By: Hotshot
- 26th August 2014 at 09:23Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
ESM doesnt work very well again AESA radar
Depends on whether the radar has Advanced LPI modes or not. I doubt russians radars are comparable to US radars in that regard.
SDB II is slower than SPEAR , more affected by weather , affected alot by altitude and speed at release
I was talking about a missile, not the SDBII itself. ( an 12' long missile with SDBII hardware, 7-8" in diameter (AMRAAM size ) so that 2 can be carried side by side in each bay) The missile would be have roughly the speed of the SPEARIII.
probably less , AASM have a rocket motor and only achieve 12 km at low altitude , SDB I ,II probably have range 1-2 km from low altitude , to have long range at low altitude you probably need a tuborjet
The SDB has a small diameter, I don't think it would have much draq. They would be launched in a loft trajectory. It may be less than 20km however, maybe 10 or something.
The idea of using some F-35s with 24 SPEAR3s coming flying Nap of the Earth and a couple F-35s in stealth mode at high alt to guide the missiles has merits if the cost difference between an SDBII and a SPEAR III is not too much, which I doubt. The F-35 in stealth mode could stay just outside the enemy line and search for targets. The SPEARIIIs launched from low alt would have enough range to strike up to 50km behind enemy lines, so they could hit the enemy artillery and logistics.
agree with this different in speed probably make it harder , probably a warhead that release many small grenade that explosive on contact may be better ? , SPEAR have warhead about 20 kg so it can probably carry 60 grenade like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M67_grenade
That kind of idea with flechettes or fragment could be good, but they if they are ejected at 3-4 km I very much doubt they would get anywhere close to the target, let alone be able to hit the sensors.
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 26th August 2014 at 11:50Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
but it not stealth , totally not the same , they may compliment the other but that doesnt make them the same thing
Debatable. A salesman trying to maximise the appeal of his product could easily claim it as such.
i mean stealth + good kinematic is very hard to make , it possible but may be super extra expensive , and if you dont know how to it may cost lot more F-22
also , i have to say Russian are much better in kinematic , they have so many working long range air to ground or anti ship supersonic missile
The only secret part is the stealth though. The F-15, which for its time was the kinematic equivalent of the F-22 was sold at will from the late '70s onwards. I don't think necessarily the Russians are much better at kinematics, they've just had more liberty with aerodynamic design on the Su-35 because it didn't have to be stealth.
i dont quite understand what you mean here
AIR International described the EW suite as acting to maintain stealth as much as possible until active deception jamming was required.
Ah your information on the Exocet incident is false. The missile was tracked and would have been shot down by Sea Wolf except there was another ship in the way IIRC (source: TV documentary). Also, low level clutter rejection and detection range aren't the same thing. It's also common for military datasheets to understate performance and for stealth to be exaggerated.
language could be mislead , but then again that can be said about any claim of any producer
True but the language here seems openly evasive. It would be very easy to simple say, "we've found that the F-35 has a lower radar cross-section than an F-22," and perhaps even quote a loose percentage.
actually , if iam remember correctly , stealth is due to Shape + material ( RAM ) at VHF then RAM doesnt work well , but also Shape doesnt work due to resonant effect that why the bigger size of B-2 make it better at VHF
btw : there are many stealth destroyer
RAM doesn't work well at VHF. That much is true. A larger shape simply increases size to wavelength ratio, which moves you back into the optical region. In the resonant region, RCS can be either higher or lower than the optical region formula suggests. The Rayleigh region is the place to be. Either way a larger aircraft isn't particularly beneficial, it either moves you from Rayleigh to Resonant, or Resonant to Optical. Neither transition is a definite advantage and the difference between optical RCS and resonant peaks/troughs is only of the order of about 4/0.25. The only way of achieving what you want is a completely different kind of RAM, which begs the question, "why only on the B-2 and not F-22,"... or by using ionised gas.
By: mig-31bm
- 26th August 2014 at 16:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Debatable. A salesman trying to maximise the appeal of his product could easily claim it as such.
really doubt that , that would be the same as claim Kinematic is stealth
The only secret part is the stealth though. The F-15, which for its time was the kinematic equivalent of the F-22 was sold at will from the late '70s onwards. I don't think necessarily the Russians are much better at kinematics, they've just had more liberty with aerodynamic design on the Su-35 because it didn't have to be stealth.
i dont really think stealth is secret , many other country other than US have stealth UAV or stealth cruise missiles , also Western have nothing equal to Mig-31 or KH-31 so i would have to say kinematic Russian is much better ( by contrast US seem to be better at Stealth and electronic warfare )
AIR International described the EW suite as acting to maintain stealth as much as possible until active deception jamming was required.
may be they was talking about the LPI feature on APG-81
.
Also, low level clutter rejection and detection range aren't the same thing.
clutter rejection = reduce gain = harder to detect low RCS target
It's also common for military datasheets to understate performance and for stealth to be exaggerated.
i dont think effect of stealth is exaggerated , in fact , it not a coincident that all great power try to make stealth fighter and stealth missile
True but the language here seems openly evasive. It would be very easy to simple say, "we've found that the F-35 has a lower radar cross-section than an F-22," and perhaps even quote a loose percentage.
they did say f-35 beat F-22 in stealth and it was designed to neutralize S-400 system , really nothing evasive in that
RAM doesn't work well at VHF.
agree
A larger shape simply increases size to wavelength ratio, which moves you back into the optical region. In the resonant region, RCS can be either higher or lower than the optical region formula suggests. The Rayleigh region is the place to be. Either way a larger aircraft isn't particularly beneficial, it either moves you from Rayleigh to Resonant, or Resonant to Optical. Neither transition is a definite advantage and the difference between optical RCS and resonant peaks/troughs is only of the order of about 4/0.25. The only way of achieving what you want is a completely different kind of RAM, which begs the question, "why only on the B-2 and not F-22,"... or by using ionised gas.
“It is the physics of longer wavelength and resonance that enables VHF and UHF radar to detect stealth aircraft,” Westra wrote in his article titled Radar vs. Stealth.
UHF-band radars operate at frequencies between 300MHz and 1GHz, which results in wavelengths that are between 10 centimeters and one meter long.
Typically, due to the physical characteristics of fighter-sized stealth aircraft, they must be optimized to defeat higher frequencies in the Ka, Ku, X, C and parts of the S-bands.
There is a resonance effect that occurs when a feature on an aircraft—such as a tail-fin tip— is less than eight times the size of a particular frequency wavelength. That omni-directional resonance effect produces a “step change” in an aircraft’s radar cross-section.
Effectively what that means is that small stealth aircraft that do not have the size or weight allowances for two feet or more of radar absorbent material coatings on every surface are forced to make trades as to which frequency bands they are optimized for.
That would include aircraft like the Chengdu J-20, Shenyang J-31, Sukhoi PAK-FA and indeed the United States’ own Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and tri-service F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
Only very large stealth aircraft without protruding empennage surfaces — like the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit or the forthcoming Long Range Strike-Bomber — can meet the requirement for geometrical optics regime scattering.
1 ) i want a source but not from a post of a random member on forum , and i cant find any where else that said the same thing
2 ) even if what said was true it doesnt really mean alot because stealth aircraft arenot stealth at all direction , there are some angle of them that have very high RCS , so the destroyer may just saw the F-117 at very high RCS angle of it
3 ) F-117 with bomb bay open may have very high RCS too but for quick period of time
also
P-18 VHF acquisition radar under Dani’s command, which enabled his men to detect Zelko’s F-117 at a distance of 30 to 37 miles (50-60 km
By: mig-31bm
- 26th August 2014 at 17:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Depends on whether the radar has Advanced LPI modes or not. I doubt russians radars are comparable to US radars in that regard.
probably not now , but in future they may
I was talking about a missile, not the SDBII itself. ( an 12' long missile with SDBII hardware, 7-8" in diameter (AMRAAM size ) so that 2 can be carried side by side in each bay) The missile would be have roughly the speed of the SPEARIII.
then you carry less missiles i think
The SDB has a small diameter, I don't think it would have much draq. They would be launched in a loft trajectory. It may be less than 20km however, maybe 10 or something.
still it doesnt have rocket like AASM , i think the range likely to be very small , without engine and at low altitude may be it will just fall down like MK-80 series bomb
also low weight mean less moment tum thus go shorter range
The idea of using some F-35s with 24 SPEAR3s coming flying Nap of the Earth and a couple F-35s in stealth mode at high alt to guide the missiles has merits if the cost difference between an SDBII and a SPEAR III is not too much, which I doubt.
the benefit mainly is when you try to attack destroyer with very good anti air capability Ex : Type-52c , and can detect F-35 from long range , then it still have the option to fly low and then when come close launch a bunch of missiles at the destroyer
That kind of idea with flechettes or fragment could be good, but they if they are ejected at 3-4 km I very much doubt they would get anywhere close to the target, let alone be able to hit the sensors.
but not only 1 missiles , we have 24 SPEAR per F-35 , each SPEAR have 60 warhead => each F-35 thow total 1440 warheads over target area , even with hit rate of only 2 percent then 28 warhead will hit target
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 26th August 2014 at 17:55Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
if a VHF radar after modification only manage to detect F-117 at about 37 miles , how could you expect a L-band or xband radar to do any better
L-Band is still below the RAM's optimal frequency range and I imagine that better target discrimination and more up-to-date processing (vs a '60s/'70s radar) all play a part. Only source I have sorry. It's worth remembering that SAMs having always proven more lethal to fighters than enemy fighters ever since their introduction. Stealth is primarily intended to defeat fighter X-Band and targeting radar but life is not a box of chocolates and radars are improving. It still offers a very important advantage in reducing lethal ranges and improving the potential of jamming but don't expect perfection.
New
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory
- 26th August 2014 at 18:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
if a VHF radar after modification only manage to detect F-117 at about 37 miles , how could you expect a L-band or xband radar to do any better
No, it didnt only detect at 37 miles, it detected at 37 miles
By: mig-31bm
- 26th August 2014 at 19:18Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Algorithms and processing power are much improved these days, as is raw radar power....
For instance, the P-18 power output is ~250kW, whereas today you'd be looking at 1MW+ at peak.
i was compared P-18 with Type 42 destroyer's radar , which about the same time
No, it didnt only detect at 37 miles, it detected at 37 miles
it not a normal radar , it a VHF early warning radar . and these kind of radar often have very very long range like 200-300 km , that why i think 37 miles is short range
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 27th August 2014 at 11:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
it not a normal radar , it a VHF early warning radar . and these kind of radar often have very very long range like 200-300 km , that why i think 37 miles is short range
The alleged existence of VHF AESA radar and SAMs with very wide area target acquisition capabilities have led to speculation that larger ground-based low frequency radars can be used for targeting, or at least used in conjunction with other targeting radars to improve their range.
By: mig-31bm
- 27th August 2014 at 18:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The alleged existence of VHF AESA radar and SAMs with very wide area target acquisition capabilities have led to speculation that larger ground-based low frequency radars can be used for targeting, or at least used in conjunction with other targeting radars to improve their range.
the problem with VHF radar is often with their enormous size and inaccuracy rather than their range , they often have really really long range
New
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos
- 27th August 2014 at 18:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the problem with VHF radar is often with their enormous size and inaccuracy rather than their range , they often have really really long range
True. This will only be a solution for ground radars obviously. Accuracy improves inversely with Wavelength/Diameter, so you would need a big radar and some very good processing for targeting purposes.
By: swerve
- 28th August 2014 at 01:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
iit not a normal radar , it a VHF early warning radar . and these kind of radar often have very very long range like 200-300 km , that why i think 37 miles is short range
That's not a very very long range. It's the range of multi-function search/targeting land-based & shipborne radars such as Smart-S. AAW ships might have such a radar, plus a long range radar such as the Smart-L reaching out to almost 500 km.
And land-based early warning radars can do much, much better than that.
By: mig-31bm
- 28th August 2014 at 05:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's not a very very long range. It's the range of multi-function search/targeting land-based & shipborne radars such as Smart-S. AAW ships might have such a radar, plus a long range radar such as the Smart-L reaching out to almost 500 km.
And land-based early warning radars can do much, much better than that.
I was talking about the range of P-18 Van radar
max range 350 km, range vs f-117 about 60 km
obviously modern radar today do better
By: Hotshot
- 28th August 2014 at 11:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
probably not now , but in future they may
And in the future the F-35 will get better ESM systems.
then you carry less missiles i think
Right. 2 per bay instead of 4 normal SDBs. That's the price to pay to launch at long range and be survivable against lots of enemy fighters and advanced SAMs and VHF radars. Many targets would be less than 300km inside enemy territory, so the F-35 would not even have to enter in enemy airspace to launch if the missile has a range of 300km.
The F-35s would attack quickly in supercruise and would mount 3+ sorties the first day. 100 F-35s would launch 1200 missiles in one day, enough to destroy most aircraft shelters, enemy planes on the tarmacs etc, and the VHF radars.
still it doesnt have rocket like AASM , i think the range likely to be very small , without engine and at low altitude may be it will just fall down like MK-80 series bomb
also low weight mean less moment tum thus go shorter range
The SDB's wing kit would help to increase the range, double or triple it. The plane would launch at Mach 0.95 with a loft trajectory.
the benefit mainly is when you try to attack destroyer with very good anti air capability Ex : Type-52c , and can detect F-35 from long range , then it still have the option to fly low and then when come close launch a bunch of missiles at the destroyer
This tactic of nap of the earth attack could well work against ground targets, radars or other.
If you keep a couple F-35s at high altitude close to the enemy line, they can designate targets for other F-35s coming at low altitude with external payloads. The spear III would have enough range to hit up to 40km behind enemy lines.
but not only 1 missiles , we have 24 SPEAR per F-35 , each SPEAR have 60 warhead => each F-35 thow total 1440 warheads over target area , even with hit rate of only 2 percent then 28 warhead will hit target
24 spears would cost a lot! Each would cost probably like 200k, so your attack would cost 4.8 million. Just launch like 8 regular spears straight to the target, one of them will surely hit. Possibly even the spears ( or any other missile ) could attack from different angle to have a better saturation effect. For instance 4 missiles attack from one side at 5 sec interval and at the same time 4 from the opposite direction at 180 degrees. The CIW will be unable to catch them all.
By: halloweene
- 28th August 2014 at 13:22Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The F-35s would attack quickly in supercruise and would mount 3+ sorties the first day. 100 F-35s would launch 1200 missiles in one day, enough to destroy most aircraft shelters, enemy planes on the tarmacs etc, and the VHF radars
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 25th August 2014 at 22:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i do agree with this
Posts: 1,123
By: Hotshot - 26th August 2014 at 09:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Depends on whether the radar has Advanced LPI modes or not. I doubt russians radars are comparable to US radars in that regard.
I was talking about a missile, not the SDBII itself. ( an 12' long missile with SDBII hardware, 7-8" in diameter (AMRAAM size ) so that 2 can be carried side by side in each bay) The missile would be have roughly the speed of the SPEARIII.
The SDB has a small diameter, I don't think it would have much draq. They would be launched in a loft trajectory. It may be less than 20km however, maybe 10 or something.
The idea of using some F-35s with 24 SPEAR3s coming flying Nap of the Earth and a couple F-35s in stealth mode at high alt to guide the missiles has merits if the cost difference between an SDBII and a SPEAR III is not too much, which I doubt. The F-35 in stealth mode could stay just outside the enemy line and search for targets. The SPEARIIIs launched from low alt would have enough range to strike up to 50km behind enemy lines, so they could hit the enemy artillery and logistics.
That kind of idea with flechettes or fragment could be good, but they if they are ejected at 3-4 km I very much doubt they would get anywhere close to the target, let alone be able to hit the sensors.
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 26th August 2014 at 11:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Debatable. A salesman trying to maximise the appeal of his product could easily claim it as such.
The only secret part is the stealth though. The F-15, which for its time was the kinematic equivalent of the F-22 was sold at will from the late '70s onwards. I don't think necessarily the Russians are much better at kinematics, they've just had more liberty with aerodynamic design on the Su-35 because it didn't have to be stealth.
AIR International described the EW suite as acting to maintain stealth as much as possible until active deception jamming was required.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?129627-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(3)&p=2140801#post2140801
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?128354-will-stealth-become-irrelevant&p=2109855#post2109855
Ah your information on the Exocet incident is false. The missile was tracked and would have been shot down by Sea Wolf except there was another ship in the way IIRC (source: TV documentary). Also, low level clutter rejection and detection range aren't the same thing. It's also common for military datasheets to understate performance and for stealth to be exaggerated.
True but the language here seems openly evasive. It would be very easy to simple say, "we've found that the F-35 has a lower radar cross-section than an F-22," and perhaps even quote a loose percentage.
RAM doesn't work well at VHF. That much is true. A larger shape simply increases size to wavelength ratio, which moves you back into the optical region. In the resonant region, RCS can be either higher or lower than the optical region formula suggests. The Rayleigh region is the place to be. Either way a larger aircraft isn't particularly beneficial, it either moves you from Rayleigh to Resonant, or Resonant to Optical. Neither transition is a definite advantage and the difference between optical RCS and resonant peaks/troughs is only of the order of about 4/0.25. The only way of achieving what you want is a completely different kind of RAM, which begs the question, "why only on the B-2 and not F-22,"... or by using ionised gas.
http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Rayleigh-%20versus%20Mie-Scattering.en.html
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 26th August 2014 at 16:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
really doubt that , that would be the same as claim Kinematic is stealth
i dont really think stealth is secret , many other country other than US have stealth UAV or stealth cruise missiles , also Western have nothing equal to Mig-31 or KH-31 so i would have to say kinematic Russian is much better ( by contrast US seem to be better at Stealth and electronic warfare )
may be they was talking about the LPI feature on APG-81
.
clutter rejection = reduce gain = harder to detect low RCS target
i dont think effect of stealth is exaggerated , in fact , it not a coincident that all great power try to make stealth fighter and stealth missile
they did say f-35 beat F-22 in stealth and it was designed to neutralize S-400 system , really nothing evasive in that
agree
http://news.usni.org/2014/06/09/u-s-navys-secret-counter-stealth-weapon-hiding-plain-sight
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 26th August 2014 at 16:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Don't forget to throw in a few MALD-Js for good measure.
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 26th August 2014 at 17:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And MALD-V.
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 26th August 2014 at 17:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
1 ) i want a source but not from a post of a random member on forum , and i cant find any where else that said the same thing
2 ) even if what said was true it doesnt really mean alot because stealth aircraft arenot stealth at all direction , there are some angle of them that have very high RCS , so the destroyer may just saw the F-117 at very high RCS angle of it
3 ) F-117 with bomb bay open may have very high RCS too but for quick period of time
also
http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/the-f-35-vs-the-vhf-threat/
if a VHF radar after modification only manage to detect F-117 at about 37 miles , how could you expect a L-band or xband radar to do any better
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 26th August 2014 at 17:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
probably not now , but in future they may
then you carry less missiles i think
still it doesnt have rocket like AASM , i think the range likely to be very small , without engine and at low altitude may be it will just fall down like MK-80 series bomb
also low weight mean less moment tum thus go shorter range
the benefit mainly is when you try to attack destroyer with very good anti air capability Ex : Type-52c , and can detect F-35 from long range , then it still have the option to fly low and then when come close launch a bunch of missiles at the destroyer
but not only 1 missiles , we have 24 SPEAR per F-35 , each SPEAR have 60 warhead => each F-35 thow total 1440 warheads over target area , even with hit rate of only 2 percent then 28 warhead will hit target
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 26th August 2014 at 17:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
L-Band is still below the RAM's optimal frequency range and I imagine that better target discrimination and more up-to-date processing (vs a '60s/'70s radar) all play a part. Only source I have sorry. It's worth remembering that SAMs having always proven more lethal to fighters than enemy fighters ever since their introduction. Stealth is primarily intended to defeat fighter X-Band and targeting radar but life is not a box of chocolates and radars are improving. It still offers a very important advantage in reducing lethal ranges and improving the potential of jamming but don't expect perfection.
Posts: 6,983
By: obligatory - 26th August 2014 at 18:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, it didnt only detect at 37 miles, it detected at 37 miles
Posts: 2,163
By: Amiga500 - 26th August 2014 at 18:42 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Algorithms and processing power are much improved these days, as is raw radar power....
For instance, the P-18 power output is ~250kW, whereas today you'd be looking at 1MW+ at peak.
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 26th August 2014 at 19:18 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
i was compared P-18 with Type 42 destroyer's radar , which about the same time
it not a normal radar , it a VHF early warning radar . and these kind of radar often have very very long range like 200-300 km , that why i think 37 miles is short range
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 27th August 2014 at 11:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The alleged existence of VHF AESA radar and SAMs with very wide area target acquisition capabilities have led to speculation that larger ground-based low frequency radars can be used for targeting, or at least used in conjunction with other targeting radars to improve their range.
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 27th August 2014 at 18:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
the problem with VHF radar is often with their enormous size and inaccuracy rather than their range , they often have really really long range
Posts: 1,760
By: lukos - 27th August 2014 at 18:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
True. This will only be a solution for ground radars obviously. Accuracy improves inversely with Wavelength/Diameter, so you would need a big radar and some very good processing for targeting purposes.
Posts: 13,432
By: swerve - 28th August 2014 at 01:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
That's not a very very long range. It's the range of multi-function search/targeting land-based & shipborne radars such as Smart-S. AAW ships might have such a radar, plus a long range radar such as the Smart-L reaching out to almost 500 km.
And land-based early warning radars can do much, much better than that.
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 28th August 2014 at 05:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I was talking about the range of P-18 Van radar
max range 350 km, range vs f-117 about 60 km
obviously modern radar today do better
Posts: 1,123
By: Hotshot - 28th August 2014 at 11:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And in the future the F-35 will get better ESM systems.
Right. 2 per bay instead of 4 normal SDBs. That's the price to pay to launch at long range and be survivable against lots of enemy fighters and advanced SAMs and VHF radars. Many targets would be less than 300km inside enemy territory, so the F-35 would not even have to enter in enemy airspace to launch if the missile has a range of 300km.
The F-35s would attack quickly in supercruise and would mount 3+ sorties the first day. 100 F-35s would launch 1200 missiles in one day, enough to destroy most aircraft shelters, enemy planes on the tarmacs etc, and the VHF radars.
The SDB's wing kit would help to increase the range, double or triple it. The plane would launch at Mach 0.95 with a loft trajectory.
This tactic of nap of the earth attack could well work against ground targets, radars or other.
If you keep a couple F-35s at high altitude close to the enemy line, they can designate targets for other F-35s coming at low altitude with external payloads. The spear III would have enough range to hit up to 40km behind enemy lines.
24 spears would cost a lot! Each would cost probably like 200k, so your attack would cost 4.8 million. Just launch like 8 regular spears straight to the target, one of them will surely hit. Possibly even the spears ( or any other missile ) could attack from different angle to have a better saturation effect. For instance 4 missiles attack from one side at 5 sec interval and at the same time 4 from the opposite direction at 180 degrees. The CIW will be unable to catch them all.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 28th August 2014 at 13:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You are kidding aren't you?
Posts: 1,123
By: Hotshot - 28th August 2014 at 17:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
huh why that? The F-35A can supercruise at Mach 1.2 and 3+ sorties a day is in the specifications of the plane.