"Russians use red stars on planes": the Danish Air Force responded to claims about "unmasking" symbols on the F-35

Denmark is discussing the presentation of the first fifth generation fighter F-35A Lightning II of the Danish Air Force. First of all, the so-called livery of a combat aircraft - the color painting of its fuselage - was discussed. In particular, we are talking about the application of the colored symbols of the Danish Air Force - the flag and the aviation badge (cockade) to the aircraft body, wings and its tail unit.

The fighter with hull number L-001 shows images using red paint. In Denmark, this raised questions. It is noted that the livery of the stealth fighter in other countries is kept in gray and white tones, which reduce the visual signature of the combat aircraft in the sky. From critical posts:

And we put on bright red flags and the same aviation symbols on the fuselage of the aircraft - "invisible". Will it turn out so that it will be one of the elements of the visual unmasking of the F-35A?

The Danish Ministry of Defense commented on the use of "non-standard" paint:

We decided to use the red and white cockades and the famous Dannebrog flag because it is the oldest approved national flag in the world. It is also a reference to our folklore, which says that this very flag - a red with a white cross - descended from the sky before an important battle that our soldiers won. This is a suitable symbol.

There is a reference to the events of 1219, when the Danish army entered into battle with the troops of the pagan Estonians and defeated them.

The Danish military has pointed out that other armies around the world are using bright colors to display symbols on combat aircraft. A kind of response to claims:

For example, the Russians use red stars on their planes.

Danish Air Force Chief of Staff Jan Dam:

We have chosen our unique symbols so that the aircraft can be easily recognized among F-35s from other countries and denote their belonging to the entire Danish nation.

It is expected that the first operations of the Danish F-35A will be carried out by 2023. The Skridstrup airfield was chosen as their base. Today F-16 fighters are based there.

Comments

[Ka-52]

Will it turn out so that it will be one of the elements of the visual unmasking of the F-35A?

paradox ... All experts on the F-35 are convinced of its "perfect" invisibility "at +100500 km, but here they are worried about unmasking at a distance of visual contact, ie we are talking about a distance of less than 500m (!!!) according to Voyaka, the F-35 "Adir" flies at low level over Syria. But the stars of David were also painted there. Apparently God's chosen stars do not affect the visual unmasking, unlike the Danish state symbols

[WHAT IS]

No, it sounded from posts on the Internet from the would-be iksperds of the Danish kingdom, the military, how can they reassure their overly worried public:

For example, the Russians use red stars on their planes.

In short, this whole story is not worth a damn.

[Pereira]

Blue Star gives +10 to Disguise.
And red + 8 to disguise and +2 to dexterity.

[voyaka uh]

You don't really understand the difference between location-invisibility (stealth)
and optical signature?

[Ka-52]

You don't really understand the difference between location-invisibility (stealth)
and optical signature? belay

of course I don't understand We are talking about a new recipe for sauerkraut?
the concept of location invisibility (stealth) does not exist from the point of view of elementary logic. In the case of stealth technology, we are talking only about the distance at which the reflected signal does not exceed the receiver sensitivity threshold.

and optical signature?

And what about IR visibility to the flags on the consoles? Or is it not related to optics?
Alexey, don't tell me)))

[voyaka uh]

"does not exist from the point of view of elementary logic" ///
----
AND! And I thought you were a technical person. And you are a philosopher-logician.

[Ka-52]

AND! And I thought you were a technical person. And you are a philosopher-logician

did you take it from the phrase about sauerkraut?
and why my conclusion does not correspond to the technical side of the matter? Indeed, from an objective point of view, an object located 1 km away from us is not small in reality. The focal length makes it like that when you look at it.

[voyaka uh]

"which the reflected signal does not exceed the receiver sensitivity threshold." ///
---
The reflected signal may not reach the receiver at all.
As super-sensitive as this receiver is.
The signal can be completely reflected to the sides of the irradiated object.
and be absorbed by its materials (turn into heat).
There is no "elementary logic" here - only physics and technology.

[Ka-52]

The reflected signal may not reach the receiver at all.
As super-sensitive as this receiver is.

Alexey, these are fairy tales. First, this is not "the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection". And secondly, the plane is a dynamic object - it is located in space at a different angle to the receiver at each moment of time. Therefore, it is physically impossible to arrange the planes so that they always reflect the wave away from the receiver.

and be absorbed by its materials (turn into heat).

not all of the wave energy is absorbed. Well not absorbed! All the more so if we remember that there are no universal RPPs. They are designed for their quarter wavelength

[voyaka uh]

If these were fairy tales, then Khmeimim would not have had to carry a bulky VHF radar and a couple of additional radars.
In addition to the main radar of the S-400 mobile complex.
All these poultices to detect the F-35.
And without them the complex is half-blind. "We see something there, ripples at the background noise level, but we can't lock onto the target."

[yehat2]

Quote: voyaka uh

All these poultices to detect the F-35.

F-35 can be detected not only by meter range radar
just other ways, let's say, are more difficult
And here everything is simple - I pressed the button and received a contrast signal.
Also, you are confusing clutter and reduced visibility.
as they say, either remove the cross, or put on panties.
In general, the situation itself is a little strange - at the border you can put a network of a couple of dozen optical target designation stations and the question of understanding where the f-35 will not stand at all, moreover, this is a passive system.

[voyaka uh]

"confusing noise and reduced visibility" ///
---
The radar has a lower limit when processing a signal, where
it is military stealth objects that merge with interference and random
objects such as birds, swarms of insects.
If you remove the filter, you will have to shoot "at everything that moves."
This is what radio stealth is designed for.

"from a couple of dozen optical target designation stations" ///
---
Of course it is possible. But to deceive such a system is a trifling matter.
Cheap KR target, F-35 simulator.
Optical stations will sound the alarm
centimeter radars will start up
complexes, will not capture the target (stealth remains stealth),
nervous
firing expensive rockets "for good luck" (see Syria).
Here stealth and slip under the sly.

[yehat2]

Quote: voyaka uh

objects such as birds, swarms of insects.
If you remove the filter, you will have to shoot "at everything that moves."
This is what radio stealth is designed for.

you either quote your methodology or do not understand the issue.
about insects it turned out generally epic)))
any non-passive radar has an objective part of the interference when the signal returns
any radio phone has signals that need to be filtered
everything is correct here. But...
1. yomayo, comparing a hefty METAL fighter to a fly in terms of contrast against the background is not even funny.
2. The filter used to rest on the fact that all this was done by a person. And in the radars, and at the acoustics. Nowadays, most of the interference and junk signals are effectively removed by the equipment itself.
3. The task is not to search for the plane again every fraction of a second, but to give out the coordinates of a hefty carcass, which does not go anywhere for tens of minutes, which has not only a reflected signal, but also a trace, and an IR background, and signals from its on-board equipment (otherwise the plane itself becomes half-blind and deaf). And this task is now being solved quite effectively in different ways.

Much more effectively, Israeli aviation uses the neutrality of the sky over Beirut, banal flying around stationary air defense points, active jammers and terrain folds without all this mysticism about background noise and birds. Plus, civilian or conventionally non-military aircraft are constantly flying in the sky, which greatly impedes selective fire.

And radio low-visibility was designed only to fight for the initiative with air defense, reducing the efficiency of the radars - who will be the first to complete their mission. There was never any talk about stealth or any problems to knock out.

[voyaka uh]

The Americans conducted several exercises: stealth F-35 and F-22 against air defense.
Air defense - Patriot complexes. They don't always shoot down BR, that's right
but the planes shoot down very carefully. What is checked.
The Patriot complex has about the same AFAR as the complex
C-400.
The exercises went like this: from the air defense headquarters they called the air force headquarters and asked
"when does the exercise start?"
They were told: "Alas, the exercises are over. The planes are already in your rear."
I exaggerated, of course. But - you have information for thought.
I have read all your arguments. It was interesting.

[yehat2]

Quote: voyaka uh

The Patriot complex has about the same AFAR as the complex
C-400.

it is even better, but the s-400 is outright better because of the software that provides much better work with the received signal.

[voyaka uh]

"but the s-400 is absolutely better because of the software" ///
---
I strongly doubt it. Good radars are also made in Israel.
Air defense / missile defense for Barak-8, Hatz, ZhK and know how to write software for them.
But no breakthroughs have been made in stealth detection.

[yehat2]

Quote: voyaka uh

and know how to write software for them.

it's not about the ability to write software, but about the availability of scientists who can apply mathematical methods to parse the received signal. As a former mathematician, I can say that this was one of the main Soviet military-industrial complex for many years.
For example - compact processors, compact PAR and AFAR, to calculate complex aerodynamics, equal in efficiency to the Su-27, and much more could be done outside the USSR only after the collapse of the country (everything rested on the calculation methods that were not there) And still on conditional the West is simply a colossal failure in the availability of such specialists. They are stupidly very little prepared. And when I was studying in the USSR, they graduated several hundred a year and also had an army of several thousand, which was easy to retrain if suddenly not enough.
So they made the S-400 radar more effective than that of the Patriot.

[Dimon Dimonov_2]

That is why the s-175 shot down the f-117 in Yugoslavia ... but in general the Turks tested our s-400 and grazed even low targets from 600 km ... and were very pleased ...

[bk0010]

do not capture the target (stealth remains stealth)

And what prevents the missile from being launched into the stealth area according to the meter radar data, and there, near, the rocket head will successfully capture the stealth, since it will be close?

[voyaka uh]

Not very successful. The rocket must be guided correctly by ground radar.
Shot "about" will not give results.
And there is a second catch. The active radar in the missile seeker also sees
stealth from a much shorter distance than conventional aircraft.
Of course, it is possible to fire an approximate salvo of three or four "fanned-out" missiles.
You look, some will grab the stealth and hit. But considering the cost
each long-range missile defense ...

[Kart]

Quote: voyaka uh

You don't really understand the difference between location-invisibility (stealth)
and optical signature?

Not we. The Danes don't understand.
We understand very well that location invisibility and stealth are fundamentally different things.

[rocket757]

And we put bright red flags and the same aviation symbols on the fuselage of the "invisible" aircraft. Will it turn out that this will be one of the elements of the visual unmasking of the F-35A

What were they taught at school ???
At those speeds, ranges that are now ... but paint it all over, you can't figure it out !!!

[cniza]

They want to proudly display their symbols, but how and who will see them, they did not think ...

[rocket757]

It is unlikely that they take such chatter seriously ... social networks are not for serious topics, chatter about anything.

[cniza]

Another question, why are we discussing this, there is nothing more?

[rocket757]

Boring, probably ... a little humor, from the morning.

[cniza]

If only for variety and breadth, then yes ...

[Ruslan Sulima]

They may see and see, but which of the potential opponents will take them seriously?)

[rocket757]

Why not take it seriously? The technique is serious, and who sits there inside, you can't tell from a distance.

[Ruslan Sulima]

The technique is serious, the pilot Li Si Cyn said with a smile)

[cniza]

Quote: Ruslan Sulima

They may see and see, but which of the potential opponents will take them seriously?)

Those who are the first to see them, as if they are not interested in flags and coloring ...

[Simargl]

Quote: cniza

only how and who will see them, they did not think ...

On the ground, you can come up and see. Sometimes burnt.

[cniza]

Well, if only to take a selfie, I don't like these words that are not Russian, pose in the background ...

[Simargl]

Quote: cniza

Well, if only to take a selfie

Renovator (there is no name in Russian) in hand, sawed off a souvenir and go home!

[Dimon Dimonov_2]

and at parades = holidays!? The roar of the su-57 delights the Americans ... they say poop right away hot ... = o)

[Pereira]

This is not taught in Denmark.

[rocket757]

Maybe so ... then why are they interested in this at all?

[Ros 56]

All this is nonsense, with the current speeds and distances of aircraft from each other, no one will see a damn thing. Let him go back three or five hundred meters and what will he see? No stars, no crosses, no emblems, this is necessary so that the technicians at the airfield do not beguiled their planes.

[Cowbra]

And then the Russians will land, with the stars, and then there is disorder - without flags on the keel of the F-35, the equipment cannot be found. They are invisible!

[Egoza]

Quote: Cowbra

And then the Russians will land, with the stars, and then there is disorder - without flags on the keel of the F-35, the equipment cannot be found. They are invisible!

They also remembered that the Russians put stars on the number of downed planes. And now "the Russians will land ..."

[kit88]

A competent technician finds his plane in the sky by the sound of the engines.

But, this is with us, but in Denmark I don’t know ...

[cniza]

Will it turn out so that it will be one of the elements of the visual unmasking of the F-35A?

It seems that they live at the beginning of the 20th century ...

[RUSS]

It is planned in the Russian Aerospace Forces to apply dotted red stars on aircraft.

[Machete]

If you saw a flag on the tail in the sky, then you can already see the plane itself visually.
Is not it so?

Or is the flag on the radar visible?
Something I laugh from the comments.

[Poetry]

Even if they paint the face of Hans-Christian Andersen on the fuselages, their trashy essence will not change. As they were a coward, they will remain.

[Esaul]

Well, yes, what's the point in camouflage if these planes will never take part in hostilities

[Mouse]

the famous Dannebrog flag, because it is the oldest approved national flag in the world

They cannot be proud of their symbol ... are afraid, but suddenly, as they unmask it ... not up to symbols, maybe I would live ...

[Irbiz123]

Vague doubts gnaw at me, and did Denmark have jet aircraft before?

[Andrey1966]

William also, you know, our Shakespeare, said: "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark!"

[Maks1995]

dispute nothing. It's strange that they brought here

[tralflot1832]

What is not clear, it is imperative to draw something, especially on a penguin. If there is a Danish flag on the wreckage on the ground, then it’s clear whose plane. And in the air, the system, your stranger, no one has canceled, there art on the plane is no longer needed.

[Pandiurin]

Reminds of an anecdote ...
Two suggestions:
1. Shoot the Politburo
2. Paint the Kremlin wall green.
- What questions about the proposals?
- Why green?
- Secretary, mark no questions on the first item.
----

In Denmark, too, on the first point
Why do they need an expensive F35, no questions.
Everyone is busy discussing the overriding problem of how to draw a small emblem on the tail)

[rotmistr60]

The livery should in no way affect the invisibility of the "most inconspicuous" (pardon the tautology) aircraft. Well, the identification marks of the country have been and are still being used. Or did the Danes have a psychological principle of the first and the new when it is a pity to remove the film from the screen, and the remote control in a bag, so as not to fade and not wipe?

the flag - red with a white cross - descended from the sky before the important battle that our warriors won

It is pathetic, of course, but how could it not turn out that the plane from heaven to earth?

[U-58]

Well, now their flag will be visible from Moscow)))

[Ruslan Sulima]

What is good for a Russian, death for a German)

[Ruslan Sulima]

By the way, you also need to teach the stars to draw for the downed ones, otherwise this type of flying cars looks somehow frivolous)

[Dimon Dimonov_2]

Let them not worry ... there will be little flying and only in good weather ... and it takes a long time to be repaired ...