
Belarus.
Egypt.
Eritrea.
Ethiopia.
Indonesia.
Kazakhstan
Malaysia.
Mongolia
Myanmar.
Ukraine. They inherited their Flankers but they are looking into F-16's if they can afford them which says a lot.
Uganda.
Uzbekistan.
Venezuela.
Vietnam.

Lulz. Need I say more?
And the best for last... India. And these are just Flanker variants I'm not even going to list nations that fly Mig-29's that list is even worse.

So these are the poor nations that buy or have bought (with exception of Ukraine) Russian Flankers because
that is all they can afford. So yeah there's a reason why so many of the learned think Russian fighters are junk!.
Click to expand...
But Japan isn't a 3rd world country & neither is Australia, TEEHEE. Both these nations are far from poor & are equipped with the latest that money can buy & the US can provide besides developing their own weapons & platforms ( at least in the case of Japan).

Yet when it comes to facing China equipped as you put it , with Russian junk plus their own (which you describe as something that only poor nations possess or seek ) both Japan & Australia seem to be quaking in their boots rushing off to seek US assistance which believe it or not the US is more than keen to oblige with coz the US isn't too confident it can face up to Chinese junk on it's own.

Pray , How do you explain that TEEHEE?
 
WHOHE said:
Have you even read CAATSA bill or do you just wing it and post what you think it ONLY is and hope nobody knows what CAATSA really is?

Let me give you a little hint of what it is.... It's another means for the swamp/democrats/neocons to punish Russia financially without directly putting heavy sanctions on Russia.

Each nation is different when it comes to CAATSA like Egypt. We give Egypt $1.3 Billion in military aid to buy American or Western and they go buying Russian fighters?!? Hells no! CAATSA for you!

Now back on topic that you so unclerverly tried to deflect.... The list of nations that fly Russian 4th gen fighters.

Ethiopia.
Angola.
Armenia.
Belarus.
Egypt.
Eritrea.
Ethiopia.
Indonesia.
Kazakhstan
Malaysia.
Mongolia
Myanmar.
Ukraine. They inherited their Flankers but they are looking into F-16's if they can afford them which says a lot.
Uganda.
Uzbekistan.
Venezuela.
Vietnam.

Lulz. Need I say more?
And the best for last... India. And these are just Flanker variants I'm not even going to list nations that fly Mig-29's that list is even worse.

So these are the poor nations that buy or have bought (with exception of Ukraine) Russian Flankers because
that is all they can afford. So yeah there's a reason why so many of the learned think Russian fighters are junk!.
Click to expand...
You forgot China. Which has more formidable flankers than the Russians and will give western 4th gen fleet huge problems. Russian plane are junk but it's not like they can't cause huge problems to most western airforces which don't have the f35
 
randomradio said:
LOL. Wow, seriously? Can you please tell me why a radar will confuse a towed decoy for an F-35 if it has an extraordinarily high RCS? The goal is for the towed decoy to mimic the F-35 in every single way possible, that's the point of a decoy.

When hunters go out for duck hunting, they go out with a duck whistle, not a bugle.

The decoy needs to be around the RCS of the aircraft, or even smaller. If it is far too reflective, you can teach the missile to reject it as clutter so it can target the actual aircraft.

You are confused about the reason why the decoy exists. If you want a highly radar reflective decoy then you can't have it chasing you around. What you need is something that saturates the air with RF so radars and missiles can focus on it while being as or less reflective than the aircraft carrying it, not more.

It's not a big secret why the F-35's towed decoy doesn't have pictures on the internet.



It can be powered by both the aircraft and the battery. When powered by the aircraft, it can perform EA to its full design.

But when discarded, it can retain the signals it needs to emit within a memory bank for the few short seconds it needs to transmit, and a battery to power those few short seconds until it can do its job. So you've got a missile after you, then all you have to do is release the decoy and move away. The decoy would glide for the 10-20 seconds it takes for the missile to reach it, and you are long gone by then.
Click to expand...
Detection and tracking at this level isn't consistent, make it too small and the radar might just see the right target at the wrong time for the pilot.

Usually they just take shotguns.

Theoretically you could teach this missile to ignore the rearmost target anyway and if I have two targets maintaining distance and velocity well... What about the cable?
 
WHOHE said:
Have you even read CAATSA bill or do you just wing it and post what you think it ONLY is and hope nobody knows what CAATSA really is?

Let me give you a little hint of what it is.... It's another means for the swamp/democrats/neocons to punish Russia financially without directly putting heavy sanctions on Russia.

Each nation is different when it comes to CAATSA like Egypt. We give Egypt $1.3 Billion in military aid to buy American or Western and they go buying Russian fighters?!? Hells no! CAATSA for you!
Click to expand...

So many countries have decided to hold off on purchases from Russia due to CAATSA, this includes countries from the Middle East, which is where CAATSA has been directed towards.

WHOHE said:
Now back on topic that you so unclerverly tried to deflect.... The list of nations that fly Russian 4th gen fighters.

Ethiopia.
Angola.
Armenia.
Belarus.
Egypt.
Eritrea.
Ethiopia.
Indonesia.
Kazakhstan
Malaysia.
Mongolia
Myanmar.
Ukraine. They inherited their Flankers but they are looking into F-16's if they can afford them which says a lot.
Uganda.
Uzbekistan.
Venezuela.
Vietnam.

Lulz. Need I say more?
And the best for last... India. And these are just Flanker variants I'm not even going to list nations that fly Mig-29's that list is even worse.

So these are the poor nations that buy or have bought (with exception of Ukraine) Russian Flankers because
that is all they can afford. So yeah there's a reason why so many of the learned think Russian fighters are junk!.
Click to expand...

You forgot about two potential peer countries to the US, China and India. And one of them even has access to Western jets, including the F-35.

And even with China operating mostly Russian "crap", as you wanna portray, the Americans have pointed out in no unequal terms that neither Japan nor Australia have the capacities needed to fight China, including in the air.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom