Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7 Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millennium-7-history-technology Join this channel to get access to perks: ruclips.net/channel/UCVDkfkGRzo0qcZ8AkB4TMuwjoin Join the Discord server discord.gg/6CuWEWuhsk
Man, watching your videos I start to realize how much of what I have been told about aviation and fighter aircraft technology is totally bogus. Everyone under the sun has an opinion on which fighter is the best, what technologies are best, etc. But the more you explain the more I realize the subject is quite complex and nuanced. I guess it's a large scale example of the Dunning Kruger effect, people are just prone to assuming they know what they're talking about due to a combination of ignorance and vanity. It just goes to show no one should be so naïve as to take a so called expert's opinions at face value.
Can you explain the guidance laws for the latest GPS equipped AMRAAMs? My understanding is GPS effectively increased range through more efficient laws, but I don't see how this works; I thought all the missle would care about is range and bearing of the target.
As an electronic engineer I can only say, WOW great explanation on energy and frecuency Concepts. PS: I can see that the wooden like kitchen furniture is omnipresent in the UK... I have the same ones hahaha
As an Electronic Engineer I was thinking it was lacking, like no mention phased array beam steering and spoofing the targets. Because I imagine steering the beam and the F35 hunting in packs could give much better radar returns and identification. As for him talking about amplifying system the new generation of even commercial chips can pick out a signal from basically 99.9999999% noise can only imagine what boeing/lockleed get custom made.
Are they still using SAW devices to do FFT now? Is modern electronic processor chips fast enough? Can encoding auto-corelating function in the sent radar signal prevent spoofing?
A typical 4 gen fighter uses about 7 parameters to identify a BVR target. The F-22 uses about 200 parameters to identify a BVR target. The F-35 uses about 600 parameters to identify a BVR target. F-35 pilots have said they don't need E-2s, and always identify a BVR target before the AWACS aircraft.during exercises In fact the F-35 often acts as an AWACS aircraft for other fighters.The F-35 has been identifying BVR aircraft in in heavy jamming environments too. ".......in my cockpit, I saw this in Raptor and I saw this in F-35 when I went on operational missions in Nellis Test range or anywhere else, we routinely and almost never utilized an off-board system like an AWACS and when we did, we never relied on the information they pass because we had so much high fidelity information. Four-ship Raptor/F-35 does not need an AWACS to conduct missions.” " - Lt. Col. David "Chip" Berke. Over 2,800 hours in F/A-18, F-22 and F-35. Served 3 Years as Top Gun Instructor pilot and former CO of First operational F-35B Squadron." In Red Flag 17-1, the F-35 often entered into a visual fight, but it did so on its own terms. It had such a superior view of the air battle that, when it chose to enter the visual fight, it entered in an advantageous position. That’s what the F-35 gives you with it’s sensors, sensor fusion, and stealth. It gives you a “gods-eye” view of the air battle, and despite being outnumbered by Red Air in Red Flag 17-1, the F-35 still kicked derriere in the visual fight. Like German Ace Erich Hartmann said, ‘He who sees first has already half the victory.’
@@Miesepete So many clueless F-35 haters around these days. Ask the Israelis what they think of the F-35. And I'm a former USAF pilot and retired airline pilot, not a bot.
I don’t. But I watch a lot of his videos. So yeah. World doesn’t revolve around ya pal. I’m sure he’s trying to expand his audience and reach people who aren’t quite as educated as you. It would be foolish to not dumb them down a little bit to reach a larger audience.
Wow! Excellent! Really, is frustrating read below every posted picture of a non US plane something like "the f35 can shoot it down from xxx miles". Your videos are amazing, teaching and explaining complicated topics in a way that everyone can understand. English is not my first language so I hope you could understand. Regards!
I consider the f35 a hidden information gathering node that sends information back to c and c systems than then determine the best course of action; engage, kill, evade, etc. In this scenario, a f35 can find a target and then the best weapon within the area takes the kill (whether it's that f35, a different plane, a hidden sub, a local ship, etc.). Makes sense that they're building the f-15ex that can carry many missiles and the US is currently in the process of building longer range stealthy missiles (AA, ASW, AsUW, etc.) that can be carried by many platforms.
@@RogerJL also this assumes only 1 guy is doing NCTR. reality now is you have tons of other assets doing the same thing and processed with sensor fusion AI/machine learning. thats a significant ID confidence boost.
NCTR as described in this video made its first combat appearance permitting many BVR kills without VID in Desert Storm... thirty years ago. That was pre-datalink, too. I think the contemporary state-of-the-art is probably significantly more complex and advanced than what's discussed in the video... By a lot.
Which works until someone in a Boeing or an Airbus with a few hundred civilians on board looses the plot and wanders into your theater of operations unannounced...
a passive receiver could receive radar signals from a distant set, and be able to identify that aircraft by the characteristics of the received signals, hence the make and model of the radar deduced the aircraft based upon what it was fitted to
You make a somewhat correct point but there is so much more that goes into combat PiD. Its not about NCTR. its never been. NCTR techniques like print and JEM are only secondary. The main tools of PiD are: AWACS (point of origin criteria), RWR bearing-to radar azimuth correlation (assuming positive signal ID), Trespass criteria and long range visual ID (through TGP/EOTS radar slaving). The above form what is know as the "ID Matrix". In order to force a WVR engagement (which is not a dogfight) ALL the above elements of the matrix must fail for BOTH sides at the SAME time, otherwise one is slaughtering the other in BVR. Not happening. Not even with effective jamming. The only expected WVR scenarios are those of high saturation COMAO's and again only if both combatants pursue AND survive the WVR approach, will they end up in a real dogfight. Because its prohibited to launch active weapons against merged aircraft, they will have to sort it out with pure BFM/ACM. Assuming they wasted their HOBS weapons during the WVR approach. So then, will dogfights happen? Perhaps, but if yes, only to a very small extent. The outcome of air operations throughout a campaign will be decided in BVR.
What he said. Edit: I love how the only counterargument in the comments gets ignored while all the yesmen gets the seal of approval hahahaha what a guy, not coming back to this clickbait channel, good riddance.
So dogfights or turning fights is just a small portion of the overall air to air combat in this era, right? What would comprise large part of overall air to air combat are BVR & within visual range air engagements involving no dogfights or turning fights, right?
"ALL the above elements of the matrix must fail for BOTH sides at the SAME time, otherwise one is slaughtering the other in BVR." ...But BVR makes "slaughter" more difficult. As distance goes up, the likelihood of hitting your target goes down.
@@jamclancy9335 at a USAF Red Flag exercises out of 152 Air to Air engagements, 7 ended up WRV and 145 were BVR. The F35 won 145 out of 145 BVR engagements. It lost 7 out of 7 WVR engagements.
Another brilliant video, thank you. When I served in the RAN as a radar plot, seemingly back in the dark ages, we still had some ships with no computerisation, having to interpret every little thing on our screens and tables like clouds and rain and sea clutter, and perform manual calculations for the simplest things like the course, speed and closest point of approach for all contacts. Even the idea of identifying a contact with radar(although we did have an IFF transponder on our air search radar antenna with mode 4, that’s a different thing altogether) seems like the stuff of science fiction from that perspective, yet so intuitive at the same time!
I did the same thing in the US Navy in the 80’s and 90’s. One of the systems I worked on was a powerful raw data radar system. I would take raw radar data and give it symbology that was then sent over a system for the officers who made both tactical and strategic decisions based on the data from raw radar and OS’s who gave symbology to the returns. For example if we had and unidentified airborne return, we could tell a lot about the unidentified aircraft based on speed, altitude and the strength of the return. We could then send an F-14 or other airborne asset to visually identify. Once that infmrwas sent back to us we would attach an electronic symbol for type of aircraft. Same occurred for surface contacts.
@@bret9741 late 80s-early 90s for me too. We used the same symbols as the USN too. And codewords, and voice procedure, etc. That class of ship, the River class DEs, was the end of the manual ships, and indeed one had already been decommissioned before I joined up.
Yikes this didn't age well 🤣. F35 has literally the most capable fighter radar that's ever been built...a Block 4 loaded with 260s will break every range record there ever was. It'll be out this year, but I believe it'll be fitted to f15/ex, 16, and 22 first...but after that it'll be mated to a 35. TLDR - 'MERICA!!!
It's wild that exportmodel Iranian f-14s were quite capable of BVR interdictions against Saddam's airforce, and then later, American F-16s repeated the same feat in the Gulf War, but the F-35 with its AESA is incapable of the same thing. Huh. (To say nothing of the fact that the Russians are more than capable of BVR engagements and have been doing so against Ukraine)
And to think that Iranian f-14 Tomcats didn't have AWACS support. Or did they? 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔 My point here is, why jump to the conclusion that F-35 couldn't shoot from long range when it wasn't proven in real combat or even in simulation/training exercise that it couldn't really shoot something from long range?
BVR combat existed before NCTR. So saying that F-35 can't do long range engagement is simply funny. Regardless the not bad tech. explanation of the NCTR.
Super-interesting, and a great presentation! It helped me understand why the AWACS is so important. It can acquire targets at great distances, and also likely has much better resolution, so it can do a much better job of IFF. Previously, I’d just thought of AWACS as keeping track of where everything was, but this vid made me realize that it’s much more important to know WHAT everything is!
One of the purposes of AWACS, as I understand it, is to allow stealth aircraft to be stealthy. For the most part a stealth aircraft is not stealthy WHILE an active radar is operating. However if the search/track radar functions are performed by the AWACS, then a jet such as F-35 may not need to turn on its own radar
If I am not wrong, upcoming 6th. Generation aircraft in future have extreme maneuverability feature ( unmanned). This tells us, close air combat is still alive. 🙏🙏
One more thing to add, as new aircrafts become available, this means that stealth will be even more common. Problem is that these aircrafts wont be able to see eachother until they are on top of eachother. Well, this means dog fight! I can see the F35 being in a disadvantage here...
And even when they can see eachother, they’ll have low confidence returns because stealth aircraft share a lot of the same geometry. Especially the F35/FC-31/Su-75.
_Simple can be harder than complex._ True, the more time passes, the stealthier aircraft will become, inevitably. That will force them to move closer, and closer. WVR won't die out for a while.
It's a myth to say that the F-35 is bad at dogfighting. The F-35 has a sustained turn rate comparable to the F-16 (F35: 12 degrees/sec | F-16: 12.5 degrees/sec) in a clean configuration. In realistic configurations with missiles equipped, the F-35 has superior sustained turn rate compared to the F-16 due to being able to store more internally. Even in the clean configuration, the F-35 has dramatically superior instantaneous turn rate (nose authority) compared to the F-16 (F-35: 20 degrees/sec | F-16: 17.4 degrees/sec). Again, in realistic combat loadouts, the F-35 will have an even larger advantage. Think of the F-35 as a plane with slightly better sustained turn rate than the F-16 and a slightly better instantaneous turn rate (nose authority) than the Superhornet in realistic combat loadouts. By all means, the F-35 is a dangerous dogfighter. It's just not marketed as a dogfighter because it has other more impressive attributes. Source(s): www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=27757 (Primary Source) www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/comments/8z2b3c/f35_in_a_dogfighting_scenario_would_the_internal/ (Secondary Source, Discussion).
"these aircrafts wont be able to see eachother until they are on top of eachother" - But they can be datalinked each other's positions by larger early warning systems, and use methods like IRST to locate and identify each other. "Well, this means dog fight!" - No, it doesn't.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD that is an ideal cenario. On a contested air space, that wont be the case, specially against the most modern air forces and ground batteries.
Great video but I think you overstate how much of a problem it is for BVR, back in the 1991 Gulf War F-15Cs with JEM NCTR capable radars and AWACS support were authorised to take BVR shots in a very dense and complicated theatre with hundreds of coalition aircraft present, since then technology has moved on massively with new AESA radars, datalinks etc. Some F-35 pilots have said that their situational awareness is so good now that sometimes they don't even need an AWACS, especially if they're in a networked 4-ship flight, because the quality of the information they have is so much better.
@mandellorian Sure, it's always good to be sceptical of pilots' claims. That said there's red flag for realistic combat scenarios and if that's too high profile they do a lot of work with in simulators. I think the jamming training issue probably applies to a lot of aircraft, particularly the Growlers, those jamming pods they carry emit a huge amount of RF energy.
Thank you. Certainly a complex task. Reminds me of the written and verbal claims about main gun stabilisation (and the advantages thereof) in tanks from WW2 onward. Ian V. Hogg, a former gunner who was a celebrated and prolific author on artillery, fortifications and small arms; asserted in his book about anti-tank weapons that main gun stabilisation was not properly sorted until the mid-1960s. Given his status as a highly respected expert technical writer (in books and magazines) on artillery and small arms, I would take his word over that of every tank enthusiast who lacks such credentials. I am possibly addicted to Millennium 7 * History Tech at this stage. 🙂
hmmm im not sure that this claim is correct... why? because the F-35 has one of the best data-links to give awarnes all around. and that data-link can be used for BVR Fox 3 without aktive radar or looked up targets who would tell enemy his position. but im no expert.
I watch some of this dudes videos.... and wonder if he is accessed to the SAR/SAP program..... and if he actually has any factual information about this program(or any other) or if he just spews words that are seen on a multitude of other you tube videos, and also have no real facts...
But the military should have great overall picture of the battlefield where all the own units are? So if one is not own then most likely in war it is enemy.
... And this is why the Russians keep making planes that are very maneuverable and extreme capable in a dogfight. Basically they know that in a real war long range combat would be very limited and they would quickly gain the upper hand.
To bad the ROE in peacetime we very different then a wartime. Long range combat will be use more since there will be relax in ROE. You see that in past conflict.
One issue with this analysis. There’s an assumption that the underlying technology is one of the solutions discussed. If technology already in the hands of others is what’s on the F-35, why the absolute control over its systems by the US? I highly suspect there are undisclosed technologies on the F-35 that put it way ahead of anything the Russians or Chinese have available. To support this argument, I want to jump to a seemingly unrelated topic. You know all those UFOs off the coast of the US? I highly suspect those are just super advanced American technology. That they show up in American training grounds during training isn’t likely an accident. The more likely explanation is they were there to see how effective current military tech is against them. So why does this matter? Well, the US puts hundreds of billions of dollars more into its defence development than any other counties, and has been consistently doing so for decades. I find it extremely hard to believe that a country like Russia that’s been crumbling economically for several decades or China, which is has only become a near-peer in the last 10-20 years have the same technological capabilities as the US. This analysis more or less argues that this is the case and that new technology not available to others isn’t on the F-35. From a development, economics and behavioural perspective (the absolute control over F-35 production and support), this is very likely not the case.
The dogfight isn't dead it never existed. A situation in which both the defender and attacker is both aware of each other in a fight doesn't even happen half the time I'll take situational awareness over a better itr/str thank you.
I'm not going to go into details because many systems are classified but the reason why the F-15C was chosen to fly CAP and fighter roles even when Carriers were in the area was because the F-14 lacked the ability to identify targets at range the same way the F-15 can using some of the principles explained in this video.
(1) Most of these are peace time issues and even then IFF solves much of the problem. (2) In war time, it is not unreasonable to assume that anything out there not known to you is the enemy and should be shot at with or without identification. (3) While it is possible for aircraft to wind up in visual range before the shooting starts -- especially when there isn't a hot war going on -- DOGFIGHTING IS DEAD. There is no reason to design an aircraft to be highly agile in terms of the ability to point it's nose. Why? Because if you are close enough for that to matter, high off boresight missiles like the AIM-9X can be shot backwards and still hit the target. If you are far away enough to worry about the missile's motor burn time, you are also far away enough that even a 747 can turn fast enough to put the enemy in the forward 45 degree cone of the nose.
On your second point, during Desert Storm, the coalition had literally hundreds of planes in the air over Iraq at the same time, and massively outnumbered the Iraqi Air Force. There is no way a single pilot could have kept track of every aircraft in the sky when planes keep coming and going, and there are more planes than in the sky than you could shake a stick at. If they detected an unknown aircraft on radar there was actually a good chance it was a friendly, which is why they had to get conformation from AWACS every time they wanted to engage an aircraft and shoot it down. Some Iraqi aircraft did get away because of this, but it was needed to limit friendly fire.
It doesn't get to that unless you only have 4th Gen fighters whose helmet HOBS missile envelopes brush up against each other on Edge of Visual Range. Since most of them have IRST and many have AESA, there will be BVRAAM skirmishes first. It's good to be specific about each platform, their sensors, weapons, and particular unit training focus to gage how they would behave starting from BVR, while taking into consideration who they're networked with.
@@LRRPFco52 Why are u so troll... Are u engineers in Radar and Aircraft like this video creator..? Everywhere if some Russian tech or US Stealth tech video u write a ton of bs.. Just stop..it tired to read your comments about 5th gen. Get a life
@@lbh2776 He knows that there's way more to the SU-57 than meets the eye, as Millenium 7 has shown. He knows that ultimately, everything is classified, no one (except the people involved) _really_ knows anything about either the SU-57 or the Raptor. It's a waiting game. How long will it take Russia to fix their issues, get the new engine ready, and roll out the number of SU-57s they need? What will the US do with the Raptor moving forward, and what are they planning next? Also, the Checkmate fighter announcement probably stirred him up a bit, too. He's not a troll, it's just that he's heavily biased, which is why you shouldn't pay any attention to his comments. He is knowledgeable though, that's for sure. Millennium 7 is the guy you should be listening to.
@@lbh2776 This is a place for discussion about the details of Aerospace Engineering relative to military technology-a field I’ve been involved with since the 1970s. I have many years of training and experience relative to this subject, so of course I will comment on things that I can, focusing on the history, applied physics, and scientific principles being discussed. Maybe you’re looking for an amateur site where simple concepts and comments are the norm, and no viewpoints are challenged?
I like how you can take a subject as complicated as Boolean algebra or running a differential equation through a food processor and not wind up being just alphabet soup.
Great analysis, but I think that another useful NCTR technique was not mentioned, which is to compare the rcs at different frequencies, let's say that in L band it gives a much higher return than in X band is because the target is of the stealth type
I love the charts you showed. This reminds me of a Sonar Technician on a Submarine. They listen like radar does and he learns and matches known sounds to unknown to identify using experience to know what the target is. Does this make sense to you?
Blard A term used to refer to the expelling of banana peels from the anus. This is usually a completely random occurrence and it tends to happen at the most inconvenient times.
I really don't get why was the title presented as a dig at the F-35? NCTR is not a golden bullet, but it works. And to pick the F-35 as the poster boy here, the plane that has an order of magnitude more target recognition parameters compared to the F-22 is just ludicrous. If any aircraft can succesfully recognize a target, F-35 is it.
Stealth planes have one big advantage - they can get to the enemy from direction they dont expect.. thats how F22 for example usually identified planes over Syria, where sometimes other plane had no idea F22 was that near.. and even if they were spotted, there was always another F22 covering the one that had to get into visual contact with potential enemy.
I wonder how well virtual radars built out of multiple transceivers on multiple platforms and connected with a theatre datanet works? So, you encode and encrypt a serial number, location, time and metadata into your radar pulses. Then, say it gets received by multiple receivers, yours and an AWACS. You now have even more useful information for identifying that aircraft, especially if it's a low observable platform which is redirecting your radar energy away but happens to hit an AWACS. This is undoubtedly already implemented on F-35
Broke down and explained a very complex topic such that even a smooth brain like me could follow along and understand. An excellent video good sir on a topic so overlooked yet of vital importance.
Another outstanding and truthfull analysis, embarrassing, bur patently obvious to those who see without bias. For years we get ridiculed by the fan boyz.
In the first gulf war we saw this a lot. Where fights got into short ranges because of difficulty identifying enemy aircraft and the fear of friendly fire incidents. That said, in the first gulf war they didn't have modern datalinks sharing real-time information on the aircraft around them, friendly and enemy. I can't help but think a lot of what you said is less relevant now than even twenty or thirty years ago. There are a lot more options for identifying aircraft now than there were even relatively recently. This information can, and is, compiled from multiple sources now in a way that didn't really exist until relatively recently. P.S. You argued that because radar signal scales with the fourth power of distance, aircraft have to be relatively close to get a better return, but that's LITERALLY the exact opposite of the conclusion to be drawn from that fact.. Inverse fourth power scaling means even a relatively small decrease in distance results in a dramatically stronger return signal. Halve the distance to the target, and you get a 2^4 or sixteenfold increase in the strength of the return signal. In order to double the signal strength, an aircraft only has to get about 16% closer. Aircraft don't need to get much closer than their maximum range to get a significantly better signal. That part, in particular, was the wrong conclusion.
And the ability to snoop on AWAC correspondence would add an extra strength to an enemy. Since a Piper Cub is unlikely to elicit a defensive response. An FA 18 or F35 is definitely a recognised threat. Modern warfare is more about digestible data than bore sighting an enemy.
sword and the shield, someone makes a new better sword, then someone makes a new shield that can stop it, then someone makes a "new" new sword that can defeat the new shield...over and over
Another reason why within visual range, maneuvering fighting capabilities will always be important : air policing and interceptions. You can't just shoot at a contact from 50+ nm away and hope for the best, even if you're sure it's an "enemy". Unless you're engaged in open warfare that would create a diplomatic incident. You have to get close and visually confirm the identity of the trespassing aircraft, establish contact and escort it. And at that point it doesn't matter how stealthy your aircraft is or how much range your missiles have. You've firmly entered the visual arena, and BFM is the only line of defense you've got left if the target suddenly decides it doesn't actually want to cooperate. Plus I always hear this argument of "oh our stealth fighters will detect and shoot down their conventional fighters before they ever get close enough to engage anyway". And sure, that sounds reasonable enough. But... what about THEIR stealth fighters ? Are you sure they can't get close either ? Overconfidence is an insidious killer.
Well tbh peacetime air policing and interception really doesn't require much maneuverability. Theres basically no civillian aircraft that can compete with military aircraft used for airpolicing(F-16). Interceptions usually have a relatively signifcant degree of seperation between aircraft(even more so if the target is likely hostile), meaning that heatseakers and even radar missiles would be of use. Identity of aircraft can generally be obtained based on the actions of the target. This has been used in the Iraq and Lybia. Stealth is almost never conclusive, radar capabilities can be limited but not nullified.
These aircraft are designed for open warfare against a peer adversary. It's no longer the middle east shooting Ahmed in his mountain cave, where you have coalition forces operating in close vicinity trying to ID that unknown. The world is moving away from asymmetrical warfare and towards open hostilities in the Pacific theatre. When these aircraft go in, they'll be hot on the heels of a nuclear/cruise missile first strike. It'll be what's left of say the PLAAF against the remainder of the US' carrier force in the Pacific in that scenario. ASATS will have gone out crippling C3 on both sides, and there'll be massive 4-4.5 gen strike packages rolling in vs the surviving air defense network/battlegroup ships. There won't be any friendlies ahead of you, only hostiles carrying HARMs or antiship.
For air forces which employ stealth/5gen-data-centric-inter-operable-highly-redundant aircraft, it "simply" gives them the upper hand, increasing hit probability. Dominance. It comes at a cost, however. That cost is not entirely carried by the host nation but also the enemy, in an effort to counteract such an advantage. An arm's race. I'm sure Russia n China have all sorts of technical n tactical defeats to varying degrees, all of which are taxing, too. America spends ten times its closest competitor n is well-versed at war. Alot could go wrong but that's balanced against what goes right. Manned aircraft have all but reached the limit of manoeuvrability, especially in a tactical, high energy scenario. I don't really care if the Su-27 can do a cobra, n triple back-flip, coz the F-35 can point n shoot from any direction/angle with its highly integrated passive target acquisition, better missiles.. n designate other targets for others to shoot at, be that land, air or sea, in real-time. F-35s in (high) numbers, allow for swarms with ever more focus yet distributed processing/situational awareness. Hive mind. It's a credible threat. Why do you think Russia n China say it's useless while building their very own?
What people forget is that stealth has two components. Low visibility, but also good detection ability. If you only have one of these, then you are in trouble. It does not help if the enemy can not see you if you can not see them. Some have invested more in the ability to see targets. Some have invested more in not being seen. But you should have a mix of both. And if you can not have both, then great ability to detect is more important than the ability to avoid getting detected. Because that can be used both offensively and defensively. (There is a reason why when USA engages an enemy they try to take out detection systems first despite having stealth aircraft. There not invisible. They're just harder to see. And that lets your other not so stealthy weapons fly more safely, too.)
Assuming an attacking airforce knows that the enemy Airforce has powerful radars and AWACS in the sky, - Is it possible for that airforce to use jamming pods/EW counter measures to decieve enemy by emitting signatures that resemble civilian airliners? That will prevent an BVRs and allow the attacking Airforce to close the distance between itself and the target. With coming of precision guided bombs and glide bombs, having longer ranges of 80-120kms, that extra distance that they can close in is all that may be needed for a successful strike. May be, if the library is well updated, an attacking aircraft may be able to generate signatures of the enemy plane itself, giving the impression of friendlies in the air (assuming others pilots know of the setup)
Retrieving the signature of enemy aircraft is difficult. However east/west should have a very detailed database of signatures of their own types of aircraft, thus be able to identify that an an aircraft is not friendly I.e. not of our types. Unless of course enemy aircraft resemble the own types and the is not enough information to make the distinction. But given that even mission configurations make a difference, I think the chance that enemy and own can be confused is very small.
Exactly, as technology progresses forward some tech will get outclassed bringing back old ways needing modernization. It's not hard to imagine beyond visual range becoming outdated in many situations because of stealth.
So those radar returns that you speak of could possibly be interfered with by the potential target to provide false information to the potential attacker? Or something similar. Hmmm, so where could this leave stealth as the claimed battle winning technology?
If a VLO platform uses multispectral sensor analysis of contacts, shared with its flight mates who are doing the same thing from totally different angles, you have a whole new generation of NCTR. A next generation AESA, like the ones in JSF, already have blistering NCTR capabilities that have layers of methods to deal with NCTR and DWFM ECM. When you combine that with the AIRST feature of EOTS and DAS, you have at least 2 high resolution IR spectrum sensors auto-slaved to the AESA/RF sensor suite. So with JSF, you have a higher degree of accuracy in PID at BVR than human eyes would have WVR because human eyes can't see all of the spectral signatures emitted or reflected by the TGT.
Target recognition databases make for an exquisite target of cyberwarfare - especially if RADAR operators are inexperienced and have no interest in memorizing reflection profiles... LOOK ! TIC-TACs !!!
ISAR? A technology takes time and lots of time in scanning and post processing. It is more suitable to scan ocean bed fixed objects and terrestrial mapping that are not affected by process and lost process delay. Less suitable on planes don’t usually sit still to enemy radar long enough for ISAR signature capture. A signature required 2D scan for 3D signature which takes time. How much time opposing war plane have? Can AI speed up the identification? AI is a tool to recognize complex pattern rapidly only if provided with high definition signature. High definition signature requires plenty of lead time, in peace time, to do AI training of a given target. For AI training to be war reliable, it takes much time with super computers, an AI down side it’s advocates doesn’t want to share.
What about israeli F16 jets using civilian Aircraft to hide behind when attacking Syria. Syrian S200 battery accidentally hit a IL17 Russian recon plane.
You missed one I guess. The slow speed and the lack of supercruise of F-35 do not allow AAMRAMs to have enough speed and range. Kinetic energy of the missiles are at utmost importance during a aerial confrontation.
With afterburners you will have enough speed. There is a large misconception about stealth aircraft speed though. An fully loaded F-16C with amraams and fuel tanks would have difficulties reaching the same speeds the F-35 can because of drag while the F-35 can be fully loaded with internal fuel and weapons without the drag penalty
@@v0id683 an unloaded F-35 can reach Mach 1.6 with afterburners. The combat figure is way below that number. Also you should not compare it to 40 years old F-16.
The F-35A has better kinematics than pretty much any 4th Gen fighter, with maybe an exception to the F-15C, and they’re very close for BVR missile separation max v0. Paper max v0 and combat-configured mx v0 are totally different realities with every single 4th Generation fighter, to include the Rafale and Typhoon. Not only does the F-35A pass through transonic speed better than the other teen series, but it flies higher and cruises really well up in the higher altitude bands. F-16 with EFTs starts to really suck and wheeze once you get up into the FL250 and higher (25000ft). They struggle just to hit the tanker and stay on the boom, having to constantly punch burner when configured. Whenever you hear someone talking about low speed on the F-35, you know they’re not very informed.
What do you do when the enemy is using the same exact planes as you? Like for example of Greece and turkey went to war they both have F-16s and that would mean IFF would need to stay to visual.
There is a problem with this whole assessment I’m afraid. You are limiting the perspective. If you are fighting in a war, before you even take off your aircraft, you have an idea of the area of conflict, allied disposition and possible enemy. The situations you are describing that would be limited to the deployment of weapons long range weapons into danger close situations with possible friendly assets.
Of course, Bvr combat has sense, with platforms (Aesa radar systems as apg-81 and Captor E) as f35 or Eurofighter and weapons as meteor misiles... Target engagement and destroy options, would be very high from ranges of 50 -70 km.
Pilots train for BFM and AFM but they are warned not to get into a turning dog fight and rely on BVR when engaging in a high intensity conflict with Russia or China. There is plenty of interviews from pilots who have said the same thing. Someone posted that the F-35 has 638 NCTR parameters in 2016 compared to the 2 NCTR parameters in 1991 on an F18. I've been looking for material on the internet that confirms or denies. Given that the F35 is less maneuverable than the F16 and the F35B/C models, does not carry an internal cannon and none of the F35s carried a sidewinder till recently, I think that there is tech none of us privy to that gives the USA an NCTR at range advantage. So to me given the evidence I've read from military pilots the turning dogfight is as one of these pilots said "a metric of a bygone era".
Yes, the approach of the USSR in frontal aviation to central radar vectoring is no longer sufficient and accordingly, Russian fighters have onboard radar to this end. The Chinese doctrinal policy would equally changed I am certain. ( how affective the radar supplied by Russia is another matter. Much as the mistrust between these super powers has become; the Chinese are no longer supplied with the finest Russian engines for their fighters. As they are considered as being an equal threat to their southern neighbours. It is foolishness to reverse engineer your so called allies, expecting no substantial penalties. Especially when it is hard currency the Russians seek and no longer a collaboration.
A bit of a flawed assessment in my opinion. There will be scenarios where multiple countries or forces make it difficult or you don't have all the assets to assist the identification of aircraft, but generally, a fast mover will be identified as a military vehicle and friendly assets are hopefully all accounted for, meaning if it moves like a bad guy, is flying where you think a bad guy should be, its probably a bad guy. The classification helps determine threats and add to the network battlespace information, ie if the AWAC says Fast mover, possible Mig-29, you fly and ping and get possible Mig-29 or F-15 and you know that no F-15s are in the airspace, its probably a Mig-29.
The title itself is misleading as target recognition applies to all aircraft. The F-35 has some of the most technologically advanced sensors around, and it’s situational awareness and sensor fusion are second to none. Of course pilots don’t want to commit fratricide, but BVR kills have happened often in the past, including in Iraq where F-15s shot down Mig-23s from BVR, or over Serbia where a F-16 shot down a Mig-29 from BVR, and those conflicts were around thirty years ago. I am not denying that WVR is obsolete, but BVR shots are more possible today than anytime in the past.
A stealt aircraft doesnt need very long range weapons if it has low intercept radar.. It just has to keep away from IRST range. Why arent mobile phone equipment, second ww2 radars and satellites used to track and target stealt aircraft?
F-35 is reportedly able to compare a bogey's characteristics colkected via it's sensors against a list of more than 700 parameters in it's target database. Why won't this be sufficient to idebtify it as a hostile?
Well, the Israeli air-force seemed to think they didn't want the electronic parts, and wanted to put their own components. They did call they own version ""awesome", apparently. Also, just some thought, not only the F35 has some sort of antenna that is reminiscent of the old TV antennas at the front, and that's never shown on 3D models, and also, it has some sort of "perch" (don't even know if that word means anything in that context), a sensor, on a stick near the front, exactly like the rafale, for example, but it's just hidden, inside, and can be deployed, I didn't know that, lol.
The F-35 can infact shoot at long range if a hostile can be confirmed from another location that is better positioned to do so. Eg AWACS, ground/sea radar or another F35 that is out of weapons but flying closer to the hostile. The F-35 was designed with this in mind. In fact one F35 could do identification while another F35 maintains weapons lock.
This sounds almost like the Japanese Tsunami Warning System - when an earthquake occurs it's immediately analyzed, and a huge database (mainly based on models) is queried, and it comes back with a probability of a tsunami being generated - how big, when, etc. This has to happen in minutes so warnings can be sent out to civil defense, since tsunami generated near Japan take minutes to hit. By the way, does the F-35 use active radar?? Seems to be against the very idea of stealth...
When Russia shot down KLM flight full of civilian was it considering what your talking about? It always seems to be found out later that certain individuals were on a flight. Such is this case for the Malaysian flight 370 that disappeared of the face of the world. Some targets are known civilian and sill get shot down. The externalities of things.
@17.47 camera panning onto him is the very embodiment of what he wants to say.. Enter in a dogfight to know your enemy correctly and then you can decide if or not you want to kill him(if he is a semi active radar emitter..kill him ie the source) or don't kill him if u know his weapons bay is just IR and you can make your other secondary targets as primary..
What about just good old radar jamming ? I just cant imagine that the f35 can reliably shoot beyond visual range as these missiles will run out of energy by the time they get near their targets making them very easy to dodge when going defensive....or am i talking out of my ass? Sure ok you have put your enemy into going defensive and you have the upper hand...but the f35 is such a poor dogfighter that if it went for the chase where it can be detected optically would surely be suicidal. The whole logic behind it is shoot and run away....ok, run away...but then its even too damn slow to run away!! I really cannot understand the point of a stealth plane if it cant dogfight
I think the instances where you find one f-35 relying on only its radar to identify a long-range target are going to be slim to none . I really think you need to look at a system as a whole and not just the individual components. Especially now with the introduction of More drones into the battle field.
Very weak point in my opinion. Your whole argument is dogfight is not dead because you can't be sure if the target 100km away is an enemy or not like who is gonna be flying their personal aircraft (because apparently there are so many people owning one) in a battlefield area?
Wow, I don't think I've ever seen anybody explain frequency-domain analysis to this depth without saying "Fourier" (specifically around 3:11) 🙂 Seriously, do you happen to know what the approximate bamdwidth (and resulting imaging resolution) of a modern X-band fighter radar is? I would guess that the bandwidth would be on the order of 1-2 Ghz (25% of the nominal frequency) leading to a range resolution on the order of low tens of cm, but my own knowledge is more relevant to terrestrial BMD radars like AN/TPY-2. There is obviously a lot of overlap of approaches between NCTR and decoy discrimination. Another question: Do you happen to know if the signature enhancers in modern decoys like recent versions of ADM-160 are capable of "selectively distorting" the returned waveform to fool NCTR? w.r.t. the problem of not having accurate signature measurements of hostile aircraft at ~12:31, it seems that the more important thing would be to have comprehensive measurements of _friendlies_, to avoid blue-on-blue engagements. Also I believe that the US is moving towards identifying threats by tracking them ab initio via IR imaging satellites and the like. If you know that an aircraft took off from, say, Engels-2 then you don't really need worry about it being friendly. We know for example that the USN relied upon tracking Backfires via IR for carrier battle group outer defense in the 1980s. Obviously there are further countermeasures that can break this chain, so I'm not suggesting it's a panacea.
That's impressive! This man is the master of creating a very credible looking video, which seems scientifically sound because it's seeded with actual facts... but then it's all wrapped around a point which is utterly false and complete nonsense. I can't help but wonder if it's some type of masterful trolling created with the intention of having people comment rebuttals with classified material, or bring together points which intelligence efforts failed to realize. So, I'll just contribute this; look into open source information on EOTS, DAS, and how the AN/ASQ-242 can use distributed networking to allow all subsystems on each aircraft in a wing of F-35s to combine their radar, optical, and data picture to easily achieve in just a few milliseconds what this guy claims is impossible. They routinely identify hundreds of air and ground objects in real time as they move throughout the battlespace... and they're not confined to Radar and Optical methods. That's not to say that a single F-35 couldn't IFF an aircraft in milliseconds... it's something that even our 4th gen aircraft have been doing with great efficiency for decades. This guy's hatred for NATO does compel him to put an impressive level of effort into his videos though... you have to give him that.
Relax...please just relax. Do you know what is a clickbait video? Because it worked perfectly with you. Having said that, the RoE problem is a real problem. I have an entire series describing the F-35 approach to this problem.
So every time a Tupolev tried to fly into Alaska is the time the Russian trying to collect data/profiles of US aircrafts for their target management systems huh?
![NOSFERATU - Official Trailer [HD] - Only In Theaters December 25](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nulvWqYUM8k/mqdefault.jpg)
Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7
Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millennium-7-history-technology
Join this channel to get access to perks:
ruclips.net/channel/UCVDkfkGRzo0qcZ8AkB4TMuwjoin
Join the Discord server discord.gg/6CuWEWuhsk
Man, watching your videos I start to realize how much of what I have been told about aviation and fighter aircraft technology is totally bogus. Everyone under the sun has an opinion on which fighter is the best, what technologies are best, etc. But the more you explain the more I realize the subject is quite complex and nuanced. I guess it's a large scale example of the Dunning Kruger effect, people are just prone to assuming they know what they're talking about due to a combination of ignorance and vanity. It just goes to show no one should be so naïve as to take a so called expert's opinions at face value.
Excellent video. Can you make an episode about the Rafael Python-5 missile ?
Can you explain the guidance laws for the latest GPS equipped AMRAAMs? My understanding is GPS effectively increased range through more efficient laws, but I don't see how this works; I thought all the missle would care about is range and bearing of the target.
@@weir-t7y Sorry, I can't pin down the problem yet.
@@taylorc2542 I don't think any information is available to public.
Damn, if I can apply what I've learned from this illuminating video to my own air force I'll be unstoppable! I just need an air force.
😆😆😆
-Thank God that only adult and responsible men has an airforce....!!!
@@easer777 : Branson?
@@easer777 The only adult and responsible air force that I've seen flies Gripens. LOL
As an electronic engineer I can only say, WOW great explanation on energy and frecuency Concepts. PS: I can see that the wooden like kitchen furniture is omnipresent in the UK... I have the same ones hahaha
As an Electronic Engineer I was thinking it was lacking, like no mention phased array beam steering and spoofing the targets. Because I imagine steering the beam and the F35 hunting in packs could give much better radar returns and identification. As for him talking about amplifying system the new generation of even commercial chips can pick out a signal from basically 99.9999999% noise can only imagine what boeing/lockleed get custom made.
Are they still using SAW devices to do FFT now? Is modern electronic processor chips fast enough?
Can encoding auto-corelating function in the sent radar signal prevent spoofing?
@@ntal5859 He is talking about NCTR (Non Cooperative Target Recognition) as stated in description.
A typical 4 gen fighter uses about 7 parameters to identify a BVR target.
The F-22 uses about 200 parameters to identify a BVR target.
The F-35 uses about 600 parameters to identify a BVR target.
F-35 pilots have said they don't need E-2s, and always identify a BVR target before the AWACS aircraft.during exercises In fact the F-35 often acts as an AWACS aircraft for other fighters.The F-35 has been identifying BVR aircraft in in heavy jamming environments too.
".......in my cockpit, I saw this in Raptor and I saw this in F-35 when I went on operational missions in Nellis Test range or anywhere else, we routinely and almost never utilized an off-board system like an AWACS and when we did, we never relied on the information they pass because we had so much high fidelity information.
Four-ship Raptor/F-35 does not need an AWACS to conduct missions.” "
- Lt. Col. David "Chip" Berke. Over 2,800 hours in F/A-18, F-22 and F-35. Served 3 Years as Top Gun Instructor pilot and former CO of First operational F-35B Squadron."
In Red Flag 17-1, the F-35 often entered into a visual fight, but it did so on its own terms. It had such a superior view of the air battle that, when it chose to enter the visual fight, it entered in an advantageous position. That’s what the F-35 gives you with it’s sensors, sensor fusion, and stealth. It gives you a “gods-eye” view of the air battle, and despite being outnumbered by Red Air in Red Flag 17-1, the F-35 still kicked derriere in the visual fight. Like German Ace Erich Hartmann said, ‘He who sees first has already half the victory.’
So many F-35 shills and Washington bots around these days.......🥱
@@Miesepete So many clueless F-35 haters around these days. Ask the Israelis what they think of the F-35. And I'm a former USAF pilot and retired airline pilot, not a bot.
@@777Outrigger Not haters, but paid actors. Look at the clickbait video titles.
You are targeting an intelligent audience who knows about the Fourier Transformation already, so you should freely talk about these concepts.
Don't overestimate us man, it's a good thing he explains it so clearly.
... Yeah! Right guys ? We all totally know what that is! Ppfft obviously!!
Fourier what....??? ;- )
@@unknownuser069 thank you!
I don’t. But I watch a lot of his videos. So yeah. World doesn’t revolve around ya pal. I’m sure he’s trying to expand his audience and reach people who aren’t quite as educated as you. It would be foolish to not dumb them down a little bit to reach a larger audience.
This target recognition tech, backed by a database should be familiar to anyone in the submariner field. Excellent and exceptional show as always.
Wow! Excellent! Really, is frustrating read below every posted picture of a non US plane something like "the f35 can shoot it down from xxx miles". Your videos are amazing, teaching and explaining complicated topics in a way that everyone can understand. English is not my first language so I hope you could understand. Regards!
I consider the f35 a hidden information gathering node that sends information back to c and c systems than then determine the best course of action; engage, kill, evade, etc. In this scenario, a f35 can find a target and then the best weapon within the area takes the kill (whether it's that f35, a different plane, a hidden sub, a local ship, etc.). Makes sense that they're building the f-15ex that can carry many missiles and the US is currently in the process of building longer range stealthy missiles (AA, ASW, AsUW, etc.) that can be carried by many platforms.
Those who write such comments usually can't comprehend videos like this.
Your English is perfect dude.
This was the stuff I was doing in the Navy 15-20 years ago. Great video, I appreciate the nerding out on topics like this.
This is really a key here 15-20 years ago...
There have been some developments in computers and electronics since...
@@RogerJL also this assumes only 1 guy is doing NCTR. reality now is you have tons of other assets doing the same thing and processed with sensor fusion AI/machine learning. thats a significant ID confidence boost.
NCTR as described in this video made its first combat appearance permitting many BVR kills without VID in Desert Storm... thirty years ago. That was pre-datalink, too. I think the contemporary state-of-the-art is probably significantly more complex and advanced than what's discussed in the video... By a lot.
how old are ya sir?
@@Jester-uh9xg Anything public about electronic warfare is usually at least 25 years old.
Honestly the best way to tell what returns are enemies is to keep careful track of all non-enemies.
Which works until someone in a Boeing or an Airbus with a few hundred civilians on board looses the plot and wanders into your theater of operations unannounced...
a passive receiver could receive radar signals from a distant set,
and be able to identify that aircraft by the characteristics of the received signals,
hence the make and model of the radar deduced the aircraft based upon what it was fitted to
You make a somewhat correct point but there is so much more that goes into combat PiD. Its not about NCTR. its never been. NCTR techniques like print and JEM are only secondary. The main tools of PiD are: AWACS (point of origin criteria), RWR bearing-to radar azimuth correlation (assuming positive signal ID), Trespass criteria and long range visual ID (through TGP/EOTS radar slaving). The above form what is know as the "ID Matrix". In order to force a WVR engagement (which is not a dogfight) ALL the above elements of the matrix must fail for BOTH sides at the SAME time, otherwise one is slaughtering the other in BVR. Not happening. Not even with effective jamming. The only expected WVR scenarios are those of high saturation COMAO's and again only if both combatants pursue AND survive the WVR approach, will they end up in a real dogfight. Because its prohibited to launch active weapons against merged aircraft, they will have to sort it out with pure BFM/ACM. Assuming they wasted their HOBS weapons during the WVR approach. So then, will dogfights happen? Perhaps, but if yes, only to a very small extent. The outcome of air operations throughout a campaign will be decided in BVR.
What he said.
Edit: I love how the only counterargument in the comments gets ignored while all the yesmen gets the seal of approval hahahaha what a guy, not coming back to this clickbait channel, good riddance.
Why can’t you launch at merge?
So dogfights or turning fights is just a small portion of the overall air to air combat in this era, right? What would comprise large part of overall air to air combat are BVR & within visual range air engagements involving no dogfights or turning fights, right?
"ALL the above elements of the matrix must fail for BOTH sides at the SAME time, otherwise one is slaughtering the other in BVR." ...But BVR makes "slaughter" more difficult. As distance goes up, the likelihood of hitting your target goes down.
@@jamclancy9335 at a USAF Red Flag exercises out of 152 Air to Air engagements, 7 ended up WRV and 145 were BVR. The F35 won 145 out of 145 BVR engagements. It lost 7 out of 7 WVR engagements.
Another great video by Millennium 7. Keep it up, I keep sharing your videos on every relevant media.
Another brilliant video, thank you.
When I served in the RAN as a radar plot, seemingly back in the dark ages, we still had some ships with no computerisation, having to interpret every little thing on our screens and tables like clouds and rain and sea clutter, and perform manual calculations for the simplest things like the course, speed and closest point of approach for all contacts. Even the idea of identifying a contact with radar(although we did have an IFF transponder on our air search radar antenna with mode 4, that’s a different thing altogether) seems like the stuff of science fiction from that perspective, yet so intuitive at the same time!
how old are you sir?
@@sidv4615 “only” 51.
I did the same thing in the US Navy in the 80’s and 90’s. One of the systems I worked on was a powerful raw data radar system. I would take raw radar data and give it symbology that was then sent over a system for the officers who made both tactical and strategic decisions based on the data from raw radar and OS’s who gave symbology to the returns. For example if we had and unidentified airborne return, we could tell a lot about the unidentified aircraft based on speed, altitude and the strength of the return. We could then send an F-14 or other airborne asset to visually identify. Once that infmrwas sent back to us we would attach an electronic symbol for type of aircraft. Same occurred for surface contacts.
@@bret9741 late 80s-early 90s for me too. We used the same symbols as the USN too. And codewords, and voice procedure, etc. That class of ship, the River class DEs, was the end of the manual ships, and indeed one had already been decommissioned before I joined up.
Yikes this didn't age well 🤣. F35 has literally the most capable fighter radar that's ever been built...a Block 4 loaded with 260s will break every range record there ever was. It'll be out this year, but I believe it'll be fitted to f15/ex, 16, and 22 first...but after that it'll be mated to a 35. TLDR - 'MERICA!!!
It's wild that exportmodel Iranian f-14s were quite capable of BVR interdictions against Saddam's airforce, and then later, American F-16s repeated the same feat in the Gulf War, but the F-35 with its AESA is incapable of the same thing. Huh. (To say nothing of the fact that the Russians are more than capable of BVR engagements and have been doing so against Ukraine)
And to think that Iranian f-14 Tomcats didn't have AWACS support. Or did they? 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
My point here is, why jump to the conclusion that F-35 couldn't shoot from long range when it wasn't proven in real combat or even in simulation/training exercise that it couldn't really shoot something from long range?
BVR combat existed before NCTR. So saying that F-35 can't do long range engagement is simply funny.
Regardless the not bad tech. explanation of the NCTR.
Super-interesting, and a great presentation! It helped me understand why the AWACS is so important. It can acquire targets at great distances, and also likely has much better resolution, so it can do a much better job of IFF.
Previously, I’d just thought of AWACS as keeping track of where everything was, but this vid made me realize that it’s much more important to know WHAT everything is!
One of the purposes of AWACS, as I understand it, is to allow stealth aircraft to be stealthy.
For the most part a stealth aircraft is not stealthy WHILE an active radar is operating. However if the search/track radar functions are performed by the AWACS, then a jet such as F-35 may not need to turn on its own radar
If I am not wrong, upcoming 6th. Generation aircraft in future have extreme maneuverability feature ( unmanned). This tells us, close air combat is still alive. 🙏🙏
One more thing to add, as new aircrafts become available, this means that stealth will be even more common. Problem is that these aircrafts wont be able to see eachother until they are on top of eachother. Well, this means dog fight! I can see the F35 being in a disadvantage here...
And even when they can see eachother, they’ll have low confidence returns because stealth aircraft share a lot of the same geometry. Especially the F35/FC-31/Su-75.
_Simple can be harder than complex._
True, the more time passes, the stealthier aircraft will become, inevitably. That will force them to move closer, and closer.
WVR won't die out for a while.
It's a myth to say that the F-35 is bad at dogfighting. The F-35 has a sustained turn rate comparable to the F-16 (F35: 12 degrees/sec | F-16: 12.5 degrees/sec) in a clean configuration. In realistic configurations with missiles equipped, the F-35 has superior sustained turn rate compared to the F-16 due to being able to store more internally. Even in the clean configuration, the F-35 has dramatically superior instantaneous turn rate (nose authority) compared to the F-16 (F-35: 20 degrees/sec | F-16: 17.4 degrees/sec). Again, in realistic combat loadouts, the F-35 will have an even larger advantage. Think of the F-35 as a plane with slightly better sustained turn rate than the F-16 and a slightly better instantaneous turn rate (nose authority) than the Superhornet in realistic combat loadouts. By all means, the F-35 is a dangerous dogfighter. It's just not marketed as a dogfighter because it has other more impressive attributes.
Source(s):
www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=27757 (Primary Source)
www.reddit.com/r/F35Lightning/comments/8z2b3c/f35_in_a_dogfighting_scenario_would_the_internal/ (Secondary Source, Discussion).
"these aircrafts wont be able to see eachother until they are on top of eachother" - But they can be datalinked each other's positions by larger early warning systems, and use methods like IRST to locate and identify each other.
"Well, this means dog fight!" - No, it doesn't.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD that is an ideal cenario. On a contested air space, that wont be the case, specially against the most modern air forces and ground batteries.
Great video but I think you overstate how much of a problem it is for BVR, back in the 1991 Gulf War F-15Cs with JEM NCTR capable radars and AWACS support were authorised to take BVR shots in a very dense and complicated theatre with hundreds of coalition aircraft present, since then technology has moved on massively with new AESA radars, datalinks etc. Some F-35 pilots have said that their situational awareness is so good now that sometimes they don't even need an AWACS, especially if they're in a networked 4-ship flight, because the quality of the information they have is so much better.
@mandellorian Sure, it's always good to be sceptical of pilots' claims. That said there's red flag for realistic combat scenarios and if that's too high profile they do a lot of work with in simulators. I think the jamming training issue probably applies to a lot of aircraft, particularly the Growlers, those jamming pods they carry emit a huge amount of RF energy.
Outstanding. Thank you.
Thank you. Certainly a complex task. Reminds me of the written and verbal claims about main gun stabilisation (and the advantages thereof) in tanks from WW2 onward. Ian V. Hogg, a former gunner who was a celebrated and prolific author on artillery, fortifications and small arms; asserted in his book about anti-tank weapons that main gun stabilisation was not properly sorted until the mid-1960s. Given his status as a highly respected expert technical writer (in books and magazines) on artillery and small arms, I would take his word over that of every tank enthusiast who lacks such credentials.
I am possibly addicted to Millennium 7 * History Tech at this stage. 🙂
See 'full circle' author wing commander J E Johnson
Very thorough and interesting! Good work!
Awesome video!
Thanks for explaining this! :)
hmmm im not sure that this claim is correct... why? because the F-35 has one of the best data-links to give awarnes all around. and that data-link can be used for BVR Fox 3 without aktive radar or looked up targets who would tell enemy his position.
but im no expert.
I watch some of this dudes videos.... and wonder if he is accessed to the SAR/SAP program..... and if he actually has any factual information about this program(or any other) or if he just spews words that are seen on a multitude of other you tube videos, and also have no real facts...
Meanwhile F-14 crews ;
"Haha, Phoenix goes wooosh"
I am gasping for air from awe with your intelect.
I always appreciated this guy since I found him.
same
I really think he needs a new microphone, his accent and bassy voice makes him hard to understand at times.
But the military should have great overall picture of the battlefield where all the own units are? So if one is not own then most likely in war it is enemy.
... And this is why the Russians keep making planes that are very maneuverable and extreme capable in a dogfight. Basically they know that in a real war long range combat would be very limited and they would quickly gain the upper hand.
To bad the ROE in peacetime we very different then a wartime. Long range combat will be use more since there will be relax in ROE. You see that in past conflict.
Lol this didn't age well
One issue with this analysis. There’s an assumption that the underlying technology is one of the solutions discussed. If technology already in the hands of others is what’s on the F-35, why the absolute control over its systems by the US? I highly suspect there are undisclosed technologies on the F-35 that put it way ahead of anything the Russians or Chinese have available. To support this argument, I want to jump to a seemingly unrelated topic. You know all those UFOs off the coast of the US? I highly suspect those are just super advanced American technology. That they show up in American training grounds during training isn’t likely an accident. The more likely explanation is they were there to see how effective current military tech is against them. So why does this matter? Well, the US puts hundreds of billions of dollars more into its defence development than any other counties, and has been consistently doing so for decades. I find it extremely hard to believe that a country like Russia that’s been crumbling economically for several decades or China, which is has only become a near-peer in the last 10-20 years have the same technological capabilities as the US. This analysis more or less argues that this is the case and that new technology not available to others isn’t on the F-35. From a development, economics and behavioural perspective (the absolute control over F-35 production and support), this is very likely not the case.
The dogfight isn't dead it never existed. A situation in which both the defender and attacker is both aware of each other in a fight doesn't even happen half the time I'll take situational awareness over a better itr/str thank you.
I'm not going to go into details because many systems are classified but the reason why the F-15C was chosen to fly CAP and fighter roles even when Carriers were in the area was because the F-14 lacked the ability to identify targets at range the same way the F-15 can using some of the principles explained in this video.
1991 Gulf of war?
(1) Most of these are peace time issues and even then IFF solves much of the problem.
(2) In war time, it is not unreasonable to assume that anything out there not known to you is the enemy and should be shot at with or without identification.
(3) While it is possible for aircraft to wind up in visual range before the shooting starts -- especially when there isn't a hot war going on -- DOGFIGHTING IS DEAD. There is no reason to design an aircraft to be highly agile in terms of the ability to point it's nose. Why? Because if you are close enough for that to matter, high off boresight missiles like the AIM-9X can be shot backwards and still hit the target. If you are far away enough to worry about the missile's motor burn time, you are also far away enough that even a 747 can turn fast enough to put the enemy in the forward 45 degree cone of the nose.
On your second point, during Desert Storm, the coalition had literally hundreds of planes in the air over Iraq at the same time, and massively outnumbered the Iraqi Air Force. There is no way a single pilot could have kept track of every aircraft in the sky when planes keep coming and going, and there are more planes than in the sky than you could shake a stick at.
If they detected an unknown aircraft on radar there was actually a good chance it was a friendly, which is why they had to get conformation from AWACS every time they wanted to engage an aircraft and shoot it down. Some Iraqi aircraft did get away because of this, but it was needed to limit friendly fire.
But how does this WVR look like.
IRIS-T, Python 5 or AIM-9X
over in seconds...
I agree. WVR and dogfight will still be fought with missiles rather than cannons.
It doesn't get to that unless you only have 4th Gen fighters whose helmet HOBS missile envelopes brush up against each other on Edge of Visual Range.
Since most of them have IRST and many have AESA, there will be BVRAAM skirmishes first.
It's good to be specific about each platform, their sensors, weapons, and particular unit training focus to gage how they would behave starting from BVR, while taking into consideration who they're networked with.
@@LRRPFco52
Why are u so troll...
Are u engineers in Radar and Aircraft like this video creator..? Everywhere if some Russian tech or US Stealth tech video u write a ton of bs.. Just stop..it tired to read your comments about 5th gen.
Get a life
@@lbh2776 He knows that there's way more to the SU-57 than meets the eye, as Millenium 7 has shown. He knows that ultimately, everything is classified, no one (except the people involved) _really_ knows anything about either the SU-57 or the Raptor. It's a waiting game. How long will it take Russia to fix their issues, get the new engine ready, and roll out the number of SU-57s they need? What will the US do with the Raptor moving forward, and what are they planning next? Also, the Checkmate fighter announcement probably stirred him up a bit, too.
He's not a troll, it's just that he's heavily biased, which is why you shouldn't pay any attention to his comments. He is knowledgeable though, that's for sure. Millennium 7 is the guy you should be listening to.
@@lbh2776 This is a place for discussion about the details of Aerospace Engineering relative to military technology-a field I’ve been involved with since the 1970s. I have many years of training and experience relative to this subject, so of course I will comment on things that I can, focusing on the history, applied physics, and scientific principles being discussed.
Maybe you’re looking for an amateur site where simple concepts and comments are the norm, and no viewpoints are challenged?
I like how you can take a subject as complicated as Boolean algebra or running a differential equation through a food processor and not wind up being just alphabet soup.
Great analysis, but I think that another useful NCTR technique was not mentioned, which is to compare the rcs at different frequencies, let's say that in L band it gives a much higher return than in X band is because the target is of the stealth type
Yeah but Lband can be countered by the jamming of d band signals (electronic attack) which the f35 has electronic attack capability!
@@zacharyjones1285 what is d band
If you believe that, I got some oceanfront property for sale...
sir how use of diff materials can confuse Nctr? also cant cyber warfare cause errors in the data base and cause false info?
Really great video. 👏👏👏
I love the charts you showed. This reminds me of a Sonar Technician on a Submarine. They listen like radar does and he learns and matches known sounds to unknown to identify using experience to know what the target is. Does this make sense to you?
Within Visual Range combat has been declared dead several times, but it will always come back.
Blard
A term used to refer to the expelling of banana peels from the anus. This is usually a completely random occurrence and it tends to happen at the most inconvenient times.
Banana .......WHAT ?
I really don't get why was the title presented as a dig at the F-35? NCTR is not a golden bullet, but it works. And to pick the F-35 as the poster boy here, the plane that has an order of magnitude more target recognition parameters compared to the F-22 is just ludicrous. If any aircraft can succesfully recognize a target, F-35 is it.
Stealth planes have one big advantage - they can get to the enemy from direction they dont expect.. thats how F22 for example usually identified planes over Syria, where sometimes other plane had no idea F22 was that near.. and even if they were spotted, there was always another F22 covering the one that had to get into visual contact with potential enemy.
Exploiting the blindspot
@mandellorian Huh?
I wonder how well virtual radars built out of multiple transceivers on multiple platforms and connected with a theatre datanet works?
So, you encode and encrypt a serial number, location, time and metadata into your radar pulses.
Then, say it gets received by multiple receivers, yours and an AWACS.
You now have even more useful information for identifying that aircraft, especially if it's a low observable platform which is redirecting your radar energy away but happens to hit an AWACS.
This is undoubtedly already implemented on F-35
Oh great, another wannabe armchair "expert". NOT click-worthy! One & done....
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Broke down and explained a very complex topic such that even a smooth brain like me could follow along and understand. An excellent video good sir on a topic so overlooked yet of vital importance.
Can you talk about all the different Links that NATO uses and what they're used for?
Hmm, how does IFF fit into all this?
Long range? No problem: Just press "Fire"! >20% loss due to friendly fire is quite normal in every airforce.
Another outstanding and truthfull analysis, embarrassing, bur patently obvious to those who see without bias. For years we get ridiculed by the fan boyz.
In the first gulf war we saw this a lot. Where fights got into short ranges because of difficulty identifying enemy aircraft and the fear of friendly fire incidents.
That said, in the first gulf war they didn't have modern datalinks sharing real-time information on the aircraft around them, friendly and enemy. I can't help but think a lot of what you said is less relevant now than even twenty or thirty years ago. There are a lot more options for identifying aircraft now than there were even relatively recently. This information can, and is, compiled from multiple sources now in a way that didn't really exist until relatively recently.
P.S. You argued that because radar signal scales with the fourth power of distance, aircraft have to be relatively close to get a better return, but that's LITERALLY the exact opposite of the conclusion to be drawn from that fact.. Inverse fourth power scaling means even a relatively small decrease in distance results in a dramatically stronger return signal. Halve the distance to the target, and you get a 2^4 or sixteenfold increase in the strength of the return signal.
In order to double the signal strength, an aircraft only has to get about 16% closer. Aircraft don't need to get much closer than their maximum range to get a significantly better signal.
That part, in particular, was the wrong conclusion.
And the ability to snoop on AWAC correspondence would add an extra strength to an enemy. Since a Piper Cub is unlikely to elicit a defensive response. An FA 18 or F35 is definitely a recognised threat. Modern warfare is more about digestible data than bore sighting an enemy.
Harmonics is everything.
sword and the shield, someone makes a new better sword, then someone makes a new shield that can stop it, then someone makes a "new" new sword that can defeat the new shield...over and over
Shields/defensive systems are inherently reactive, this ebb and flow will continue seemingly forever.
Another reason why within visual range, maneuvering fighting capabilities will always be important : air policing and interceptions. You can't just shoot at a contact from 50+ nm away and hope for the best, even if you're sure it's an "enemy". Unless you're engaged in open warfare that would create a diplomatic incident.
You have to get close and visually confirm the identity of the trespassing aircraft, establish contact and escort it. And at that point it doesn't matter how stealthy your aircraft is or how much range your missiles have. You've firmly entered the visual arena, and BFM is the only line of defense you've got left if the target suddenly decides it doesn't actually want to cooperate.
Plus I always hear this argument of "oh our stealth fighters will detect and shoot down their conventional fighters before they ever get close enough to engage anyway". And sure, that sounds reasonable enough. But... what about THEIR stealth fighters ? Are you sure they can't get close either ? Overconfidence is an insidious killer.
Well tbh peacetime air policing and interception really doesn't require much maneuverability. Theres basically no civillian aircraft that can compete with military aircraft used for airpolicing(F-16). Interceptions usually have a relatively signifcant degree of seperation between aircraft(even more so if the target is likely hostile), meaning that heatseakers and even radar missiles would be of use.
Identity of aircraft can generally be obtained based on the actions of the target. This has been used in the Iraq and Lybia.
Stealth is almost never conclusive, radar capabilities can be limited but not nullified.
These aircraft are designed for open warfare against a peer adversary. It's no longer the middle east shooting Ahmed in his mountain cave, where you have coalition forces operating in close vicinity trying to ID that unknown.
The world is moving away from asymmetrical warfare and towards open hostilities in the Pacific theatre.
When these aircraft go in, they'll be hot on the heels of a nuclear/cruise missile first strike. It'll be what's left of say the PLAAF against the remainder of the US' carrier force in the Pacific in that scenario. ASATS will have gone out crippling C3 on both sides, and there'll be massive 4-4.5 gen strike packages rolling in vs the surviving air defense network/battlegroup ships. There won't be any friendlies ahead of you, only hostiles carrying HARMs or antiship.
You mean all two of their stealth fighters?
For air forces which employ stealth/5gen-data-centric-inter-operable-highly-redundant aircraft, it "simply" gives them the upper hand, increasing hit probability. Dominance.
It comes at a cost, however. That cost is not entirely carried by the host nation but also the enemy, in an effort to counteract such an advantage. An arm's race.
I'm sure Russia n China have all sorts of technical n tactical defeats to varying degrees, all of which are taxing, too. America spends ten times its closest competitor n is well-versed at war. Alot could go wrong but that's balanced against what goes right.
Manned aircraft have all but reached the limit of manoeuvrability, especially in a tactical, high energy scenario. I don't really care if the Su-27 can do a cobra, n triple back-flip, coz the F-35 can point n shoot from any direction/angle with its highly integrated passive target acquisition, better missiles.. n designate other targets for others to shoot at, be that land, air or sea, in real-time. F-35s in (high) numbers, allow for swarms with ever more focus yet distributed processing/situational awareness. Hive mind. It's a credible threat. Why do you think Russia n China say it's useless while building their very own?
What people forget is that stealth has two components. Low visibility, but also good detection ability. If you only have one of these, then you are in trouble. It does not help if the enemy can not see you if you can not see them. Some have invested more in the ability to see targets. Some have invested more in not being seen. But you should have a mix of both. And if you can not have both, then great ability to detect is more important than the ability to avoid getting detected. Because that can be used both offensively and defensively.
(There is a reason why when USA engages an enemy they try to take out detection systems first despite having stealth aircraft. There not invisible. They're just harder to see. And that lets your other not so stealthy weapons fly more safely, too.)
Absolute nonsense.
The F-35 is our generation's F-4.
13:08 can you please ask Otis to steal these files for research purposes.
Shus! Don't give him ideas! 😆
Otis if you're reading this please steal these files please please please!
Depending on whether he has acquaintances with their printers or not 🤣
Assuming an attacking airforce knows that the enemy Airforce has powerful radars and AWACS in the sky, - Is it possible for that airforce to use jamming pods/EW counter measures to decieve enemy by emitting signatures that resemble civilian airliners? That will prevent an BVRs and allow the attacking Airforce to close the distance between itself and the target. With coming of precision guided bombs and glide bombs, having longer ranges of 80-120kms, that extra distance that they can close in is all that may be needed for a successful strike. May be, if the library is well updated, an attacking aircraft may be able to generate signatures of the enemy plane itself, giving the impression of friendlies in the air (assuming others pilots know of the setup)
Its a supersonic stealth attack/strike aircraft, not a fighter that requires to be BVR capable
Retrieving the signature of enemy aircraft is difficult. However east/west should have a very detailed database of signatures of their own types of aircraft, thus be able to identify that an an aircraft is not friendly I.e. not of our types. Unless of course enemy aircraft resemble the own types and the is not enough information to make the distinction. But given that even mission configurations make a difference, I think the chance that enemy and own can be confused is very small.
Could you do a video explaining Coded Pulse Anti Clutter System (CPACS) used in the F-15 and TPS-43E radar?
The more stealth there is, maybe the less radar and beyond visual range will work, so the more dogfighting will be important.
Exactly, as technology progresses forward some tech will get outclassed bringing back old ways needing modernization.
It's not hard to imagine beyond visual range becoming outdated in many situations because of stealth.
@@ned418 Paradox n
Dog fighting is dead and likely never will return
So those radar returns that you speak of could possibly be interfered with by the potential target to provide false information to the potential attacker? Or something similar. Hmmm, so where could this leave stealth as the claimed battle winning technology?
If a VLO platform uses multispectral sensor analysis of contacts, shared with its flight mates who are doing the same thing from totally different angles, you have a whole new generation of NCTR.
A next generation AESA, like the ones in JSF, already have blistering NCTR capabilities that have layers of methods to deal with NCTR and DWFM ECM. When you combine that with the AIRST feature of EOTS and DAS, you have at least 2 high resolution IR spectrum sensors auto-slaved to the AESA/RF sensor suite.
So with JSF, you have a higher degree of accuracy in PID at BVR than human eyes would have WVR because human eyes can't see all of the spectral signatures emitted or reflected by the TGT.
You invented deception jamming :)
@@zoka7108 Oh joy is me :]
Target recognition databases make for an exquisite target of cyberwarfare - especially if RADAR operators are inexperienced and have no interest in memorizing reflection profiles...
LOOK ! TIC-TACs !!!
ISAR? A technology takes time and lots of time in scanning and post processing. It is more suitable to scan ocean bed fixed objects and terrestrial mapping that are not affected by process and lost process delay. Less suitable on planes don’t usually sit still to enemy radar long enough for ISAR signature capture. A signature required 2D scan for 3D signature which takes time. How much time opposing war plane have?
Can AI speed up the identification?
AI is a tool to recognize complex pattern rapidly only if provided with high definition signature. High definition signature requires plenty of lead time, in peace time, to do AI training of a given target. For AI training to be war reliable, it takes much time with super computers, an AI down side it’s advocates doesn’t want to share.
What about israeli F16 jets using civilian Aircraft to hide behind when attacking Syria. Syrian S200 battery accidentally hit a IL17 Russian recon plane.
You missed one I guess. The slow speed and the lack of supercruise of F-35 do not allow AAMRAMs to have enough speed and range. Kinetic energy of the missiles are at utmost importance during a aerial confrontation.
With afterburners you will have enough speed. There is a large misconception about stealth aircraft speed though. An fully loaded F-16C with amraams and fuel tanks would have difficulties reaching the same speeds the F-35 can because of drag while the F-35 can be fully loaded with internal fuel and weapons without the drag penalty
@@v0id683 an unloaded F-35 can reach Mach 1.6 with afterburners. The combat figure is way below that number. Also you should not compare it to 40 years old F-16.
The F-35A has better kinematics than pretty much any 4th Gen fighter, with maybe an exception to the F-15C, and they’re very close for BVR missile separation max v0. Paper max v0 and combat-configured mx v0 are totally different realities with every single 4th Generation fighter, to include the Rafale and Typhoon.
Not only does the F-35A pass through transonic speed better than the other teen series, but it flies higher and cruises really well up in the higher altitude bands. F-16 with EFTs starts to really suck and wheeze once you get up into the FL250 and higher (25000ft). They struggle just to hit the tanker and stay on the boom, having to constantly punch burner when configured.
Whenever you hear someone talking about low speed on the F-35, you know they’re not very informed.
What do you do when the enemy is using the same exact planes as you? Like for example of Greece and turkey went to war they both have F-16s and that would mean IFF would need to stay to visual.
Not anymore Greece is buying Rafales
you can always bring something as unique identifiers and program your threat database accordingly. These things are programmable after all.
@@dirckthedork-knight1201 Greece also has some Mirage 2000s, but the majority of its fighters are, and will remain for the foreseeable future, F-16s.
Does Greece has an airforce ?
@@tiborpurzsas2136 Quite a big one, for the country's size.
There is a problem with this whole assessment I’m afraid. You are limiting the perspective. If you are fighting in a war, before you even take off your aircraft, you have an idea of the area of conflict, allied disposition and possible enemy. The situations you are describing that would be limited to the deployment of weapons long range weapons into danger close situations with possible friendly assets.
Of course, Bvr combat has sense, with platforms (Aesa radar systems as apg-81 and Captor E) as f35 or Eurofighter and weapons as meteor misiles... Target engagement and destroy options, would be very high from ranges of 50 -70 km.
Pilots train for BFM and AFM but they are warned not to get into a turning dog fight and rely on BVR when engaging in a high intensity conflict with Russia or China. There is plenty of interviews from pilots who have said the same thing. Someone posted that the F-35 has 638 NCTR parameters in 2016 compared to the 2 NCTR parameters in 1991 on an F18. I've been looking for material on the internet that confirms or denies. Given that the F35 is less maneuverable than the F16 and the F35B/C models, does not carry an internal cannon and none of the F35s carried a sidewinder till recently, I think that there is tech none of us privy to that gives the USA an NCTR at range advantage. So to me given the evidence I've read from military pilots the turning dogfight is as one of these pilots said "a metric of a bygone era".
Yes, the approach of the USSR in frontal aviation to central radar vectoring is no longer sufficient and accordingly, Russian fighters have onboard radar to this end. The Chinese doctrinal policy would equally changed I am certain. ( how affective the radar supplied by Russia is another matter. Much as the mistrust between these super powers has become; the Chinese are no longer supplied with the finest Russian engines for their fighters. As they are considered as being an equal threat to their southern neighbours.
It is foolishness to reverse engineer your so called allies, expecting no substantial penalties. Especially when it is hard currency the Russians seek and no longer a collaboration.
A bit of a flawed assessment in my opinion. There will be scenarios where multiple countries or forces make it difficult or you don't have all the assets to assist the identification of aircraft, but generally, a fast mover will be identified as a military vehicle and friendly assets are hopefully all accounted for, meaning if it moves like a bad guy, is flying where you think a bad guy should be, its probably a bad guy. The classification helps determine threats and add to the network battlespace information, ie if the AWAC says Fast mover, possible Mig-29, you fly and ping and get possible Mig-29 or F-15 and you know that no F-15s are in the airspace, its probably a Mig-29.
•
I understand that the Russians have very good Jamming technology, but How would they Hide the Huge radar & Heat Signatures of their Fighters???
The title itself is misleading as target recognition applies to all aircraft. The F-35 has some of the most technologically advanced sensors around, and it’s situational awareness and sensor fusion are second to none. Of course pilots don’t want to commit fratricide, but BVR kills have happened often in the past, including in Iraq where F-15s shot down Mig-23s from BVR, or over Serbia where a F-16 shot down a Mig-29 from BVR, and those conflicts were around thirty years ago. I am not denying that WVR is obsolete, but BVR shots are more possible today than anytime in the past.
A stealt aircraft doesnt need very long range weapons if it has low intercept radar.. It just has to keep away from IRST range. Why arent mobile phone equipment, second ww2 radars and satellites used to track and target stealt aircraft?
Would A.I. be able to identify an aircraft based on its RCS profile that should be unique to different models of fighter planes ie f-16 f-18 f-22
F-35 is reportedly able to compare a bogey's characteristics colkected via it's sensors against a list of more than 700 parameters in it's target database. Why won't this be sufficient to idebtify it as a hostile?
Well, the Israeli air-force seemed to think they didn't want the electronic parts, and wanted to put their own components. They did call they own version ""awesome", apparently. Also, just some thought, not only the F35 has some sort of antenna that is reminiscent of the old TV antennas at the front, and that's never shown on 3D models, and also, it has some sort of "perch" (don't even know if that word means anything in that context), a sensor, on a stick near the front, exactly like the rafale, for example, but it's just hidden, inside, and can be deployed, I didn't know that, lol.
The F-35 can infact shoot at long range if a hostile can be confirmed from another location that is better positioned to do so. Eg AWACS, ground/sea radar or another F35 that is out of weapons but flying closer to the hostile. The F-35 was designed with this in mind. In fact one F35 could do identification while another F35 maintains weapons lock.
This sounds almost like the Japanese Tsunami Warning System - when an earthquake occurs it's immediately analyzed, and a huge database (mainly based on models) is queried, and it comes back with a probability of a tsunami being generated - how big, when, etc. This has to happen in minutes so warnings can be sent out to civil defense, since tsunami generated near Japan take minutes to hit. By the way, does the F-35 use active radar?? Seems to be against the very idea of stealth...
And they call it jack of all trade, master of none.
When Russia shot down KLM flight full of civilian was it considering what your talking about? It always seems to be found out later that certain individuals were on a flight. Such is this case for the Malaysian flight 370 that disappeared of the face of the world.
Some targets are known civilian and sill get shot down. The externalities of things.
How does this effect ultra-long range air-to-air missiles that are all the rage these days?
@17.47 camera panning onto him is the very embodiment of what he wants to say.. Enter in a dogfight to know your enemy correctly and then you can decide if or not you want to kill him(if he is a semi active radar emitter..kill him ie the source) or don't kill him if u know his weapons bay is just IR and you can make your other secondary targets as primary..
17:47
What about just good old radar jamming ? I just cant imagine that the f35 can reliably shoot beyond visual range as these missiles will run out of energy by the time they get near their targets making them very easy to dodge when going defensive....or am i talking out of my ass? Sure ok you have put your enemy into going defensive and you have the upper hand...but the f35 is such a poor dogfighter that if it went for the chase where it can be detected optically would surely be suicidal. The whole logic behind it is shoot and run away....ok, run away...but then its even too damn slow to run away!! I really cannot understand the point of a stealth plane if it cant dogfight
It's very simple the pentagon has not bought the BVR download able contect from Lockheed
I think the instances where you find one f-35 relying on only its radar to identify a long-range target are going to be slim to none . I really think you need to look at a system as a whole and not just the individual components. Especially now with the introduction of More drones into the battle field.
Very weak point in my opinion. Your whole argument is dogfight is not dead because you can't be sure if the target 100km away is an enemy or not like who is gonna be flying their personal aircraft (because apparently there are so many people owning one) in a battlefield area?
Another word BVR radar (reverse radio wave) is what!?20-30 km between 2 fighting aircraft is effective?
Wow, I don't think I've ever seen anybody explain frequency-domain analysis to this depth without saying "Fourier" (specifically around 3:11) 🙂
Seriously, do you happen to know what the approximate bamdwidth (and resulting imaging resolution) of a modern X-band fighter radar is? I would guess that the bandwidth would be on the order of 1-2 Ghz (25% of the nominal frequency) leading to a range resolution on the order of low tens of cm, but my own knowledge is more relevant to terrestrial BMD radars like AN/TPY-2. There is obviously a lot of overlap of approaches between NCTR and decoy discrimination.
Another question: Do you happen to know if the signature enhancers in modern decoys like recent versions of ADM-160 are capable of "selectively distorting" the returned waveform to fool NCTR?
w.r.t. the problem of not having accurate signature measurements of hostile aircraft at ~12:31, it seems that the more important thing would be to have comprehensive measurements of _friendlies_, to avoid blue-on-blue engagements. Also I believe that the US is moving towards identifying threats by tracking them ab initio via IR imaging satellites and the like. If you know that an aircraft took off from, say, Engels-2 then you don't really need worry about it being friendly. We know for example that the USN relied upon tracking Backfires via IR for carrier battle group outer defense in the 1980s. Obviously there are further countermeasures that can break this chain, so I'm not suggesting it's a panacea.
About Fourier... that was on purpose. About tracking from the take off, it is practiced but from space, to tactical level, I am not sure yet.
That's impressive! This man is the master of creating a very credible looking video, which seems scientifically sound because it's seeded with actual facts... but then it's all wrapped around a point which is utterly false and complete nonsense. I can't help but wonder if it's some type of masterful trolling created with the intention of having people comment rebuttals with classified material, or bring together points which intelligence efforts failed to realize. So, I'll just contribute this; look into open source information on EOTS, DAS, and how the AN/ASQ-242 can use distributed networking to allow all subsystems on each aircraft in a wing of F-35s to combine their radar, optical, and data picture to easily achieve in just a few milliseconds what this guy claims is impossible. They routinely identify hundreds of air and ground objects in real time as they move throughout the battlespace... and they're not confined to Radar and Optical methods.
That's not to say that a single F-35 couldn't IFF an aircraft in milliseconds... it's something that even our 4th gen aircraft have been doing with great efficiency for decades. This guy's hatred for NATO does compel him to put an impressive level of effort into his videos though... you have to give him that.
Relax...please just relax. Do you know what is a clickbait video? Because it worked perfectly with you. Having said that, the RoE problem is a real problem. I have an entire series describing the F-35 approach to this problem.
So every time a Tupolev tried to fly into Alaska is the time the Russian trying to collect data/profiles of US aircrafts for their target management systems huh?
With friendly fire being nothing new, surely the billions in R&D took into account rhe constraints on BVR.
In times of peace everyone thinks their own technology is flawless
Do peacetime makes one forget how to fight?
Another reason why the f22 is absolutely necessary and more valuable than the f35