Discussion: Assassination of Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran

[Waz]

Where am I wrong? Has Iran demonstrated any real credible ability to sink a CSG? Not even China has demonstrated that. And again, I have not posted anything about the things I have never claimed. I want to know how they can sink a carrier.

Are you going to bark here or present some informative content on the subject?

Personal attacks not needed.

 

[Nuffle]

Shape of airplanes like f35, f22, or b2 is a precise mathematical calculation its nit like f16 that you add conformation fuel tank and say it's done. Any change t the shape and rcs change from .001 to .5

It will certainly increase the RCS of the F-35I. This is why I think they would use drop tanks instead of the conformal fuel tanks.

The image above shows the combat radius for an air-to-air configuration, for an air-to-ground mission configuration the range is 1,240 km, with the distance from Nevatim to Tehran being about 1,600 km. With an F-35I, the 2 x 600 gallon tanks (8040 lbs total) would result in a 44% increase in fuel.

It is possible that this would only produce a 15% increase in range, but a 15% increase, for example, would mean that an F-35I taking off from Nevatim AFB could reach approximately 185 km from Tehran without aerial refueling, versus about 370 km without external tanks.

This difference of 185 km may not seem like much, but it is the difference between an Israeli Delilah air-launched cruise missile (range 250 km) being within range or not, for example.

Furthermore, I highly doubt that Israel will stop using REVO aircraft in certain air missions, such as a deep strike against Iran, obviously with all the operational details before executing the mission, refueling after takeoff or during the transfer to Iran or on the way back, the possibilities here are endless.

 

[Hack-Hook]

It will certainly increase the RCS of the F-35I. This is why I think they would use drop tanks instead of the conformal fuel tanks.
View attachment 59497
The image above shows the combat radius for an air-to-air configuration, for an air-to-ground mission configuration the range is 1,240 km, with the distance from Nevatim to Tehran being about 1,600 km. With an F-35I, the 2 x 600 gallon tanks (8040 lbs total) would result in a 44% increase in fuel.

It is possible that this would only produce a 15% increase in range, but a 15% increase, for example, would mean that an F-35I taking off from Nevatim AFB could reach approximately 185 km from Tehran without aerial refueling, versus about 370 km without external tanks.

This difference of 185 km may not seem like much, but it is the difference between an Israeli Delilah air-launched cruise missile (range 250 km) being within range or not, for example.

Furthermore, I highly doubt that Israel will stop using REVO aircraft in certain air missions, such as a deep strike against Iran, obviously with all the operational details before executing the mission, refueling after takeoff or during the transfer to Iran or on the way back, the possibilities here are endless.

The drop tanks made those f35 like Christmas tree on Iran bvr radars also they take place on external pylons and limit f35 to its internal pylon .
The question is what they will carry in those internal pylon that can penetrative Iran facilities

 

[Nuffle]

The drop tanks made those f35 like Christmas tree on Iran bvr radars also they take place on external pylons and limit f35 to its internal pylon .
The question is what they will carry in those internal pylon that can penetrative Iran facilities

Not if the IAF ejects the tanks before they even approach Iran, depending on the route they follow:
Israel-Syria-Turkey-Iran: 1,200 km
Israel-Syria-Iraq-Iran: 1,400 km
Israel-Jordan-Iraq-Iran: 1,500 km
Israel-Saudi Arabia-Iran: 1,800 km
Israel-Saudi Arabia-Iraq-Iran: 1,900 km

In order to have similar range/radius/endurance, American fighters install external tanks (droppable or conformal) since they have greater payload capacity. It was said that by 2023 both the Americans and Israelis would have external tanks for the F-35 (it is not known what type). This will allow for an even greater increase in range, without compromising stealth in the event that they are jettisonable, since they would be jettisoned before entering contested areas.

If they are conformal (the Israelis are likely to be), they will have to incorporate some stealth technology; even if they achieve a higher RCS, there will not be such a large increase in this regard. Furthermore, we do not know what technologies the Israelis may develop; a REVO drone like the MQ-25 is a very real possibility, which would make the F-35I and MQ-25 combination ideal for this type of operation.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Not if the IAF ejects the tanks before they even approach Iran, depending on the route they follow:
Israel-Syria-Turkey-Iran: 1,200 km
Israel-Syria-Iraq-Iran: 1,400 km
Israel-Jordan-Iraq-Iran: 1,500 km
Israel-Saudi Arabia-Iran: 1,800 km
Israel-Saudi Arabia-Iraq-Iran: 1,900 km

In order to have similar range/radius/endurance, American fighters install external tanks (droppable or conformal) since they have greater payload capacity. It was said that by 2023 both the Americans and Israelis would have external tanks for the F-35 (it is not known what type). This will allow for an even greater increase in range, without compromising stealth in the event that they are jettisonable, since they would be jettisoned before entering contested areas.

If they are conformal (the Israelis are likely to be), they will have to incorporate some stealth technology; even if they achieve a higher RCS, there will not be such a large increase in this regard. Furthermore, we do not know what technologies the Israelis may develop; a REVO drone like the MQ-25 is a very real possibility, which would make the F-35I and MQ-25 combination ideal for this type of operation.

Those radar have between 900 to 2000km of range

 

[Nuffle]

Those radar have between 900 to 2000km of range

Are you telling me that a radar can detect an F-35 at ranges of 900-2,000 km? Is that right? You know that this depends on the aircraft's RCS and flight altitude, right?

For example, Nebo-U is capable of detecting an aircraft with an RCS of 2.5m2 at 65 km flying at an altitude of 500 meters, it can detect an aircraft flying at 10,000 meters at a range of 310 km, or detect an aircraft flying at an altitude of 20,000 meters at a range of 400 km. A cruise missile with an RCS of 0.9m2 can be detected at 250 km flying at 10,000 meters or at 300 km flying at 20,000 meters.

These types of OTH radars can only detect air targets at ranges as large as 900-2,000 km depending on the aircraft's RCS and flight altitude. The Russian Nebo T/M, for example, can detect a large allied aerospace strike (500-2,000 km), because for this strike they will have several Package Strike aircraft that need to fly at high altitudes, from aircraft like JSTARS, AWACS, REVO, RC-135... among others, even the detection of fighters at such range is still a big unknown.

Even before getting close to Iran, the IAF will have to release the drop tank and continue flying at low to medium altitudes, in order to avoid being detected at ranges as large as 500 km. Iran would certainly have a reaction time of a few minutes when F-35 fighters are close in range and altitude of detection by such radars, but strategic surprise is something that Iran certainly will not avoid.

 

[Immortals]

Are you telling me that a radar can detect an F-35 at ranges of 900-2,000 km? Is that right? You know that this depends on the aircraft's RCS and flight altitude, right?

For example, Nebo-U is capable of detecting an aircraft with an RCS of 2.5m2 at 65 km flying at an altitude of 500 meters, it can detect an aircraft flying at 10,000 meters at a range of 310 km, or detect an aircraft flying at an altitude of 20,000 meters at a range of 400 km. A cruise missile with an RCS of 0.9m2 can be detected at 250 km flying at 10,000 meters or at 300 km flying at 20,000 meters.

Learn the difference between detecting and targeting.

They are two different things in the radar world.

Some radars can detect at far ranges, but its a general location and cannot be used for target acquisition, but it helps other radars know which sectors/quadrants to scan.

And all these RCS m2 you quote are frontal RCS meaning if the radar waves hit from the front (ie object flying towards), nothing hits perfectly from the front that’s lab testing/radar room. F-22 actually worked to reduce RCS on all sides.

Lastly they are assuming no drop tanks or armaments on hard points (stealth configuration), that means much less ammo since the internal weapon bay is quite limited plus the need to carry A2A for self protection.

So F-35 you quote is lab RCS with no hard points and stealth configuration heading to Iran and only being hit by radar directly from the frontal section.

Unrealistic to say the least.

 

[Immortals]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1823581053757407350

 

[Immortals]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1823708516609347756

 

[Immortals]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1823713891022725214

Circus Show continues in Tehran with sandwhiches provided by @jauk

 

[Immortals]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1823655923019022699

Doubt Iran’s attacking tonite or tomm. Iran will wait till weekend so Israel can waste time in negotiations.

More sandwhiches being delivered in Tehran for the rest of the week!

 

[Nuffle]

Learn the difference between detecting and targeting.

They are two different things in the radar world.

Some radars can detect at far ranges, but its a general location and cannot be used for target acquisition, but it helps other radars know which sectors/quadrants to scan.

I don't need to learn because I know the difference. Still, detecting fighters at ranges of 900-2,000 km is highly speculative and depends on several factors. It is simply impossible for an OTH radar to detect a LO/VLO fighter flying at medium altitude at a range of 800 km, even if it had an antenna as high as 50 meters. As I said, detecting aircraft can be done at such great ranges, but only depending on the aircraft type, RCS and its altitude.

And all these RCS m2 you quote are frontal RCS meaning if the radar waves hit from the front (ie object flying towards), nothing hits perfectly from the front that’s lab testing/radar room. F-22 actually worked to reduce RCS on all sides.

The quadrant of greatest interest is the aircraft's forward RCS. As a rule, when we talk about an aircraft's RCS, we are referring to the RCS in the X-band of its forward quadrant. The rear RCS is the second most important and is usually slightly higher than the forward RCS. A side, top or bottom view of the aircraft will usually show a much higher RCS than the front quadrant. The RCS varies with the aircraft's viewing angle and the frequency of the radar signal; normally the lower the radar frequency, the higher the RCS. The frequency band of greatest concern is the band in which fire control radars (radars capable of providing a firing solution for missiles) operate, especially the X-band (8-12GHz), which is the band most used by SAMs and fighter aircraft.

Regarding the difference between an F-22 and an F-35, in 2014, General Hostage, head of Air Combat Command, said: “The radar cross section of the F-35 is much smaller than the F-22, but that does not mean that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war.” For those wondering about the value of the opinion of a general sitting behind a desk, know that Hostage flew the F-22, as well as most models of the F-15 and F-16. Hostage’s statements caused some stir, contradicting independent analysis and conventional wisdom on low-observability techniques that pointed to the F-22 as a stealthier aircraft. But according to Lt. Gen. Christopher C. Bogdan: “I would say that General Hostage was accurate in his statement about the stealth level of the F-35.” He also scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.

Well, I'm not going to post comments from someone who's flown both fighters here. The F-22 has a more disciplined surface than the F-35, meaning it has fewer protrusions along the fuselage, especially on the underside. The mitigating factor is that the F-35’s bulges follow the stealth shape rule (a gentle curvature) and have very little effect on the RCS in the forward aspect, since the bulges represent a fraction of the fuselage cross-section relative to the forward aspect. The F-22’s exhaust nozzle also uses a more stealthy design. Two angled wedge-shaped “petals” form a 2D nozzle with only two large edges each. Meanwhile, the F-35 uses an axisymmetric nozzle with several small “petals” with angled edges that control the reflection direction a little less, and also use smaller edges with greater potential for interaction with waves. As with the fuselage bulges, the mitigating factor is that the nozzle has little effect on the forward RCS.

The F-22 uses a traditional splitter plate air intake to divert the boundary layer away from the engine inlet, thus creating an inappropriate space between the air intake and the fuselage in terms of stealth; the F-35 uses diverterless-supersonic inlets (DSI), which are essentially more stealthy and eliminate complex and heavy mechanical systems. The DSI inlet has a large bulge in the fuselage with a gentle curvature that can divert turbulent air from the boundary layer. The bulge also deflects radar waves by obeying well-defined shape criteria, further reducing the field of view to the engine and absorbing radar waves with a thick layer of RAM. In the rear aspect, the great innovation in the F-35 was the adoption of an afterburner system that acts as a true blocker in the exhaust duct to mask the turbine, which, like the engine fan in the front aspect, is a large source of radar reflection, in addition to IR emission. The F-22 also has a “stealth” afterburner system, but without the masking capabilities of the F-35 system.

Manufacturing tolerance (the limit of permissible inaccuracy for a part) is one of the key factors in building a stealth aircraft. The F-22, for example, had manufacturing tolerances of 1/10,000th of an inch. The F-35 production line is orders of magnitude more precise than the F-22, which was built using comparatively dated manufacturing techniques. The F-35 team is employing advanced assembly methods and high-precision manufacturing machines; new milling machines with precision less than the width of a human hair ensure that the external shape of the F-35 is accurate and meets stealth requirements. Reducing or nearly eliminating gaps between structural parts is highly desirable to achieve stealth characteristics in an aircraft. In fact, one of the reasons the F-35 uses fewer stealth coatings and gap fillers is due to the extremely tight manufacturing tolerances. The more precise the fuselage assembly, the easier it is for the current induced by an illuminating radar to travel through the skin of the aircraft. This induced current, when it encounters any discontinuity, radiates radar waves back to the illuminating radar.

Another area where the F-35 has advanced over the F-22 is in stealth materials. Everything that was observed during the F-22 operations served to improve the materials for the F-35. The F-35 is made of composite material in approximately 42% of its weight, compared to 22% in the F-22 and 2% in the F-16. The F-35 contains a layer of fiber mat (fibermat) cured directly on the fuselage that eliminates the layer of “conductive paint” found in the F-22, “completely eliminating” this dangerous and difficult-to-apply substance. Conductive paint uses silver in its composition to provide conductivity to the fuselage and make it opaque to radar waves so that they do not penetrate the fuselage and reflect off the aircraft's internal components. While conductive paint is relatively sensitive to pressure and chemicals such as fuel and oil, the F-35's fiber carpet is only affected if the fuselage is actually damaged.

In addition to several other complementary factors, the result, clearly, is that the F-35's stealth system is an order of magnitude reduction in maintenance compared to all other stealth systems. Not surprisingly, in fiscal year 2020, the F-35A was the USAF's most mission-capable fighter aircraft, achieving 76.07% availability versus 51.98% for the F-22, even surpassing legacy aircraft such as the F-16 and F-15.

Lastly they are assuming no drop tanks or armaments on hard points (stealth configuration), that means much less ammo since the internal weapon bay is quite limited plus the need to carry A2A for self protection.

This would definitely increase the RCS and there is no point in arguing about that. But again, even at this point, an OTH radar is still unlikely to detect a VLO fighter at ranges of 900-2,000 km.

So F-35 you quote is lab RCS with no hard points and stealth configuration heading to Iran and only being hit by radar directly from the frontal section.


Unrealistic to say the least.

No. What I am claiming is the impossibility of an OTH radar detecting a VLO fighter at ranges of 900-2,000 km. This is the unrealistic scenario of the debate here.

 

[Immortals]

I don't need to learn because I know the difference. Still, detecting fighters at ranges of 900-2,000 km is highly speculative and depends on several factors. It is simply impossible for an OTH radar to detect a LO/VLO fighter flying at medium altitude at a range of 800 km, even if it had an antenna as high as 50 meters. As I said, detecting aircraft can be done at such great ranges, but only depending on the aircraft type, RCS and its altitude.

Again you are misnformed.

Modern OTH radar (like the one operated by US in Israel) can detect an orange size object thrown into sky from 1000KM+ away.

But a fighter jet is hard to ping?

Do you know how OTH works? It’s radar wave comes from above which is the least RCS designed surface on a VLO fighter flying in 35,000 altitude. The RCS you like to quote is from the a very specific section of the front. From above the F-35 can be illuminated and show up as being in a sector of airspace. That would be enough to alert early warning radars, prepare air defense crews, send up F-14’s to try their best, turn on high performance targeting radars of various bands (NEBO, etc) and prepare for arrival of enemy fighter squadrons

So again either present evidence (physics based) or your claim that OTH cannot detect F-35 is completely conjecture.





Anyway within 10-15 years the world will have quantum radars which will make this whole fanboy arguement a mute point as entanglement of a photon in the atmosphere can provide greater detail than modern radars.

Pentagon has been working on the concept since 1990 and it’s difficultly is one of the “easier” quantum problems to solve (with quantum encryption being the easiest and quantum computing the hardest).

 

[Immortals]

Regarding the difference between an F-22 and an F-35, in 2014, General Hostage, head of Air Combat Command, said: “The radar cross section of the F-35 is much smaller than the F-22, but that does not mean that the F-35 is necessarily superior to the F-22 when we go to war.” For those wondering about the value of the opinion of a general sitting behind a desk, know that Hostage flew the F-22, as well as most models of the F-15 and F-16. Hostage’s statements caused some stir, contradicting independent analysis and conventional wisdom on low-observability techniques that pointed to the F-22 as a stealthier aircraft. But according to Lt. Gen. Christopher C. Bogdan: “I would say that General Hostage was accurate in his statement about the stealth level of the F-35.” He also scoffed at the notion that anyone can tell how stealthy an aircraft is just by looking at it.

Well, I'm not going to post comments from someone who's flown both fighters here. The F-22 has a more disciplined surface than the F-35, meaning it has fewer protrusions along the fuselage, especially on the underside. The mitigating factor is that the F-35’s bulges follow the stealth shape rule (a gentle curvature) and have very little effect on the RCS in the forward aspect, since the bulges represent a fraction of the fuselage cross-section relative to the forward aspect. The F-22’s exhaust nozzle also uses a more stealthy design. Two angled wedge-shaped “petals” form a 2D nozzle with only two large edges each. Meanwhile, the F-35 uses an axisymmetric nozzle with several small “petals” with angled edges that control the reflection direction a little less, and also use smaller edges with greater potential for interaction with waves. As with the fuselage bulges, the mitigating factor is that the nozzle has little effect on the forward RCS.

The F-22 uses a traditional splitter plate air intake to divert the boundary layer away from the engine inlet, thus creating an inappropriate space between the air intake and the fuselage in terms of stealth; the F-35 uses diverterless-supersonic inlets (DSI), which are essentially more stealthy and eliminate complex and heavy mechanical systems. The DSI inlet has a large bulge in the fuselage with a gentle curvature that can divert turbulent air from the boundary layer. The bulge also deflects radar waves by obeying well-defined shape criteria, further reducing the field of view to the engine and absorbing radar waves with a thick layer of RAM. In the rear aspect, the great innovation in the F-35 was the adoption of an afterburner system that acts as a true blocker in the exhaust duct to mask the turbine, which, like the engine fan in the front aspect, is a large source of radar reflection, in addition to IR emission. The F-22 also has a “stealth” afterburner system, but without the masking capabilities of the F-35 system.

Manufacturing tolerance (the limit of permissible inaccuracy for a part) is one of the key factors in building a stealth aircraft. The F-22, for example, had manufacturing tolerances of 1/10,000th of an inch. The F-35 production line is orders of magnitude more precise than the F-22, which was built using comparatively dated manufacturing techniques. The F-35 team is employing advanced assembly methods and high-precision manufacturing machines; new milling machines with precision less than the width of a human hair ensure that the external shape of the F-35 is accurate and meets stealth requirements. Reducing or nearly eliminating gaps between structural parts is highly desirable to achieve stealth characteristics in an aircraft. In fact, one of the reasons the F-35 uses fewer stealth coatings and gap fillers is due to the extremely tight manufacturing tolerances. The more precise the fuselage assembly, the easier it is for the current induced by an illuminating radar to travel through the skin of the aircraft. This induced current, when it encounters any discontinuity, radiates radar waves back to the illuminating radar.

Another area where the F-35 has advanced over the F-22 is in stealth materials. Everything that was observed during the F-22 operations served to improve the materials for the F-35. The F-35 is made of composite material in approximately 42% of its weight, compared to 22% in the F-22 and 2% in the F-16. The F-35 contains a layer of fiber mat (fibermat) cured directly on the fuselage that eliminates the layer of “conductive paint” found in the F-22, “completely eliminating” this dangerous and difficult-to-apply substance. Conductive paint uses silver in its composition to provide conductivity to the fuselage and make it opaque to radar waves so that they do not penetrate the fuselage and reflect off the aircraft's internal components. While conductive paint is relatively sensitive to pressure and chemicals such as fuel and oil, the F-35's fiber carpet is only affected if the fuselage is actually damaged.

In addition to several other complementary factors, the result, clearly, is that the F-35's stealth system is an order of magnitude reduction in maintenance compared to all other stealth systems. Not surprisingly, in fiscal year 2020, the F-35A was the USAF's most mission-capable fighter aircraft, achieving 76.07% availability versus 51.98% for the F-22, even surpassing legacy aircraft such as the F-16 and F-15.

thanks for the copy pasta.

But if you try to make the claim F-35 has better stealth characteristics than F-22 you will be laughed out of the room.

Yes F-35 has SOME improvements (particularly electronics based) especially on early F-22 models (that are now being retired), but that is to be expected considering F-22 developed started in the 90’s. Compare the price of RAM in 1995 to 2005.

But hands down Congress and the military has admitted that shutting down F-22 production line was a bonehead move back in the 2000’s to save on cost when it turned out it was by far the better fighter jet and by now could have been on a much more modern block of upgrades (compare 1980 F-16 to today for example) and would blow F-35 out of the water any given day of the week.

Yes F-35 maintenance is better than the abysmal F-22, to be expected in many aspects. But that’s like saying NVDA 4090 has better architecture than 3090. To be expected.

But by no means is F-35 close to rivaling an F-22 in the field of VLO. There is a reason why Congress never sold that plane to another country including its beloved Israel.

So I won’t debate that topic under any terms. Anyone trying to bring that argument is a fanboy.

 

[warking2005]

I am waiting for iran to do something if they don't well I have lost all respect for iran.