F-35A in full loadout for first time

[gambit]

My, how the tables have turned.

Now you are willing to believe what I've always said, that the system can react to single pulses.

But not to EVERY SEQUENTIAL pulse. It is not possible with any single antenna system that relies on shared timing and resources in its transmit/receive cycles.

You are debating like a Chinese. You pick out elements of the debate and distorts to suit.

Nope. It's easy to defeat this. At least the Spectra can.

The radars on the F-22 and F-35 are analog. At any one time one T/R module is only producing 1 beam. So if the radar has 1500-2000 modules, the radar is producing only that many beams.

But realistically, you would use an entire section of a radar for long range detection, not single T/R modules. So if you choreograph the radar to use up half as many T/R modules for detection of air threats and the rest for other purposes, then you have all 1000 T/R modules trying to detect air threats at the same frequency and power settings. As far as Spectra is concerned, that's only 1 threat.

Bullshit. You do not know what you are talking about.

What you described is Passive ESA. In an Active ESA array, appropriate software can virtually partition the main array into multiple smaller arrays. The process is called 'sub arrays partitioning'.

https://www.altera.com/solutions/te...es/_2013/scanned-radar-signal-processing.html

By subdividing the antenna into sub-arrays, the system can transmit a number of beams simultaneously,...

In the above image, which one has nine sub-arrays ? See if you can figure that out.

I explained this concept on this forum yrs ago. All of forum old timers knew of this. Nobody in this forum want PESA for their air forces once I explained the advantages of the system.

Btw, there is no such thing as an ideal system. Spectra doesn't have to cancel out an echo every single time. It only has to perform enough so the radar can reject a compromised return as a false positive, especially using nap of the earth flying.

Yes, it does, if SPECTRA is supposed to have active cancellation as good as shaping.

Throughout all this time, you have been portraying SPECTRA as the alternative that is better than shaping. Now you are backtracking ?

Stop digging this hole for yourself. You got busted with that ISRJ thing that you know nothing about except on how to spell the word 'interrupted'.

 

[Figaro]

But not to EVERY SEQUENTIAL pulse. It is not possible with any single antenna system that relies on shared timing and resources in its transmit/receive cycles.

You are debating like a Chinese. You pick out elements of the debate and distorts to suit.


Bullshit. You do not know what you are talking about.

What you described is Passive ESA. In an Active ESA array, appropriate software can virtually partition the main array into multiple smaller arrays. The process is called 'sub arrays partitioning'.

https://www.altera.com/solutions/te...es/_2013/scanned-radar-signal-processing.html

In the above image, which one has nine sub-arrays ? See if you can figure that out.

I explained this concept on this forum yrs ago. All of forum old timers knew of this. Nobody in this forum want PESA for their air forces once I explained the advantages of the system.


Yes, it does, if SPECTRA is supposed to have active cancellation as good as shaping.

Throughout all this time, you have been portraying SPECTRA as the alternative that is better than shaping. Now you are backtracking ?

Stop digging this hole for yourself. You got busted with that ISRJ thing that you know nothing about except on how to spell the word 'interrupted'.

Whoa there ... let's not cast a group of people in that light ... you'll only attract flame bait

 

[gambit]

We all know active cancellation exists. At least that's been established.

Dassault claimed Rafale's frontal RCS is that of a sparrow.

India's Air Marshal said the Rafale has stealth features.

So how has this been taken at face value?

Without 3rd party independent testing. The same demand you have for Red Flag.

 

[Figaro]

Without 3rd party independent testing. The same demand you have for Red Flag.

I'm really worried about the F-35. As an US taxpayer, this jet is a huge budget bombshell and does not look to be overly capable. I would've much preferred Lockheed upgrading the F-22 by batches; the more you produce, the cheaper it's going to get. The F-35 is simply not a good alternative to the Raptor.

 

[gambit]

I'm really worried about the F-35. As an US taxpayer, this jet is a huge budget bombshell and does not look to be overly capable. I would've much preferred Lockheed upgrading the F-22 by batches; the more you produce, the cheaper it's going to get. The F-35 is simply not a good alternative to the Raptor.

Are you going cite Pierre Sprey ?

 

[Jugger]

India should buy at least 15 f 35 for its new carrier and I mean the airforce version with arrester hook and not the vertical takeoff version.
Is such a modification possible?

 

[randomradio]

Without 3rd party independent testing. The same demand you have for Red Flag.

India is a 3rd party independent tester.

The first party is France that decided the specs of the aircraft. The second party is Dassault that designed and made the aircraft. The third party is India, the country which extensively tested the aircraft, looked through all the bullshit marketing and decided the choice they made was the best choice out of many aircraft.

Why else do you think LM fears the Indian market? We will see through all the BS marketing when we actually test the aircraft against our equipment. And we don't cave to political pressure either.

When it comes to the F-35, US allies that want to buy the aircraft are the third party. That's why aircraft evaluations are so important. You need a non-US entity to validate your systems.

Hell, you haven't even started proper operational testing of the F-35 yet. The aircraft is yet to be opened up fully for operational testing with the Block 3F. Independent third party testing can come in only after that.

 

[randomradio]

But not to EVERY SEQUENTIAL pulse. It is not possible with any single antenna system that relies on shared timing and resources in its transmit/receive cycles.

You are debating like a Chinese. You pick out elements of the debate and distorts to suit.

You are the one who nitpicked based on one little paper and decided it is not possible for every sequential pulse. You didn't even know there was something called interrupted sampling before this.

Bullshit. You do not know what you are talking about.

What you described is Passive ESA. In an Active ESA array, appropriate software can virtually partition the main array into multiple smaller arrays. The process is called 'sub arrays partitioning'.

https://www.altera.com/solutions/te...es/_2013/scanned-radar-signal-processing.html

In the above image, which one has nine sub-arrays ? See if you can figure that out.

I explained this concept on this forum yrs ago. All of forum old timers knew of this. Nobody in this forum want PESA for their air forces once I explained the advantages of the system.

Partitioning was already implied when I use the words "choreography" and "rest for other purposes" in the same statement. You cannot do that with PESA unless you have at least a second transmitter, and you are still restricted to just 2 functions.

I am talking about taking a and converting it to b or c or d, run your automated choreography algorithm, well, none of that will work against Spectra due to the simple fact that you only have two options when dealing with Spectra, you either overwhelm it with more signals or faster signal processing.

Anyway, you haven't understood what multi-beam is, that's why your confusion is evident. The T/R modules of analog AESA can only emit one beam at a time. And while it is transmitting it cannot receive.

In a digital AESA, a single T/R module can emit multiple beams. The beams will have the same frequency and power, but all the beams can, say, have different orientations and independently steered. And the T/R modules can both transmit and receive at the same time. So you get modes like Simultaneous Transmit and Receive.

https://ll.mit.edu/publications/technotes/STARarray.html

Google digital beamforming.

Let's assume the current F-35 radar with 1500 modules and an upcoming LCA radar with 1000 modules. While the F-35's radar can create a max of only 1500 beams, the LCA's radar can create as many as 3,000 beams while delivering the same amount of power to each individual beam as the F-35 can.

So I was specifically talking about the hardware restrictions of the analog AESA radars on the F-22 and F-35. In your figure, the max I see are 9 partitions in c. Even if all are dedicated to detecting the Rafale, then Spectra is dealing with only 9 independent main beams. Easy peasy for Spectra to deal with only 9 beams even if all the beams are looking at the Rafale.

As I said Spectra can process tens of thousands of signals simultaneously. So processing 9 simultaneously does not even get it warmed up. It can only create a response to a few targets at a time, but a single Rafale should at least be able to deal with multiple threats at a time far greater than 9. Anyway, by splitting into multiple arrays, you are gonna get inferior range and beamwidth, which totally works in Rafale's favour. The less power the radar emits, the less power Spectra needs.

Of course, Spectra's response at this level is in real time. This is the singularly greatest achievement in the world of EW.

Yes, it does, if SPECTRA is supposed to have active cancellation as good as shaping.

Throughout all this time, you have been portraying SPECTRA as the alternative that is better than shaping. Now you are backtracking ?

Stop digging this hole for yourself. You got busted with that ISRJ thing that you know nothing about except on how to spell the word 'interrupted'.

Incorrect. Every time, in all my discussions with you, you didn't believe it was possible. Now you do. So the discussion was always restricted to Rafale vs American stealth.

My opinion has always been: Rafale has stealth as good as shaping because of active cancellation. But an aircraft that has already been shaped and is equipped with active cancellation will be even better. You put active cancellation on the F-22 or F-35, both aircraft will exceed the Rafale's capabilities. And this is something the French accept as well.

That's why I said PAK FA will have shaping that's as good as the F-22 or F-35, but will also have active cancellation which will take its capability to much greater heights. Reducing a sparrow even by 10 times is going to be a big deal.

To achieve active cancellation with current technology, you first need your aircraft to have as low an RCS as possible. They decided to make Rafale reduced observable in clean configuration, so they can further reduce RCS by 10 to 1000 times using Spectra while carrying weapons. Wouldn't have been possible with a 10m2 RCS or even 1m2. Maybe that will change soon as well, so even a B-52 can go stealth.

The problem with shaping based stealth is it can never be upgraded. But Spectra's active cancellation capability is easily upgradeable. That's how it moved from maintaining reduced observable characteristics with external weapons to LO/VLO with external weapons over the course of a decade.

Spectra is not an alternative to shaping based stealth, it enhances shaping based stealth. But it is better to have Spectra instead of only shaping based stealth because you can upgrade Spectra every few years, even to deal with threats like the new digital AESA that shaping based stealth will fail again.

 

[randomradio]

@gambit
https://www.altera.com/solutions/te...es/_2013/scanned-radar-signal-processing.html

I'm really worried about the F-35. As an US taxpayer, this jet is a huge budget bombshell and does not look to be overly capable. I would've much preferred Lockheed upgrading the F-22 by batches; the more you produce, the cheaper it's going to get. The F-35 is simply not a good alternative to the Raptor.

The F-35 wasn't designed to be an alternative to the Raptor. The USAF has its hands tied due to the lower number of Raptors is all. And by the time peer competitors become threats after 2030, the US will have a Raptor replacement.

India should buy at least 15 f 35 for its new carrier and I mean the airforce version with arrester hook and not the vertical takeoff version.
Is such a modification possible?

The F-35B is better for us. The F-35C comes with a hook.

 

[gambit]

You are the one who nitpicked based on one little paper and decided it is not possible for every sequential pulse. You didn't even know there was something called interrupted sampling before this.

I decided nothing. This is the law of physics. A single antenna cannot do both jobs AT THE SAME TIME. This is not 'Indian physics'.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7858673/

However, in many applications such as a missile-borne scenario, it is hard task to achieve high isolation between receive and transmit antennas because of the size limit of the platform. The jammer fixed on these platforms has to utilize single time-sharing transmit-receive antenna. This implies when a radar pulse arrives at the jammer antenna, the antenna is first switched to receive mode to intercept the pulse.

Note the highlighted.

Partitioning was already implied when I use the words "choreography" and "rest for other purposes" in the same statement. You cannot do that with PESA unless you have at least a second transmitter, and you are still restricted to just 2 functions.

Now it is confirmed you do not know what the hell you are talking about.

An AESA system is fully capable of multi-beams management. Your post 195 pretty much declared that such is not possible when you said this: As far as Spectra is concerned, that's only 1 threat.

Wrong. SPECTRA will see multiple threat and will not be able to deal with them.

Anyway, you haven't understood what multi-beam is, that's why your confusion is evident. The T/R modules of analog AESA can only emit one beam at a time. And while it is transmitting it cannot receive.

Further evidence of your ignorance.

Sub array partitioning means all sub arrays are independent at the moment of creation and can operate independently of each other. An array can transmit while another array can receive.

Your own source says so...

https://ll.mit.edu/publications/technotes/STARarray.html

It is YOU who do not understand what you brought on. It is YOU who are confused on what the phrase 'subarray partitioning and choreography' really means.

In your figure, the max I see are 9 partitions in c.

Very good. However, I did revealed that answer elsewhere on this forum. I bet the search feature helped you out. But am willing to give you credit for that.

Even if all are dedicated to detecting the Rafale, then Spectra is dealing with only 9 independent main beams. Easy peasy for Spectra to deal with only 9 beams even if all the beams are looking at the Rafale.

This is where you are wrong. Again.

A pulse train is composed of multiple pulses and each must be treated as a standalone signal. So if a train has 1 million pulses, that is 1 million signals that SPECTRA must process. SPECTRA has three antennas, so claimed. That means each antenna must time share between transmit and receive per threat pulse train.

Looky here...You got busted with that ISRJ thing when you thought that your source would back up your argument. It did not. Interrupted sampling does not mean you can replicate something you have never seen before. The context of your source has nothing to do with what SPECTRA claimed it could do.

We want to know how can SPECTRA sample only three out of five and is able to replicate the other two perfectly in order to achieve active cancellation.

India is a 3rd party independent tester.

So are those foreign pilots who have been to Red Flag. Am still waiting for a few that says the exercise is rigged. Got any ?

Hell, you haven't even started proper operational testing of the F-35 yet. The aircraft is yet to be opened up fully for operational testing with the Block 3F. Independent third party testing can come in only after that.

And what does that prove ?

If you want to criticize US aviation, your own India's is open to fair game. We have been leading the world in aviation in all fronts. You really want to go there ?

 

[Penguin]

Many of these countries don't have armies with offensive power.

Haha. Yeah. I suppose that why a tiny country like Netherlands (17 million people) bought 213 F16s and even smaller Belgium bought 160. What a load.

Only countries that require offensive power require F-15. And these countries, including the USAF, are being asked to replace their F-15s with F-35s. These countries actually need the F-22, not the F-35.

Kindly document that claim.

Japan, Israel, S Korea, Turkey and US. It's critical for these countries to operate the F-22 in enough numbers.

F-22 production ceased in 2011, with all aircraft in US service (no exports).
Hence there is no way for Japan (2016: 200 F15J/DJ), Israel (2011: 20 F-15A, 6 F-15B, 11 F-15C, and 6 F-15D. 2014: 25 F-15I based on E), and South Korea (61 F-15K) to replace F15s with F22s. Or even for the US for that matter. Turkey never had and isn't getting any F15.

Potential customers for the F-15 Silent Eagle were Saudi Arabia, Israel, Japan, and South Korea. However, the Saudis choose to procure the F-15SA, while Israel, Japan, and South Korea selected the F-35. Singapore chose to procure the F-15SG in 2005 over the Dassault Rafale, the only other remaining aircraft in contention at that time (note the absense of F-35 as contender)

Rather, Japan, Turkey and S Korea are going for their own F-22 equivalent development. The US will get the PCA in time.

Really?

Japan has 42 F-35A on order. These multirole aircraft will likely replace Japanese built 71 F-4 Phantoms still in service rather than 200 F-15J/DJ. Mitsubishi X-2 Shinshin (formerly the ATD-X) is a Japanese experimental aircraft for testing advanced stealth fighter aircraft technologies. At the beginning of this century, Japan, seeking to replace its aging fleet of fighter aircraft, began making overtures to the United States on the topic of purchasing several F-22 fighters. However the U.S. Congress had banned the exporting of the aircraft in order to safeguard secrets of the aircraft's technology such as its extensive use of stealth. This necessitated Japan to develop its own modern fighter, to be equipped with stealth features and other advanced systems.The ATD-X program will lead to a F-3 fighter which should carry sixth-generation technology, expected to be produced in 2027. So, this is in fact the F-15 replacement for Japan. F-35A procurement is not stopping this development. These aircraft will operate side by side.

As indicated, Turkey never had and isn't getting any F15. In 1984 Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) was established and Turkey started to produce fighter aircraft locally under license, including a total of 232 F-16 Block 30/40/50 aircraft for the Turkeish air force. TAI is currently building 30 new F-16 Block 50+ aircraft for the TuAF and is applying a CCIP upgrade on the existing fleet of Block 30/40/50 F-16s, which will bring all of them to the Block 50+ standard. Turkey is one of only five countries in the world which locally produce the F-16 Fighting Falcon.
On July 11, 2002 Turkey became a Level 3 partner of the F-35 (JSF) development program, and on January 25, 2007, Turkey officially joined the production phase of the JSF program, agreeing to initially purchase 116 F-35A Lightning II aircraft. Turkey also has a national fifth generation fighter aircraft project named the TAI TFX. On 15 December 2010, Turkey's Defence Industry Executive Committee (SSIK) decided to design, develop, and manufacture an indigenous next generation air-to-air combat fighter which would replace Turkey's F-16 fleet and work together with the F-35. The TAI TFX is a twin-engine all-weather Turkish aerial superiority fighter jet being developed by TAI with technological assistance from BAE System of the United Kingdom. The aircraft is slated to replace all TuAF's F-16s and is being planned to be offered to foreign air forces as well. On 28 March 2013, the Turkish Secretary of the Defence Industry of the Ministry of National Defence of Turkey Murat Bayar announced intentions to replace the F-16 fighter with domestically produced fighters by 2023

As for South Korea, the KF-X program is an early-stage project to develop an indigenous fighter aircraft. The overall focus of the program is producing a 4.5th generation fighter with higher capabilities than a KF-16 class fighter by 2020. Quantities of the resulting fighter are planned at 120 for the ROK Air Force and 80 for the Indonesian Air Force. South Korea plans to procure it from 2023 to 2030. The current proposal is to develop an F-16 Block 50 class aircraft with basic stealth capabilities to replace the F-4D/E Phantom II and F-5E/F Tiger II aircraft of ROKAF. The KF-X is envisioned as a medium fighter to at first supplement, then replace the ROK Air Force's KF-16 fleet. It will have capabilities in between the light FA-50 fighter and the high-grade, long range, heavy payload F-15K and F-35 Lightning II. South Korea is reportedly seeking technological assistance from Saab, Boeing and Lockheed Martin for the production of the KF-X. On 15 July 2010, the Indonesia government agreed to fund 20% of KF-X project cost in return of around 50 planes built for Indonesian Air Force after project completion. In September 2010, Indonesia sent a team of legal and aviation experts to South Korea to discuss copyright issues of the aircraft. In December 2010 the program shifted from a F-16 class fighter to a stealth aircraft in order to respond to North Korean pressure.
The KF-X program is being accelerated, with required operational capabilities to be confirmed by mid-July 2014, and bidding to start as early as one month later. The ADD and ROKAF appeared to have chosen a double-engine airframe for greater payload, mobility, thrust, and safety; proponents for a single-engine design maintain that it would be cheaper, more appealing for export, and that modern engine technologies make engine failure incidents rare. Efforts to accelerate the program may be to address the "air security vacuum" that would occur by 2019, when all F-4s and F-5s would be retired and leave the Air Force 100 planes short. The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) met that month and officially set specifications and a schedule for the KF-X. The KF-X will be equipped with two engines to address future operational needs and keep up with neighboring countries’ aircraft development trends. Heated debates from KIDA, KAI, and the Korea Defense and Security Forum over the higher costs of developing a twin-engine fighter, the potential difficulty in selling it abroad, and that higher costs would block creation of indigenous avionics and force the adoption of foreign systems were countered by Air Force and ADD arguments that Indonesian support will lower costs during mass production, most technologies were already created independently, and that a larger aircraft has more room for upgrades. The initial design is to be a 4.5 generation fighter with a 20,000 lb (9,100 kg)+ payload, with the KF-X Block 2 having an internal weapons bay, and the Block 3 having stealth features comparable to the F-35 Lightning II or B-2 Spirit. Initial operating capability (IOC) is scheduled for 2025, two years later than previously expected

The USAF revealed it is planning to acquire a new long-range fighter that would accompany the Northrop Grumman B-21 Raider deep into enemy territory. The new fighter, of which few details are known, would help the bomber survive enemy air defenses. The new fighter, known as "Penetrating Counter-Air" (PCA) was officially revealed during the Air Force Association's 2016 annual conference. This is in fact a 6th generation replacement for both F-15C/D (single seat) and F22 replacement. By the time it enters service—in the year 2035—the stealthy F-22 will be 30 years old while most the F-15C fleet will be more than 50 years old.

 

[Gomig-21]

Those upgrades are not even worth mentioning. All aircraft go through these.

Critical hardware upgrades take a decade or more.

That was a software and hardware upgrade. You can't say it's not worth mentioning because it shows upgradability besides MUL's which you say is something that is easily done on any other aircraft except the F-22 and F-35. A "critical" hardware upgrade would essentially be more or less the same degree of difficulty in any aircraft, but the F-35 was designed to receive significant upgrades whenever they're needed.

So what you're basically saying is the F-35 is simply a BVR/missile truck, not a fighter.

So it can't actually penetrate enemy air space, it just stays away from the enemy and tries to shoot them from a distance. Right?

Not "can't" but "doesn't need to." What you're implying is that in order for the F-35 to meet the standards of a great (or even the best fighter), it has to immediately penetrate air space in order to be effective. That's old school tech tactics. Who in their right mind wouldn't prefer to take on SEAD from a distance to neutralize it first, then penetrate enemy airspace to take out targets? Heck with all these new innovations in PGM's and cruise missiles, taking out targets won't even require penetration. This is the ultimate tactic. The same applies to air targets. You always want to fight them at a safe distance and that's the whole shtick on this aircraft.

If what you're implying is that once it's in visual contact it doesn't have the capabilities to perform, that's not true either. HMCS and the AIM-9x and many other advantages this thing has.

The NGJ is meant for a very different and very specific purpose. It can't help the F-35 fight off other fighters. It's not a self-protection suite. No, the presence of the NGJ does nothing to cover up the F-35's weaknesses.

It compliments the F-35's ECM suite & caps but more importantly it proves that the US is hardly lagging behind to Europe & Russia by 15 years.

Performance. Not stealth, not superior avionics. It's pure performance. Speed, acceleration, and altitude in particular.

I don't think it has a problem with altitude, as a matter of fact I think it surpasses the Rafale in altitude. But in speed and acceleration, again, it's designed to win the fight from a distance and if/when it finds itself WVR, it still has some advantage. If I'm not mistaken, it has an equal or shorter minimum radius turn than the Rafale. While Rafale has some advantages, I think the same can be said about the F-35.

Stealth is useless if your radar becomes useless. The enemy can't see you, but you can't see the enemy either. EW is an extremely powerful tool and has become more deadly than passive shaping based stealth.

You do realize that the F-35 has the AN/ASQ-239 ECM right? And why is its radar useless?

+++++++++++
@Gomig-21
http://i-hls.com/archives/69312
The current stock of operational aircraft come with a pre-programmed bank of known enemy radar signals. New and unknown signals are registered, but until they are analysed and fed into the threat library, the plane has no defences against them, no way to jam the radar signal.

“Today, when our aircrafts go out on their missions, they’re loaded up with a set of jamming profiles—these are specific frequencies and waveforms that they can transmit in order to jam and disrupt an adversary’s radar to protect themselves,” Prabhakar said. “Sometimes when they go out today, they encounter a new kind of frequency or different waveform—one that they’re not programmed for, that’s not in their library, and in a time of conflict, that would leave them exposed.”

“So what all of that means is that our aircraft in the future won’t have to wait weeks, months to years, but in real time, in the battlespace, they’ll be able to adapt and jam this new radar threat that they get.”
++++++++++++

The F-35 doesn't have this capability. Neither the F-22 of course. But Rafale and Su-35 do.

It doesn't make sense, TBH. So it's own ECM suite and escort jamming instantly makes it a dead duck? I think they're severely underestimating its ability to react to any of those unknown threat signals and that it's too reliant strictly on its threat library.

If you're saying that the F-35 is only capable against 4th generation platforms and that it will be swallowed whole against other 5th gen aircraft, well, where are these 5th gen aircraft? The F-35 is already here.

 

[randomradio]

I decided nothing. This is the law of physics. A single antenna cannot do both jobs AT THE SAME TIME. This is not 'Indian physics'.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7858673/

Note the highlighted.

Yes. This is how the F-22 and F-35 radars operate. But this is not how the upcoming LCA radar operates.

Digital AESA is awesome, you better research it.
http://innovation.columbia.edu/tech...eneration-wireless-communication-applications
Simultaneous Transmit and Receive (STAR) antennas are capable of sending and receiving a signal at the same time on the same frequency and can double communication data rates in wireless point-to-point communications.

Now it is confirmed you do not know what the hell you are talking about.

An AESA system is fully capable of multi-beams management. Your post 195 pretty much declared that such is not possible when you said this: As far as Spectra is concerned, that's only 1 threat.

Wrong. Because you made the wrong conclusion.

Are you saying a single T/R module on the APG-77 can create multiple beams? Because that's what you are insinuating.

If I give you just a single transceiver from the APG-77, can you perform multi-beam management? Nope. Analog AESA.

But if I give you a single transceiver from the new LCA radar, you will be able to. Digital AESA.

You obviously have no clue about digital beamforming.

Read the posts properly, you are talking about something completely different and outdated.

Wrong. SPECTRA will see multiple threat and will not be able to deal with them.

Figure a. How many main beams will be available with figure a? You tell me.

You obviously have no clue what I was saying there. I said if you dedicate 1000 T/R modules towards detection of the Rafale, then Spectra is only dealing with one type of signal. No partitioning, no choreography. How is this so hard to understand?

Further evidence of your ignorance.

Sub array partitioning means all sub arrays are independent at the moment of creation and can operate independently of each other. An array can transmit while another array can receive.

Your own source says so...

https://ll.mit.edu/publications/technotes/STARarray.html

It is YOU who do not understand what you brought on. It is YOU who are confused on what the phrase 'subarray partitioning and choreography' really means.

Wow, I have to break it down really, really slowly for you, since you see to be so hell bent on making up shit.

Read very, very slowly. This is what I said.
The T/R modules of analog AESA can only emit one beam at a time. And while it is transmitting it cannot receive.

I am not talking about partitioning or choreography here. I am only saying a single T/R module can only emit a single beam at a time, and when this single transceiver is radiating, it is not receiving. How is this so hard to figure out? Can't you see the word "analog" there? Can't you see the word "time" there?

The APG-77 is an 'obsolete' analog radar. It has been supplanted by digital radars.

A digital T/R module can radiate multiple beams on a single timestamp.

Very good. However, I did revealed that answer elsewhere on this forum. I bet the search feature helped you out. But am willing to give you credit for that.

Great. The child is being condescending for nothing.

This is where you are wrong. Again.

A pulse train is composed of multiple pulses and each must be treated as a standalone signal. So if a train has 1 million pulses, that is 1 million signals that SPECTRA must process. SPECTRA has three antennas, so claimed. That means each antenna must time share between transmit and receive per threat pulse train.

Easy peasy.

Looky here...You got busted with that ISRJ thing when you thought that your source would back up your argument. It did not. Interrupted sampling does not mean you can replicate something you have never seen before. The context of your source has nothing to do with what SPECTRA claimed it could do.

You are the one assuming it has anything to do with Rafale or Spectra. I posted that just to show you that you don't need to sample a large part of the pulse train like you claimed.

The only thing busted is your comprehension skills, as is evident from all the posturing you are doing to hide the fact that you were proven wrong.

We want to know how can SPECTRA sample only three out of five and is able to replicate the other two perfectly in order to achieve active cancellation.

As I said, the process for dealing with unknown hostile signals is classified, but Spectra can react to a signal at each pulse.

So are those foreign pilots who have been to Red Flag. Am still waiting for a few that says the exercise is rigged. Got any ?

Foreign pilots are forced to use legacy USAF platforms to challenge the F-35 in Red Flag. And as I said, Red Flag is not rigged. You are asking me to disprove a claim you made.

I said the same thing you said. The F-35 threat library has to be uploaded with a response to a threat. If it has no data about the threat, then the F-35 is dead. I have no clue how you decided I said Red Flag is rigged from that.

And what does that prove ?

If you want to criticize US aviation, your own India's is open to fair game. We have been leading the world in aviation in all fronts. You really want to go there ?

It says the F-35 development is still not complete, so hold your horses before making a judgement. It's not completed to the point where even the USAF can verify it. You do realize that Block 3F is still not operational right?

I really wanna see how the superior stealth, superior avionics F-35 is going to deal with the F-22.

Haha. Yeah. I suppose that why a tiny country like Netherlands (17 million people) bought 213 F16s and even smaller Belgium bought 160. What a load.

F-16s don't give you offensive power. Look at the threat they faced, the Soviet Union. Their F-16s were purely for homeland defence.

Kindly document that claim.

The Japanese are going to use their F-35s for air superiority until a new F-15 replacement comes in.

The US as well. General Hostage:
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/...he-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/
“The F-35 was fundamentally designed to go do that sort of thing [take out advanced IADS]. The problem is, with the lack of F-22s, I’m going to have to use F-35s in the air superiority role in the early phases as well, which is another reason why I need all 1,763. I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,” the general says.

F-22 production ceased in 2011, with all aircraft in US service (no exports).
Hence there is no way for Japan (2016: 200 F15J/DJ), Israel (2011: 20 F-15A, 6 F-15B, 11 F-15C, and 6 F-15D. 2014: 25 F-15I based on E), and South Korea (61 F-15K) to replace F15s with F22s. Or even for the US for that matter. Turkey never had and isn't getting any F15.

Production should have continued into the 2020s.

All the countries I named are either working towards or waiting for a real F-15 replacement, but they are being forced to make do with the F-35 until then. I mean, even the US is in that predicament, so it's nothing special.

Potential customers for the F-15 Silent Eagle were Saudi Arabia, Israel, Japan, and South Korea. However, the Saudis choose to procure the F-15SA, while Israel, Japan, and South Korea selected the F-35. Singapore chose to procure the F-15SG in 2005 over the Dassault Rafale, the only other remaining aircraft in contention at that time (note the absense of F-35 as contender)

The F-15SA is not a F-15C, it's a strike fighter.

Singapore chose the F-15SG because of costs. Dassault had qualified.

 

[CriticalThought]

The F-35 will show its true potential when it gets a laser based active protection from incoming missiles. A network of these birds will be a power to reckon. But this is a distant future. For now, the base platform of VTOL, sensor fusion, and network centric warfare is getting matured. Make no mistake. This is already a potent platform when used along with the right supporting assets. And it will get truly devastating in the future.

 

[Penguin]

F-16s don't give you offensive power. Look at the threat they faced, the Soviet Union. Their F-16s were purely for homeland defence.

Sure. Tell that to Israel. The threat our countries faced required us to 'forward defend', using the air force. Hence our dinky country got so many.

The Japanese are going to use their F-35s for air superiority until a new F-15 replacement comes in.

The US as well. General Hostage:
http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/...he-f-35-no-growlers-needed-when-war-starts/3/
“The F-35 was fundamentally designed to go do that sort of thing [take out advanced IADS]. The problem is, with the lack of F-22s, I’m going to have to use F-35s in the air superiority role in the early phases as well, which is another reason why I need all 1,763. I’m going to have some F-35s doing air superiority, some doing those early phases of persistent attack, opening the holes, and again, the F-35 is not compelling unless it’s there in numbers,” the general says.

Their use as such, pending arrival of the domestically developed F-3, does not mean the F-35s were ordered as F-15J replacement to begin with.

Production should have continued into the 2020s.

That is an opinion, which has no relevance in terms of the discusison.

All the countries I named are either working towards or waiting for a real F-15 replacement, but they are being forced to make do with the F-35 until then. I mean, even the US is in that predicament, so it's nothing special.

No. For starters, Turkey HAS NOT OPERATED ANY F15. Hence their TFX is not an F15 replacement (its an F16 replacement). Likewise, ROKAF (which operates F-15E) is not seeking its domestic jet to be an F15 replacement: it is seeking something to replace F16 and even older F5. Japan I already adressed: its development of F-3 is an F-15C replacement to complement F-35 so the F-35 is not the F15C replacement but a F-4 Phantom replacement. USAF PCA is both and F15C/D AND F22 replacement.

The F-15SA is not a F-15C, it's a strike fighter.

Totally irrelevant to the discussion (you didn't even bring up Saudi Arabia earlier and ROKAF F-15K Slam Eagle - which you did bring up - likewise is an E variant)

Singapore chose the F-15SG because of costs. Dassault had qualified.

You at first didn't even mention Singapore. And it bought F15 rather than F35 (so there goes the replacement theory: who not buy F-35 to begin with then?)