P-8 Poseidon

[NavyShooter]

Again,

My thought with this was that if you need to ID a Merchie ship, a Helo or MPA (due to low speed and RCS) will likely show up on even a basic Nav Radar, giving them some warning before the flyover.

Using a go-fast (CF-18/F-35) would give minimal warning and likely be filtered out due to speed on most Nav radars.

If you're doing an overflight for ID/INTEL on a warship, then sending in an MPA/HELO is a good way to write a bunch of letters if there is hostile intent.  Sending in an F-18/F-35 is a much more survivable option.

Using an F-35/F-18 for on a merchie would probably result in a no-warning fly-over, with the potential for a "caught red-handed" set of photos.

YMMV, and I'm gonna go hide in my lane again...

NS

 

[aesop081]

If you're doing an overflight for ID/INTEL on a warship, then sending in an MPA/HELO is a good way to write a bunch of letters if there is hostile intent.  Sending in an F-18/F-35 is a much more survivable option.

Modern MPA sensors can ID a surface contact well outside of that contact's ability to shoot. Heck, a modern ESM set will tell you who it is without even having to see the ship on visual sensors........overflight not required. SAR/ISAR radar will produce a picture for you good enough for ID at 200NM standoff.........

Using an F-35/F-18 for on a merchie would probably result in a no-warning fly-over, with the potential for a "caught red-handed" set of photos.

I've caught plenty of people red-handed..........dont need a fighter for that. An MPA has plenty of stand-off sensors that give you the ability you speak of.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

You can either state they absolutely will be detected or you can say they might be. Two very different things, IMHO.

With things like anaprop, radar lobes and blind speeds, a "probable" detection is as good as you'll get. There will always be weird things that can happen to work both ways with radar.

 

[aesop081]

  This is what I think.  The Air Force’s fleet of Aurora maritime patrol aircraft is being reduced from 18 to 10.  Those aircraft also do considerable non-military work. 

Sorry Mark but i have to go back to this as well.

"considerable" is an uneducated statement. I know what the Aurora fleet YFR allocation is. I cannot say that the YFR allocation for non-military missions is "considerable". It is not.

Yes, i agree, you are "not that ignorant" but you are ill-equiped to comment as you do not understand / have a clear grasp of basic facts.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

With things like anaprop, radar lobes and blind speeds, a "probable" detection is as good as you'll get. There will always be weird things that can happen to work both ways with radar.

Because I know some people are not familiar with the term:
ANAPROP - anomalous propagation - when radar microwaves are refraction by things like inversions down to the ground, and are then reflected back to the dish - as far as the radar is concerned, something is there, and so it displays it as a return

Are you sure?  Only last week Transport Canada announced it was selling off its two planes.

Thanks George for the verification

 

[aesop081]

as far as the radar is concerned,

Additionaly, there may be range abiguity depending on the radar's specific mode of operation.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Additionaly, there may be range abiguity depending on the radar's specific mode of operation.

Very true but I did not want to further complicate the discussion as the majority are laymen for the most part.

 

[aesop081]

If you don't see, quite plainly, why a LO aircraft is better at conducting any type of reconnaissaince work then you should do your homework on LO and why it is just one of a myriad number of reasons why the JSF will perform well in that arena, amongst the other reasons being the AESA radar system.

WoF,

I am a maritime aviator and have the Advanced operational EW course, i hope you will agree that i have "done my homework".

LO technology is far from the "be-all-end-all" it is touted to be. Once an F-35 has radiated , its like hanging a big sign that says "here i am". Its range and loiter capability are limited. LO does not mean undetectable.....just like a jammer is only effective until the aircraft gets to the target radar's burn-through range. There is a museum in Belgrade with an exibit you might find interesting.

A non-stealthy MPA can hang around for hours, use a multitude of sensors to gather information and use its weapons to act if required. It can do this well outside a surface contact's ability to do anything about it.

 

[Fastam]

WoF,

I am a maritime aviator and have the Advanced operational EW course, i hope you will agree that i have "done my homework".

LO technology is far from the "be-all-end-all" it is touted to be. Once an F-35 has radiated , its like hanging a big sign that says "here i am". Its range and loiter capability are limited. LO does not mean undetectable.....just like a jammer is only effective until the aircraft gets to the target radar's burn-through range. There is a museum in Belgrade with an exibit you might find interesting.

A non-stealthy MPA can hang around for hours, use a multitude of sensors to gather information and use its weapons to act if required. It can do this well outside a surface contact's ability to do anything about it.

Long Time reader here , first post.

I would like to comment that the F-35 will have an AESA radar that it suposed to be an LPI set.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Probability_of_Intercept_Radar

While I doubt anyone on this forum knows just how hard these new fighter sized AESA's are to detect . Most of the unclassified info I can find on them sugest that it is next to impossible for current generation RWR's to detect.

From what I understand , the F-35 is suposed to have a system similar to the F-22s ALR-94 passive receiver system. which can detect, classify and aparently target weapons without ever turning on it's radar.

As well the F35 is suposed to get the DAS.
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35targeting/

Which also could be usefull in identifying maritime contacts.

 

[George Wallace]

Modern MPA sensors can ID a surface contact well outside of that contact's ability to shoot. Heck, a modern ESM set will tell you who it is without even having to see the ship on visual sensors........overflight not required. SAR/ISAR radar will produce a picture for you good enough for ID at 200NM standoff.........

I've caught plenty of people red-handed..........dont need a fighter for that. An MPA has plenty of stand-off sensors that give you the ability you speak of.

How long does it take a fighter at MACH 1.5 to travel 200 NM ?

 

[dimsum]

How long does it take a fighter at MACH 1.5 to travel 200 NM ?

The better question is probably "how long of an endurance would said fighter have once it's out at 200nm?"  I doubt it would be the same (without tanker support) as an MPA.

 

[George Wallace]

The better question is probably "how long of an endurance would said fighter have once it's out at 200nm?"  I doubt it would be the same (without tanker support) as an MPA.

The question still stands.  We can just as easily ask how long does it take a NSM to travel that same distance (if it had double the range) or perhaps a Kh-55 which definitely does have the range?

 

[Fastam]

How long does it take a fighter at MACH 1.5 to travel 200 NM ?

assuming 35 000 feet plus, mach 1.5 is around 990knots. So a little over 12min.

I doubt an F35 can make Mach 1.5 for 12 min. An F-22 most likely can.

 

[NavyShooter]

I'll step back into my lane at this point.

NS

 

[WingsofFury]

WoF,

I am a maritime aviator and have the Advanced operational EW course, i hope you will agree that i have "done my homework".

LO technology is far from the "be-all-end-all" it is touted to be. Once an F-35 has radiated , its like hanging a big sign that says "here i am". Its range and loiter capability are limited. LO does not mean undetectable.....just like a jammer is only effective until the aircraft gets to the target radar's burn-through range. There is a museum in Belgrade with an exibit you might find interesting.

A non-stealthy MPA can hang around for hours, use a multitude of sensors to gather information and use its weapons to act if required. It can do this well outside a surface contact's ability to do anything about it.

Your credentials will always be accepted my friend. 

My argument, which I know I could have versed much more clearly but wasn't due to the heat of the exchange, wasn't so much that the F-35 could perform the role better than the Aurora - it was that the F-35 had certain qualities which it could avail itself of in that particular role and, with my own emphasis added, perform in that role better than the Hornet.

I have no doubt in my mind that the Aurora is the perfect solution for Canada's current and short term LRP plans, especially with its new Block III technology.

To get this thread back onto topic and not delve back into the JSF sideshow, does anyone know how many Block III's we have (guessing at 3-4?) and how the testing is going with the Maritime Proving and Evaluation Unit?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

With things like anaprop, radar lobes and blind speeds, a "probable" detection is as good as you'll get. There will always be weird things that can happen to work both ways with radar.

So you're saying, given all your probables, that an aircraft cannot, in any case, come in at Mach 1.5, or maybe faster, at sea level, without being detected before it lifts the hats off the lookouts? If you are not on auto engage, could you negate the threat after he appeared to you in that time, or would he be passed and gone before you realized and could react?

I don't know that much about this stuff and I am just trying to get an understanding from the people that have the technical know how, practical knowledge gained from real world experience and a true understanding of the systems they are talking about.

 

[aesop081]

How long does it take a fighter at MACH 1.5 to travel 200 NM ?

An MPA has already been following the contact for 10 hours, has detailed ISAR generated pictures of the contact and its ESM set has fingerprinted every single radar the contact has emitted. All from that distance. When its out of gas, it will handover to another MPA who will track it for 10 more. After / during all that, the MPA can even do OTHT or VASSTAC.

How many times did an F-35 brake off-station to go to the tanker in 10 hours ?

In the end its not because a fighter can do some maritime recce, that it should.

 

[aesop081]

a Kh-55 which definitely does have the range?

If it was only a question of range............

 

[aesop081]

I would like to comment that the F-35 will have an AESA radar that it suposed to be an LPI set.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_Probability_of_Intercept_Radar

If an LPI radar was undetectable, it would have been called a ZPI radar.

While I doubt anyone on this forum knows just how hard these new fighter sized AESA's are to detect . Most of the unclassified info I can find on them sugest that it is next to impossible for current generation RWR's to detect.

Fine and dandy for RWR.....what about more sophisticated ES systems  or next gen RWR systems for that matter ??

As well the F35 is suposed to get the DAS.
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35targeting/

The glossy DAS brochure says alot of things......

 

[Fastam]

If an LPI radar was undetectable, it would have been called a ZPI radar.

I agree.

Fine and dandy for RWR.....what about more sophisticated ES systems  or next gen RWR systems for that matter ??

Forgive my ignorance in this area but are not most ES system passive in nature, therefore the same pricipal as a RWR?

So with the info that we have on LPIs is that each T/R module operates on a differeny freguency, and each module continuously changes frequency. Does that not make it extremely hard to process possibly dozens of different radar beams?

Maybe somthing with very large computing power such as an USN Aegis combat system could detect it. Honestly I don't know, and i'm sure it's all classified as is.

The glossy DAS brochure says alot of things......

That it does. However detecting an ICBM from 800 miles is no small feat for a fighter based IRST system. Who's to know if it could not detect a ships heat signature at say 100-200 miles?


Not to say that an F35 could replace a proper MPA, however it would be usefull to asist.. I agree fully with you on that. Ontopic, do you think the P8 could serve Canada's needs?