Military Review

Lightning F-A-18G radio interference: a tactic that should not be underestimated

66
Lightning F-A-18G radio interference: a tactic that should not be underestimated



During the first large-scale military exercises of the United States Air Force Red Flag 2017-17, launched on January 01 at the Nellis air base (Nevada), for the first time in 23, numerous tactical models of operations to gain air superiority and suppress air defense of a conditional enemy were tested. in which the promising multi-purpose X-NUMX fighters of the F-5A generation, the F-A-35G Growler electronic warfare aircraft participated, as well as the multi-purpose fighters of the F-18C family, traditionally playing the role of “aggressor”. F-16A Raptor promising low-profile fighter jets were used as support fighters for the F-35A.

According to the blogger David Sensioti for February 3, F-35A, in service with the 388 and 419 fighter wings deployed on Avb Hill (Utah), were able to achieve an outstanding victory ratio (The Aviationist, 15: 1) over the Falcons in aerial combat. Sensioti also focused on the high degree of technical readiness of F-35A in comparison with F-16: 92% versus 80%, respectively. Of course, the opponents for the F-35A and F-22A, obviously, were chosen such that not a single 5 generation machine was conditionally intercepted by the enemy. Apparently, F-16C equipped with outdated radar radars with AN / APG-68 (V) 9 airplanes were used as the "aggressor", while conditional weapons were presented with software simulating AIM-120C-5 / 7 missiles. “Lightning” and “Raptors”, on the contrary, worked with virtual AIM-120D (C-8), having a greater range on 25-30%, and their radars with AN / APG-81 and AN / APG-81 AFAR could boast in 2 - 3 times greater range, excellent noise immunity and the possibility of imposing on the "aggressor" directed radio-electronic interference.

At the same time, the author of the post Sensioti expresses a stupid bewilderment regarding the auxiliary role of the F-22A "Raptor" in these air battles. Nevertheless, this role is extremely clear for any more or less knowledgeable amateur aircraft and modern military technology. It lies in the fact that the conventional AMRAAMs from the F-35A are made in a passive mode with the on-board radar turned off and the emitting radio stations and radio-electronic countermeasures are deactivated. This is done to hide its own location from the station warning about the exposure of F-16C fighter jets. In this case, the Lightnings approached the goal undetected, using their small EPR in 0,2 m2. The role of the F-22A was to target for the AIM-120D launched by Lightning from a distance of 150-200 km. Most likely, the Raptors followed the F-35A at ​​a distance of 40-50 km with LPI-enabled radar, and, finding F-16- “aggressors” at a distance of about 190 km, issued target designation on board the “encrypted” F -35A, which were never detected by the weak F-16C radars. AIM-120D long-range air combat guided missiles have hardware and software capabilities for obtaining target designation from both carrier aircraft and third-party RTR / DER devices, including other fighters and airborne early warning aircraft. For the exchange of tactical information and target positioning coordinates between F-22A and F-35A / B / C, a specialized directional high-security radio channel MADL is used (pseudo-random frequency tuning is used for protection).

It was with the help of this simple tactic, including the use of F-22A, that the victory ratio 15: 1 in favor of F-35A was achieved. Without the help of Raptors, it would be approximately 3: 1 or 5: 1. The situation would be even worse for the F-35A if the modern-day F-16C, equipped with the AN / APG-83 SABR radar, were involved in the role of the “aggressor”. In many cases, it would have come to melee, where the F-35A would never beat the more agile opponent - F-16C. And now imagine the long-range air combat F-35A with our Su-35С, equipped with the most powerful stories fighter radar with PFAR H035 "Irbis-E". In this case, the F-35A would have enormous problems even with the “remote” support from the F-22A, since Irbis detects Lightning (0,2 м2) from about 160 - 180 km. Even the use of directional REBs by AN / APG-81 would not bring tangible results, except that the RVV-SD / DB rocket would be launched at the source of interference. The Americans, as usual, were able to make a good price for their F-35A, using the above tactics at the Red Flag exercises, and choosing the usual F-16C as a conditional opponent.

But during these exercises, another important task was also worked out: the conditional suppression of the enemy’s air defenses with the subsequent launching of a missile / air strike on the defended object. In this case, the F-35A and F-22A were also used, but promising EW and F-A-18G “Growler” air defense planes were used as support vehicles. These machines made powerful noise and barrage to multifunctional radar ground-based air defense systems of the enemy. Thus, the stealth fighters found themselves in a thick “shroud” of interference from the AN / ALQ-99 station of the F / A-18G aircraft, which made it possible to approach the radar of the enemy by a close distance in 3-4. The so-called tactic of “electronic cover” was used. As the ground-based MRLS of the enemy, the shooting range and target guidance radar of the Patriot PAC-2 - AN / MPQ-53 was used.

This tactic can today be considered a very serious challenge for the ground and air components of our airborne systems, because most of the surveillance and multi-function radars of our air defense systems, aviation Bars and Irbis radar radios are represented by passive phased arrays, the problem of which is the lack of the possibility of formation of “dips” in the radiation pattern of the main lobe towards the EW source. This indicates a serious technological “gap”, which can be closed only with the transition of most combat units to promising radars with an active phased array antenna. As you can see, almost all of the US military aviation is moving at a very high pace from the SHCHAR to the AFAR, and this causes real concern.

Information sources:
http://forum.militaryparitet.com/viewtopic.php?id=13972
Author:
66 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Thunderbolt
    Thunderbolt 22 February 2017 05: 55
    +4
    Most likely, the “Raptors” followed the F-35A at ​​a distance of 40-50 km with LPI enabled radars, and when they found F-16 “aggressors” at a distance of about 190 km, they issued target designation on board the “encrypted” F -35A, which were never detected by weak F-16C radars ................. In many cases, it would come to close combat, where F-35A would never outplayed more maneuverable adversary - F-16C
    Do not forget that the "Raptor" are armed. They can meet the undetermined "aggressors" with missiles if they try to engage in close air combat with the F-35.
    1. Same lech
      Same lech 22 February 2017 06: 48
      +5
      Do not forget that the "Raptor" are armed. They can meet the undetermined "aggressors" with missiles if they try to engage in close air combat with the F-35.


      If the RAPTOR go into the tail of the rocket then they will not help.

      You can use the old tactic from the time of CHINGIS KHAN ... to lure the enemy into the territory where he is already waiting for a surprise ... the methods and methods of luring depend on the commander’s imagination.

      In other words, create a battlefield where you have an advantage over the enemy ... of course the enemy will do the same ... smile therefore, I believe that the qualities of a skilled fighter come to the fore here.
      1. Thunderbolt
        Thunderbolt 22 February 2017 07: 01
        +6
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        If the RAPTOR go into the tail of the rocket then they will not help.

        That is, in theory, if the “agregessors” reduce the distance with the first echelon from F-35, then they are covered from the depths of construction by rockets of the second echelon from F-22. And only then, if someone from the “aggressors” survives and does not turn off attack, only then he enters into close combat with the F-35. And then with the F-22.
        And they also want to take forward the vanguard from drones. The truth is that this idea is still far enough complete, but such opportunities are laid in the fifth generation. Therefore, you need to prepare to bite through such a phalanx.
        1. Same lech
          Same lech 22 February 2017 07: 05
          +1
          then they are covered from the depths of construction by rockets of the second echelon from F-22. And only then, if one of the "aggressors" survives and does not turn off, continues the attack, only then he enters into close combat with F-35. And then with F -22.


          There is a big risk of knocking down your own ... the distance between the fighters will be minimal and the missile can by mistake capture the wrong plane.

          1. bulvas
            bulvas 22 February 2017 09: 29
            0
            I wonder why these complex, expensive and dangerous games are needed if there are tomahawks, drones and satellites?
          2. EternalStranger
            EternalStranger 22 February 2017 13: 43
            +6
            Quote: The same LYOKHA
            There is a big risk of knocking down your own.

            have you already canceled your friend or foe system?
      2. Titsen
        Titsen 22 February 2017 07: 05
        +7
        Quote: The same LYOKHA
        therefore, I believe that the qualities of a skilled fighter come to the fore here.


        You are right - nobody will ever cancel a skilled fighter.

        But even a skilled spear fighter cannot stand up to an enemy with firearms!

        The Yeltsin’s time of fraternizing with the West will continue to haunt for a long time — we are technologically very behind ...
        1. Same lech
          Same lech 22 February 2017 07: 13
          +2
          But even a skilled spear fighter cannot stand up to an enemy with firearms!


          You are mistaken ... smile

          The Zulu warrior described his duel with the English soldier: “I rushed at the soldier who pierced my shield with a bayonet and, while he tried to pull it out, stabbed him in the shoulder. He threw the rifle away, grabbed me by the neck and wrung me under me. sparks fell from my eyes, and I was almost suffocating when I still managed to grab my spear protruding from his shoulder and pierced it so that it rolled away from me lifeless ... "


          http://www.xlegio.ru/ancient-armies/military-orga
          nization-tactics-equipment / zulu /

          The war in Syria and Iraq shows that not everything is so unambiguous in this regard.
          1. 3danimal
            3danimal 3 May 2017 18: 32
            0
            Quote: The same LYOKHA
            The war in Syria and Iraq shows that not everything is so unambiguous in this regard.

            During the war in the Pacific, the Americans were preparing to storm one of the islets (an airfield was required), protected by a 30-strong Japanese garrison. Armament - rifles, machine guns, katanas. Each of the Japanese warriors vowed to take with them at least 7 amers.
            And then the assault began: artillery bombardment from the sea, air assault and landing, with light tanks. The garrison was completely destroyed (~ 500 prisoners), the Americans lost ... 2400 fighters. And the Japanese coolly tarnished their honor, becoming oath-criminals;)
            Seriously, the moral is as follows: a weakly armed and technically retarded person suffers an order of magnitude (10 times) heavy losses, highly motivated - lasts longer and dies, morally less stable - runs earlier. The result is one.
            1. KaPToC
              KaPToC 12 January 2018 23: 27
              0
              Quote: 3danimal
              Seriously, the moral is as follows: a weakly armed and technically retarded person suffers an order of magnitude (10 times) heavy losses, highly motivated - lasts longer and dies, morally less stable - runs earlier. The result is one.

              Technical superiority is not expressed in cunning tactics. Technical superiority in the case you indicated was expressed in superiority in artillery, aviation and armored vehicles, but most importantly - in artillery. Moreover, the planes, ships, shells of the Americans and the Japanese did not differ much. That is, in the case you indicated, the Americans won due to a quantitative advantage, not a qualitative one.
    2. 11 black
      11 black 22 February 2017 15: 22
      +6
      Quote: Thunderbolt
      Most likely, the “Raptors” followed the F-35A at ​​a distance of 40-50 km with LPI enabled radars, and when they found F-16 “aggressors” at a distance of about 190 km, they issued target designation on board the “encrypted” F -35A, which were never detected by weak F-16C radars ................. In many cases, it would come to close combat, where F-35A would never outplayed more maneuverable adversary - F-16C


      And there is not a word about the OLS - and after all, engine torches detected from over hundreds of kilometers cannot be canceled.
  2. novel66
    novel66 22 February 2017 07: 33
    +13
    but after all, their electronic warfare system can be opposed by our electronic warfare system, and ground stations are a priori more powerful and it is not known who will make any noise. the plane must be able to fight the plane, and if this skill is not there, you have to invent different fennies, in the hope of a favorable outcome
    1. Gray brother
      Gray brother 22 February 2017 07: 54
      +8
      Quote: novel xnumx
      but our EW can be opposed to their EW

      So you took, now, straight and vulgarized all this spherical battle in a vacuum.
      1. novel66
        novel66 22 February 2017 08: 12
        +9
        Then Lieutenant Rzhevsky came
    2. sa-ag
      sa-ag 22 February 2017 12: 06
      +4
      Quote: novel xnumx
      and ground stations are a priori more powerful and no one knows who will make a noise.

      Known - Interference-guided missile
      1. novel66
        novel66 22 February 2017 12: 08
        +5
        so it’s still necessary to reach the launch range, preferably not hit
        1. EternalStranger
          EternalStranger 22 February 2017 13: 44
          +2
          so fly. AARGM range up to 150km. The range of the radius of the S-300/400
          1. novel66
            novel66 22 February 2017 13: 46
            +2
            but not sure, sure NOT!
            1. EternalStranger
              EternalStranger 22 February 2017 14: 51
              0
              not sure - don't take it
              1. novel66
                novel66 22 February 2017 15: 02
                +5
                The detection range of the S-400 target is 600 km.
                The maximum range of destruction of an aerodynamic target is 400 km.
                will not fly
                1. EternalStranger
                  EternalStranger 22 February 2017 16: 09
                  +6
                  Quote: novel xnumx
                  The maximum range of destruction of an aerodynamic target is 400 km.

                  only with the 40N6E missile, which these systems are not equipped with.
                  So it will fly.
                  1. novel66
                    novel66 22 February 2017 19: 05
                    +2
                    when necessary it will be understaffed. will not fly
                    S-300VM up to 200
                    1. novel66
                      novel66 22 February 2017 19: 07
                      +3
                      tormented you defeatist, arms up - go give up
                      1. EternalStranger
                        EternalStranger 23 February 2017 20: 04
                        +2
                        We didn’t switch to you. And so live in your cozy fantasies. I don’t mind.
      2. Boa kaa
        Boa kaa 22 February 2017 17: 18
        +3
        Quote: sa-ag
        Known - Interference-guided missile

        Maybe all the same to the radiation source? lol
  3. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 22 February 2017 07: 49
    +11
    Americans, great inventors in terms of opening areas covered by air defense. If there is no possibility (and political) to destroy AWACS aircraft and jammers (who cover the strike group), who are usually on their territory, and strike at the departure airfield, then the song of the defenders of the object is sung .... Destruction of the battery is a matter of time and money .
    1. g1washntwn
      g1washntwn 22 February 2017 09: 25
      +6
      For the most part, it comes down to throwing hats tomahawks according to previously known coordinates and long-range HARMs from the maximum possible distance, because even “sorry, we did not know that they are invisible”, the planes fall, falling into traps from microwave ovens.
      1. Zaurbek
        Zaurbek 25 February 2017 08: 32
        +1
        And you would like to see how Sailors with a bundle of grenades crawled into the air defense position?
  4. Old26
    Old26 22 February 2017 08: 45
    +8
    Honestly, I am a complete ignoramus in all this machinery - radar, interference from .... But kmk UNDERSTAND the results of the exercises is not worth it. Although, of course, in my opinion, the conditions were unsound.
  5. Bongo
    Bongo 22 February 2017 08: 50
    +10
    Quote author:
    Apparently, F-16C equipped with outdated radar systems were used as the “aggressor” vehicles
    Come on, Eugene, where did the F-15C 65 test squadron go? what The problem of Evgeny Damantsev is that he often does not understand what he is writing about and is extremely not critical of the sources from which he draws information for his publications.
    However, foreign-made fighters also took part in these exercises. At the Nellis airbase, they regularly “tour”: Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, Indian Su-30MKI and older cars: Panavia Tornado, Dassault Mirage 2000 (pictured), received from Ukraine MiG-29 and Su-27 and even veterans A -4 Skyhawk (pictured) and F-4 Phantom II.

    Dassault Mirage 2000 at Nellis Air Base

    A-4 at Nellis Air Base
    As I understand it, Damantsev can’t do without a “clumsy” as a whole in a good article? negative Otherwise, what is it for?
    Now imagine the long-range aerial combat F-35A with our Su-35С, equipped with the most powerful fighter airborne radar in history with PFAR H035 "Irbis-E". In this case, F-35A would have huge problems even with the “remote” support from F-22A, since Irbis detects Lightning (0,2 m2) from about 160 - 180 km. Even the use of directional REPs by AN / APG-81 would not bring tangible results, except that the RVV-SD / DB rocket would be launched by the source of interference.

    I will not comment on the real capabilities of the Su-35С few radars so far, but I can’t get past the airborne combat missiles since these missiles have just begun to arrive combat units and they do not make special weather.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 22 February 2017 09: 17
      +5
      Serega, welcome! hi
      Quote: Bongo
      As I understand it, Damantsev can’t do without a “urea-patriotism” as a whole a good article? Otherwise, what is it for?

      This article, or rather its clone, was already a couple of weeks ago at VO.
      What is there to discuss? We took a bunch of f-35-f-22 and a bunch of f-16-f-15 ... And we were convinced that the bunch of generation 5 is more effective than the 4th generation. It’s not seen.
      And what is Lighting separately in aerial combat, without the support of the pangolin of the same word.
      Sincerely. hi
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 22 February 2017 14: 58
        +3
        Quote: NEXUS
        Serega, welcome!

        Hi Andrey! Long time no intersect! drinks
        Quote: NEXUS
        then discuss here? We took a bunch of f-35-f-22 and a bunch of f-16-f-15 ... And we made sure that the bunch of the 5 generation is more effective than the 4 generation. It’s not seen.

        Exactly! ... and what is there to procrastinate?
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 22 February 2017 15: 12
          +3
          Quote: Bongo
          Hi Andrey! Long time no intersect!

          A long time ago ... wink I really thought that you ran away with VO ... laughing
          Glad to see you, friend in good health! drinks
          Quote: Bongo
          Exactly! ... and what is there to procrastinate?

          The feeling is that it was as if they decided to intimidate and convince with this Lightning ... and the hand reaches for the wallet, to say, Persuaded, give two, wrap.
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 22 February 2017 15: 21
            +4
            Quote: NEXUS
            Long time ago ... wink I already thought that you ran away with VO ... laughing

            There is not enough time to write comments, and I don’t feel like crushing water. Some people come in to talk about what should I talk to them about? It is enough that I write on one article a week, but not many people read them, because I am not fond of fantasies.
            It seems to me that the F-35 will be “brought to mind", and it will be an outstanding, but quite worthy car. Although the price tag of course ... wassat
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 22 February 2017 15: 34
              +3
              Quote: Bongo
              It seems to me that the F-35 will be “brought to mind", and it will be an outstanding, but quite worthy car. Although the price tag of course ...

              Well, we would finally get born with the LFI ... otherwise you won’t get far on certain bands. hi
              1. Bongo
                Bongo 22 February 2017 15: 41
                +5
                Quote: NEXUS
                Well, we would finally get born with the LFI ... otherwise you won’t get far on certain bands.

                Sooner or later, a modern light fighter will have to be made. But we had to think about this as far back as 10 years ago, although then the olympiad turned out to be more important for our leadership.
                1. NEXUS
                  NEXUS 22 February 2017 15: 43
                  +2
                  Quote: Bongo
                  Sooner or later, a modern light fighter will have to be made. But we had to think about this as far back as 10 years ago, although then the olympiad turned out to be more important for our leadership.

                  My friend, but not 10 years ago, but when you still made MIG-1.44, that is, 30 years ago ...
                  1. Bongo
                    Bongo 22 February 2017 15: 50
                    +3
                    Quote: NEXUS
                    My friend, but not 10 years ago, but when you still made MIG-1.44, that is, 30 years ago ...

                    Well, yes, but since then a lot of water has flowed. But it’s necessary to do everything early and the current leadership is responsible for this.
                    1. NEXUS
                      NEXUS 22 February 2017 15: 54
                      +3
                      Quote: Bongo
                      But it’s necessary to do everything early and the current leadership is responsible for this.

                      It’s important, if you started looking for financing and cooperation with the same UAE, it means that things have moved off the ground and finally realized that the concept of a fighter pair is still relevant.
    2. silver_roman
      silver_roman 22 February 2017 11: 20
      +3
      Quote: Bongo
      I will not comment on the real capabilities of the Su-35С few radars so far, but I can’t get past the airborne combat missiles since these missiles have just begun to arrive combat units and they do not make special weather.

      it's a pity. I would read a comment on the account of Irbis. Situevina with RVV-SD is also interesting. I didn’t hear anything at all about the database and I’m not sure that they have already passed the GOS.
      But despite everything, the message is true. The enemy adapts to our air defense, develops tactics and countermeasures.
      1. Bongo
        Bongo 22 February 2017 15: 04
        +3
        Quote: silver_roman
        it's a pity. I would read a comment on the account of Irbis.

        Nobody will give you real data about the radar of the Su-35С combatant (non-export), since this information is "under the stamp".
        Quote: silver_roman
        Situevina with RVV-SD is also interesting. I didn’t hear anything at all about the database and I’m not sure that they have already passed the GOS.

        New missiles are appearing in the troops, but so far not in very noticeable quantities. The forces on duty are mainly P-27 and P-73.
        1. silver_roman
          silver_roman 23 February 2017 14: 33
          +1
          Quote: Bongo
          No one will give you real data about the radar station of the Su-35S combatant (non-export)

          That I do not pretend. Just at least understand if they work out their performance characteristics in principle, or are there problems?
          Quote: Bongo
          The forces on duty are mainly R-27 and R-73.

          I fully admit that for the video, although it is unlikely, I already saw RVV-SD on the reports from Syria. Now I’m unlikely to find this video. But they certainly were. But the database has never seen.

          ps oh hell, why do I have a yuesovsky flag? belay I certainly understand that Ukraine is occupied, but damn ... not the same ..... moderators .... awww ..
          1. Bongo
            Bongo 24 February 2017 11: 20
            +1
            Quote: silver_roman
            That I do not pretend. Just at least understand if they work out their performance characteristics in principle, or are there problems?

            There are problems, but they are being resolved. The difficulty also lies in the fact that the avionics Su-35С different years of production is significantly different, due to the high degree of use of imported components.
            Quote: silver_roman
            I fully admit that for the video, although it is unlikely, I already saw RVV-SD on the reports from Syria.

            These SDs are still very few and they are cherished.
  6. g1washntwn
    g1washntwn 22 February 2017 09: 16
    +3
    According to the likely PR statement of comparative battles, I agree with the author, made the same assumption in the news, but shorter and without detail. Long arm + stealth + illumination by raptors + unequal conditions at the technical level initially.
    On the tactics of using electronic warfare: Offhand. F-35 drags behind the growlers, or is forced to drag a rather big container on the suspension. Su-35 can be equipped with built-in Khibiny, or also on the suspension. The station is more powerful on the grower, but the SU with its own electronic warfare is not tactically attached to the cover and can act independently, at least for the same rapprochement, to connect the BVB Raptors and try to destroy the Growlers and AWACS from several directions (the Americans are forced to walk only under the growlers umbrella). And already without AWACS, electronic warfare and close cover, penguins will most likely hastily retreat in order not to fall under the catching blows of other fighter groups and ground long-range air defense.
    Khibiny need to be developed, as well as anti-EW capabilities of ground-based air defense systems, this is undoubted.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 22 February 2017 23: 44
      +3
      "F-35 drags behind the growlers, or is forced to drag a rather big container on the suspension." ////

      The F-35 has its own built-in electronic warfare system, even more powerful than the F-18 Growler.
      But on it they find a plane. Therefore, they used a bunch, so as not to reveal the F-35.
  7. Maz
    Maz 22 February 2017 10: 17
    +4
    Well, in general, the Americans reassured themselves, they say the enemy is stupid, works according to the classical scheme, does not expect us to be smart and standing on top of those, stupidly flies on old asses against our Lexuses and Lamborghini. Apparently you need to knock out the budget and try.
  8. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 22 February 2017 10: 22
    0
    In this case, we need to carry out the same exercises to repel massive raids. The technologies are approximately known, long-range missiles for the destruction of AWACS and PP in the arsenal of S-300 and 400 we have. It remains to have political will and provide cover for our allies in repelling attacks. I think the attacker, in the event of the loss of the ship that launched KR, AWAKSA and PP, will cancel its operation ....
  9. Operator
    Operator 22 February 2017 10: 26
    +2
    Of course, the organizers of the Red Flag 17-01 exercise could use heel-to-ear scratching technology (such as allegedly using the F-22 as AWACS aircraft), but most likely the scenario was completely different.

    Firstly, AIM-120 missiles of any modification are guided by the on-board radar of an exclusively carrier aircraft (in this case F-35), which thereby unmasks itself and runs into a retaliatory strike. Another thing is that the conditional enemy (F-16) could be armed with an obsolete version of the AIM-120C with a maximum flight range of 120 km versus 180 km with the AIM-120D, armed with the F-35. But then why all this fuss from F-22 and F / A-18G?

    Secondly, to use F-35 guided weapons on ground targets such as air-to-ground missiles or planning bombs with a solid-fuel accelerator, F / A-18G is not needed from the word at all - attack aircraft are flying at low altitude, missiles are launched without lifting strike aircraft over the horizon, i.e. without entering the air defense zone.

    In the end, it turns out that the Red Flag 17-01 exercise scenario was different.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 22 February 2017 11: 22
      +5
      F-35 can launch missiles for external target designation from another F-35/22, Patriot ...
      1. Operator
        Operator 22 February 2017 17: 33
        0
        In wet dreams.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 22 February 2017 19: 19
          0
          According to some sources, the MiG-31 can ...
        2. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 22 February 2017 23: 49
          +4
          This is the F-16 and F-15 were able to 30 years ago. F-15s conducted their targets with their radar, and F-16 fired blindly from 15 km and shot down Syrian fighters who did not see either of them.
          1. Operator
            Operator 23 February 2017 01: 54
            +4
            This was in close air combat using AIM-9 missiles with passive WIGOS and tactically not the way you described.

            F-15 radar detected enemy aircraft at a distance of several tens of kilometers and brought to the target F-16 with off-board radars. After capturing the AIM-9 F-16 WIGOS target, missiles were launched at a distance of 15 km.

            Enemy aircraft found the F-15 by the emission of their radars, but could not bring down because of the limited capabilities (in range) of their missiles. F-16s were entered into battle in the radio silence mode from a position at low altitude outside the radar range of enemy aircraft.

            Now the situation has changed to the exact opposite - Russian RVV-BD missiles have a maximum range of 300 km and an effective range of F-35 150 km and F-22 75 km, which is much better than the corresponding characteristics of the most advanced Western missile AIM-120D - 180/90 / 45 km.

            Therefore, the F-15 or F-22 gunners will be shot down before the F-35 reaches its strike position.
          2. Zaurbek
            Zaurbek 23 February 2017 12: 40
            +1
            And the S-200 systems shot down the E-2, which fighters were pointing ...
  10. nickkor
    nickkor 22 February 2017 10: 54
    0
    So I think .... But isn’t it necessary? ... But then ... Still, no, perhaps I will change the position on the couch.
  11. opus
    opus 22 February 2017 11: 10
    +7
    Quote: Author
    Lightning in the “veil” of F / A-18G electronic interference is a tactic that should not be underestimated

    And why is there something “new” and who is “underestimating”?
    1. In June of 1952, the squadron of active radio jammers TB-25J Mitchells was designed to cover bomber aircraft, and the Navy in September of 1952 was created by the squadron of AD-20 / 30 / 4W marine aircraft, providing for the detection and determination of coordinates Radar anti-aircraft artillery.

    Some of the Air Force and Navy aircraft (based on one per group) were equipped with receiving equipment, signaling radar detection by the enemy of the group in which such an aircraft followed. It also provided for protection from fighter-interceptors by introducing the F-3D night fighter, equipped with an airborne radar to warn of an air attack from the rear hemisphere. To destroy ground-based radar posts in North Korea, strike groups of light bomber B-26 "Invader" were formed, each of which included a pair of aircraft with search equipment.

    Even before the start of the Vietnam War, the United States was able to complete the development and testing of the QRC-253-3 on-board electronic system for reconnaissance and location of the S-75 air defense systems. In the future, this allowed the F-100F Super Saber aircraft to carry out fire damage to enemy ground radars (Operation Wild Weasle).

    and so on.
    Why take so long? The tactics "in the" veil "of electronic interference" is perfectly described by T. Klensi in "Red Storm"


    Quote: Author
    Thus, the stealth fighters found themselves in a thick “veil” of interference from the station AN / ALQ-99 F / A-18G aircraft, which made it possible to approach the enemy radar at 3-4 times a closer distance.

    Evgeny Damantsev, please: here’s the "old on cotton" AN / ALQ-99:

    range of frequencies / bands covered by ALQ-99

    I WANT A CONTINUOUS SEASON!
    It doesn’t work out for me, even for "F"


    Quote: Author
    the problem of which is the lack of the possibility of the formation of "dips" in the directional pattern of the main lobe towards the EW source.

    what
    m MMdyayaya.
  12. NordUral
    NordUral 22 February 2017 13: 21
    +1
    Such articles should form the VO information field. Stop hacking. A real and honest assessment of the potential enemy’s capabilities is the key to the correct countermeasures, both in current and future developments in the military-industrial complex.
  13. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 22 February 2017 13: 44
    +4
    "In many cases, it would come to close combat,
    where the F-35A would never beat a more maneuverable opponent - F-16C "///

    They have the same maneuverability. F-35 is even more stable on a steep turn.
    Norwegians made games. The F-16 (without pylons, only with explosives) has a slightly higher boost.
  14. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 22 February 2017 13: 56
    +2
    I poorly imagine a real battle in the sky of large masses of fighters of the latest generation - in my opinion, thermonuclear warheads will fly earlier. After which it will be all the same to anyone who is "fatter" ... wassat The rest of the riffraff, such as NATO and other aircraft, "does not look" against Russia. There is still a powerful Russian air defense, multi-layered and well-equipped.
    So far, there has been a search for “prodigy waffles,” which will put Russia on its knees in one fell swoop. Its excellent fighters will sweep away from the sky, suppress air defense, kill tank armies right in the field ... Again they forget about the "asymmetric" response of the Russians. We know who is in charge of this celebration of life. Here he will immediately fly in full. Screaming that it’s so dishonest will be later. Those who survive. am
    1. ydjin
      ydjin 22 February 2017 15: 52
      +1
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      I poorly imagine a real battle in the sky of large masses of fighters of the latest generation - in my opinion, thermonuclear warheads will fly earlier. After which it will be all the same to anyone who is "fatter" ... wassat The rest of the riffraff, such as NATO and other aircraft, "does not look" against Russia. There is still a powerful Russian air defense, multi-layered and well-equipped.
      So far, there has been a search for “prodigy waffles,” which will put Russia on its knees in one fell swoop. Its excellent fighters will sweep away from the sky, suppress air defense, kill tank armies right in the field ... Again they forget about the "asymmetric" response of the Russians. We know who is in charge of this celebration of life. Here he will immediately fly in full. Screaming that it’s so dishonest will be later. Those who survive. am

      Once in the Middle Ages, artillery was considered the "last argument of kings" now I think nuclear weapons are not the worst last argument! Who are going to bomb the adversaries? Do you want to live ?!
  15. DM51
    DM51 22 February 2017 17: 13
    0
    It’s interesting, where will the Americans get so much F-22 to cover the F-35, because the production of the Raptors is completed, and the “penguins” want to rivet almost 3000 pieces?
  16. TOR2
    TOR2 22 February 2017 23: 14
    0
    Thus, the stealth fighters found themselves in a thick “veil” of interference from the AN / ALQ-99 station of the F / A-18G aircraft, which made it possible to approach the enemy radar 3-4 times closer.

    The stealth fighter campaign is so exceptional that the signal from an interference station is not reflected at all from their planes. Some adjustments to the exercise scenario are proposed. The enemy counted the direct signal from the AN / ALQ-99 station, and the stealth reflected signal, after which it subjected them to processing.
  17. Alsur
    Alsur 23 February 2017 13: 37
    +1
    Quote: NEXUS
    My friend, but not 10 years ago, but when you still made MIG-1.44, that is, 30 years ago ...

    Quote: Bongo
    Well, yes, but since then a lot of water has flowed. But it’s necessary to do everything early and the current leadership is responsible for this.

    That's right, the decision had to be made 30 years ago, and the modern leadership is to blame. Logic 200%.
  18. Constantin junitsky
    Constantin junitsky 27 February 2017 19: 10
    0
    If this article was intended to confuse the "potential adversary", then it should be confused more accurately. If the goal is to reassure fellow citizens, then it turns out in a perverse way ..
    What does the contrast between passive headlights and AFAR? These are characters of completely different operas. It’s fashionable now to talk about AFAR as a panacea. But passive radars in that and it makes sense that they are passive. And with the isolation of interference, the signal processing algorithm with superimposed synchronized backlight can quite easily cope. It is all simple and it is not a problem now as before, when there were no computers. And it’s clear that the 35th is revealed quite simply, and now it’s very fashionable to vote about it. But discovering is one thing, and aiming at a target is another. Thermal guidance is archaic and not from this situation at all, but it is generally strange to set a jet stream as a target for a rocket (I think everyone understands why).
    As for the exercises, it’s clear that they were carried out in order to get all sorts of adjustments to the algorithm of modern combat, for example, to calculate the same synchronization of illumination, or some other time constants or signal direction angles between objects.
    1. shahor
      shahor 4 January 2018 00: 56
      0
      The first commentator to understand the point. No invisibility, there is
      stealth aircraft. Strength 35 in the other - read who speaks English, Business Insider for September.
      there is the article of the 35th pilot. The bottom line is. that any attack by an air target is a sequence of actions - detection. capture. escort. attack. 35 tears this sequence for the fighter. and for ground defense. This is not just the creation of phantom targets, it is a temporary suppression of any air defense. I what. one noticed. that Americans call equipment 35 not electronic warfare. But by electronic (cybernetic) attack? Do not underestimate and throw hats!
  19. lihoykazak
    lihoykazak 24 May 2017 21: 15
    0
    This tactic is not a challenge. It was used and practiced back in Vietnam, not to mention subsequent wars. The technical capabilities of radars with AFAR and the capabilities of Growlers are also things long known to the videoconferencing system. Interference stations AN / ALQ-99 have been used since the beginning of the 90s. These stations do not pose a serious threat because they work in directional mode for a small number of signals. Any RES with the ability to tune out interference will compete with AN / ALQ-99. But the new generation NGJ REP system (in development) will be a danger to modern radars. Actually for this and are being developed.