Invader ZIM

The only things I can think of for the USMC to have the STOVL variant is the sort of carriers that would be capable of fielding the aircraft. You have a fleet of these: Now replace those harriers and add this: And you multiply the capabilities, as well as almost double the amount of first day of the war fixed wing carrier force. More low observable, multi role aircraft in more places at once isn't a bad thing I'd imagine. And this would probably give the marines the ability for deep strike, counter air, recon, and elint deep into contested territory. Since they are stealthy, it would also allow the F-35's to operate near inland SAM threats in support of beach landings. It's a leap in capability versus what they can do with the Harrier currently, and they would be less reliant on the US Navy Carrier battle groups.

Thanks for the additional reading and info Emu, fascinating stuff. I actually had the Naval Postgraduate School document about LPI systems and possible means of detection. It appears the US is building on it's experience with LPI and passive detection technologies to help keep ahead of future developments from the opfor. That EA-18G must be amazing in it's capabilities.

You have a point Emu, but one thing this new type of detection capability requires is huge amounts of processing power and integration to provide warning to the pilot. I don't feel the opfor have that capability just yet. We don't exactly have the capability in our current aircraft it would seem if you go by the reports of F-22's sparring with current generation aircraft. Eventually there will be a counter I'm sure, but processing power as well as more complex variations of LPI techniques are introduced to keep pace with the new passive detection technologies. I'm still a newb when it comes to radar systems, night vision optics is my area of focus, so I'm learning from you guys as well. :D

Regarding radar, for me the question would be, do you actually have a RWR that is capable of the processing power to even pick up an LPI AESA radar? Date: 7/1/2000; Publication: Journal of Electronic Defense; Author: Sweetman, Bill Personally, I'm skeptical, because even U.S. aircraft going against F-22's have had problems knowing they were being painted by the APG-77. And I would think that F-15C, F-16's and F-18E RWR's aren't really slouches when it comes to sensitivity and picking up emitters, neither is the Typhoons RWR for that matter, and all claimed they had no chance at BVR against the APG-77 system.

Rangi is right. There is a big disparity in the capbabilites in Western Thermal systems vs. Russian/Chinese systems currently. For example, if we take some the following modern Russian IRST system specs here: Mig 29K/KUB and Mig 35 OLS UE IRST http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mDvQ8xYRdSI/StWe7Hk_9mI/AAAAAAAAAgg/8v0NFnL12PA/s1600-h/14.10.2009+11-47-48_0029.jpg It's claimed capability to detect an unstealthy Su-30 coming towards it is only up to 15km..... Dangerously close to an Amraam equipped F-35 or F-22 IMO. An Su-30 heading away, showing it's engine plumes can only be seen at up to 60km. This is the company brochure for the Su-35 IRST. http://defenseissues.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/qrkpwi.jpg Slightly better performance, an Su-35 sized target heading to it can be seen from 35km. Which is only 21 miles. You get a stealth aircraft that has some IR reduction at range, and that 21 miles shrinks further, making the IRST a liability in being the main source of detection of such aircraft. By contrast, published info on the Pirate IRST used in the Typhoon here: http://www.bmlv.gv.at/truppendienst/ausgaben/artikel.php?id=807 indicates it can see a subsonic target coming toward it at 90km. Heading away, at 150km. Big leap in performance. Here's an example of a Thales UK thermal sight, used in various vehicles, with target tracking software, skip to 2:00 in to see what aircraft and an apache look like through it. For fun, to get an idea of just how clear some of these Western systems can see, put the resolution up to the highest in the video, and realize that the drone in the video is watching relatively cool temperature human beings against various warm backgrounds, which is a worst case, low contrast image versus a high contrast hot plane against cool sky scenario. The Laser Rangefinder data is in the upper right. When you can see a man flicking the ashes from his cigarette at over 3km, or pick out human targets at over 17km against a 90 degree desert, or read the signs that to a lesser thermal system would show up blank, your doing pretty good. :D Here's a SPAAG Gepard tracking a Banshee drone with it's Puma Thermal system, range to target in the video is 5,300 meters, but over 6km at the beginning. It's engaged with a neighboring Stinger missile. Mantis AA system engaging small drones, some thermal views. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0_XUS0Sfpg

Pretty much, and the posts under such articles only illustrate the public lack of knowledge about these systems.

LOL, not much substance in that report. Meanwhile, at Eglin: http://www.eglin.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123412679 Meanwhile, in Australia: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/jsf-the-only-way-to-fly-into-future/story-fn59nlz9-1226936460799 Working with allies: http://www.edwards.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123412528 http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2014/may/150529ae_f-35-achieves-three-milestones-on-same-day.html

Yea, what he said. :) To some extent they can, but not very much. Watching an F-18 at an airshow with the Insight MTM thermal monocular. This is what qualifies as low quality thermal in the West, it's an uncooled 1x magnification sensor that's only 320x240 pixels. You can see the clouds in the background. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ooSoz1Xnww More professional thermal system watching the airshow at Farnborough. Watch when the planes go into afterburner.

lol Aginor. In some ways it's similar to the FB-22 bomber concepts from a few years back.

Nice pic and video, I wonder what kind of external stores are on the top F-35 photo while it does the roll.

I thought Have Glass was the paint itself, and other modifications. It came in different specifications like Have Glass IV, Have Glass II, Have Glass V etc. There's a neat public paper on the robots used for the F-35, when you see the tolerances and specs for the paint it's really amazing what goes into the aircraft. http://www.ri.cmu.edu/pub_files/2010/3/Seegmiller_SAE-2010_Precision_Robotic_Coating.pdf Stealth requires a lot of attention to detail.

Thanks for that info hitman, yea it's definately not a quick process when you factor in all of the steps for production. CASPER painted the F-22's, amiright? Computer Aided Spray Paint Expelling Robot. Tell me they don't have a sense of humor with these things. :D

It seems they didn't completely throw away all options of restarting F-22 production. The option might be there in an emergency I guess. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL31673.pdf This July 2013 congressional research service paper says the following on page 2.

However, going by the basic rules of VLO stealth outlined here: http://www.harpoonhq.com/waypoint/articles/Article_021.pdf The T-50 isn't adhering to all of them, so I would think it's a little more detectable than the F-22 would be. Stuff sticking out from the airframe, even from the front aspect already breaks the rules outlined in the waypoint article for VLO.

The F-22 seems to be benefiting from lessons learned, and even getting upgrades from the F-35 in regards to some of the stealth coating materials. http://www.dailytech.com/F35+Stealth+Coatings+Applied+to+F22/article21321.htm Looks like that training article I posted earlier was true, the F-22 is going to "Be all it can be."

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/logistics_material_readiness/acq_bud_fin/SARs/DEC%202011%20SAR/AMRAAM%20-%20SAR%20-%2031%20DEC%202011.pdf Page 42 of the document, do you have enough older migs and Su's to soak up the 2011 figures of 9861 Aim-120 missiles, with more on the way and upgraded ones since then? Boy, hate to admit it, but Stalin was right, when you have high technology, and can mass produce it, the quantity is a quality all it's own.

Sales are booming for foreign Apache's to have their stinger's though. http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/10/23/raytheon-sells-stingers-for-apaches-abroad/ Option seems to be there though for U.S. Apache's if the need should arise. Would be fun because of the what if scenarios and heavily contested airspace we can create with this sim.

Agreed, the best info comes from real books. Getting an outdated copy of Jane's Electronic warfare systems and such are pretty good eye openers to what's out there. And a good book to introduce stealth and how/why it works is this: http://books.google.com/books?id=qZlrReU-cMkC&pg=PT42&lpg=PT42&dq=Carbon+composite+stealth+missile&source=bl&ots=Nsc_fHYcTd&sig=1ri8UR-AbZBd6iwYg4eWN-aJks0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=p_MqU5KmIYyw0QGW3IDgCw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Carbon%20composite%20stealth%20missile&f=false That was some facinating reading for me anyways. This also helped, despite being an online source, especially when you could play it out using the Harpoon 2 simulation. http://www.harpoonhq.com/waypoint/articles/Article_021.pdf

and physics. :D We did the same when we didn't understand.

Well, you have a point GG, I know I used to think sort of like that as a kid in the 80's about military equipment. Getting into the defense industry sure was an eye opener to me even as an adult, and I'm still learning stuff.

LOL, I guess it is sort of rude to spoil a guy's fanfiction.

Actually, I find the flexibility of AESA radar systems rather amazing. And unfortunately info that was on aviation week at the following is no longer there: http://aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw020909p2.xml&headline=null&next=0 Text was saved though. rather dated 2006 article: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/fa-18ef-to-use-aesa-as-jammer-208213/ fast forward to 2012 and the F-22 fleet: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-fields-first-upgraded-f-22-raptors-369886/ We've created a monster, golden Eagles, F-16's, anything with AESA radars could ruin your day with electronic attacks and LPI. :D

Found the IRST for the Su-35 here: http://defenseissues.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/qrkpwi.jpg Upgraded detection ranges, quoting rear aspect range of up to 90km or 56 miles for Su-30 target. Front hemisphere of 35km or 21 miles. Still bad considering the range of BVR missiles and AESA radar capabilites. Versus the PIRATE IRST on the Eurofighter http://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2012/10/30/pirate-irst/ Su-35 has a long way to go to compete with the Eurofighter in IRST technology.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mDvQ8xYRdSI/StWe7Hk_9mI/AAAAAAAAAgg/8v0NFnL12PA/s1600-h/14.10.2009+11-47-48_0029.jpg From the IRST manufacturer's brochure, an Su-30 can be detected looking at it's rear hemisphere at up to 60km, or 37 miles, depending on atmospheric conditions. Head on, up to 15 km.... That doesn't instill confidence to me that these Russian magic IRST systems are very capable against an aircraft, even when you have the jump on them and they are running from you. Subtract more range for aircraft that have reduced IR measures, or are smaller than an Su-30. Detection at 37 miles puts anyone dangerously within the range of Aim-120's R-77's, etc. And remember, at 37 miles you can see him because his tailpipes are presenting themselves to the sensor. That's not good performance if you saw what the Western IRST systems are capable of.

I was being polite. :D