Why The F-35 Can't Shoot at Long Range | The key air combat technology nobody talks of. 

Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7 Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millennium-7-history-technology Join this channel to get access to perks: ru-vid.com/show-UCVDkfkGRzo0qcZ8AkB4TMuwjoin Join the Discord server discord.gg/6CuWEWuhsk

As an electronic engineer I can only say, WOW great explanation on energy and frecuency Concepts. PS: I can see that the wooden like kitchen furniture is omnipresent in the UK... I have the same ones hahaha

Damn, if I can apply what I've learned from this illuminating video to my own air force I'll be unstoppable! I just need an air force.

This was the stuff I was doing in the Navy 15-20 years ago. Great video, I appreciate the nerding out on topics like this.

Wow! Excellent! Really, is frustrating read below every posted picture of a non US plane something like "the f35 can shoot it down from xxx miles". Your videos are amazing, teaching and explaining complicated topics in a way that everyone can understand. English is not my first language so I hope you could understand. Regards!

This target recognition tech, backed by a database should be familiar to anyone in the submariner field. Excellent and exceptional show as always.

So, your facts and presentation are great, but your conclusions are only valid for relatively restricted peacetime operations generally. Peacetime ROE, aka standard ROE or SROE, generally require positive identification (PID) using the old MK1 eyeball. Wartime ROE or WROE does not. If I call for bogey dope and AWACS gives me BRA, under most WROE I’m prosecuting an attack against whatever is at that location. I’m not gonna go look at it. Same thing if I get nails 35 under WROE. Peacetime ROE was a driving factor in the neglect of medium and long range missile development by the western air forces. It even influenced the prevalence of weapons like Sidewinder. (As we reset and gear up for a near peer conflict, you’re gonna see a lot more planes carrying LOAL capable AMRAAM as the self defense option.) There are times when we use visual PID in wartime … like if we see a heavy we think is civilian on approach to an airport. Of course civilian heavies aren't supposed to be in active combat spaces, but stuff happens. Instead of just shooting, we go look. But things are inverted, we have it locked and are ready to shoot, we are looking at it to verify we can take measures other than energetic part dispersal. The military friendlies we can identify readily. As far as the mission files, that’s a thing… but it no longer imposes the operational limits you conclude. First off, even old planes like Block 50/52 F-16 can receive in flight updates. To be fair that is a brand new capability - but it required no new hardware, just software. Second newer jets like F-22/F-35 and even updated old airframes like Block 3 Super Hornets or F-15EX can create these updated files in flight, and exchange them. I don't know if other recent airframes like Gripen E, J-20, and SU-57 can do that, but best to assume it can in planning. So, if we go to war tomorrow and an F-35 catches sight of the one SU-57, it can generate updated files and share it inside its squadron immediately, as well as transmit it back to AWACS or base for further verification/refinement/dissemination. They have lots of tricks to use too, like using the entire friendly airborne sensor net as a SAR. Two F-35 working together have insane target recognition ranges, accuracy, and confidence. Yes, I am aware those are not numbers, but they can easily use the full range of AIM-260 without AWACS or other support now. (Not that AIM-260 is in wide use) So, BVR will still be the rule in active conflicts. That said… I can see lots of scenarios for getting WVR. For one I may have shot everything but sidewinder/guns. Of course, under those circumstances normally you decline the fight and RTB. Anyone who says dogfighting is dead is a fool, but the technology has significantly reduced its importance and will decrease its frequency to much less than 4th Gen planes, which themselves saw a reduction of gun fights from third gen planes. I think in 4th Gen there were more maneuver kills than gun kills. It is the internet so I am sure someone will correct me if I am in error.

Another brilliant video, thank you. When I served in the RAN as a radar plot, seemingly back in the dark ages, we still had some ships with no computerisation, having to interpret every little thing on our screens and tables like clouds and rain and sea clutter, and perform manual calculations for the simplest things like the course, speed and closest point of approach for all contacts. Even the idea of identifying a contact with radar(although we did have an IFF transponder on our air search radar antenna with mode 4, that’s a different thing altogether) seems like the stuff of science fiction from that perspective, yet so intuitive at the same time!

Another great video by Millennium 7. Keep it up, I keep sharing your videos on every relevant media.

Awesome video! Thanks for explaining this! :)

I'm not going to go into details because many systems are classified but the reason why the F-15C was chosen to fly CAP and fighter roles even when Carriers were in the area was because the F-14 lacked the ability to identify targets at range the same way the F-15 can using some of the principles explained in this video.

Super-interesting, and a great presentation! It helped me understand why the AWACS is so important. It can acquire targets at great distances, and also likely has much better resolution, so it can do a much better job of IFF. Previously, I’d just thought of AWACS as keeping track of where everything was, but this vid made me realize that it’s much more important to know WHAT everything is!

Very thorough and interesting! Good work!

Honestly the best way to tell what returns are enemies is to keep careful track of all non-enemies.

I always appreciated this guy since I found him.

Nice simple explanation sir. Good work.

Very informative thank you 🙏🏿

Very informative. Gracci

Really great video. 👏👏👏

Very thorough and interesting. Thank you.

Thank you. Certainly a complex task. Reminds me of the written and verbal claims about main gun stabilisation (and the advantages thereof) in tanks from WW2 onward. Ian V. Hogg, a former gunner who was a celebrated and prolific author on artillery, fortifications and small arms; asserted in his book about anti-tank weapons that main gun stabilisation was not properly sorted until the mid-1960s. Given his status as a highly respected expert technical writer (in books and magazines) on artillery and small arms, I would take his word over that of every tank enthusiast who lacks such credentials. I am possibly addicted to Millennium 7 * History Tech at this stage. 🙂

Great video but I think you overstate how much of a problem it is for BVR, back in the 1991 Gulf War F-15Cs with JEM NCTR capable radars and AWACS support were authorised to take BVR shots in a very dense and complicated theatre with hundreds of coalition aircraft present, since then technology has moved on massively with new AESA radars, datalinks etc. Some F-35 pilots have said that their situational awareness is so good now that sometimes they don't even need an AWACS, especially if they're in a networked 4-ship flight, because the quality of the information they have is so much better.

You make a somewhat correct point but there is so much more that goes into combat PiD. Its not about NCTR. its never been. NCTR techniques like print and JEM are only secondary. The main tools of PiD are: AWACS (point of origin criteria), RWR bearing-to radar azimuth correlation (assuming positive signal ID), Trespass criteria and long range visual ID (through TGP/EOTS radar slaving). The above form what is know as the "ID Matrix". In order to force a WVR engagement (which is not a dogfight) ALL the above elements of the matrix must fail for BOTH sides at the SAME time, otherwise one is slaughtering the other in BVR. Not happening. Not even with effective jamming. The only expected WVR scenarios are those of high saturation COMAO's and again only if both combatants pursue AND survive the WVR approach, will they end up in a real dogfight. Because its prohibited to launch active weapons against merged aircraft, they will have to sort it out with pure BFM/ACM. Assuming they wasted their HOBS weapons during the WVR approach. So then, will dogfights happen? Perhaps, but if yes, only to a very small extent. The outcome of air operations throughout a campaign will be decided in BVR.

Outstanding. Thank you.

a passive receiver could receive radar signals from a distant set, and be able to identify that aircraft by the characteristics of the received signals, hence the make and model of the radar deduced the aircraft based upon what it was fitted to

One of your best shows! Details matter.

My "go to guy" does it again, bravo bro. The most knowledgeable channel for military info on RU-vid.

Broke down and explained a very complex topic such that even a smooth brain like me could follow along and understand. An excellent video good sir on a topic so overlooked yet of vital importance.

Excellent !

Brilliant!!

Could you do a video explaining Coded Pulse Anti Clutter System (CPACS) used in the F-15 and TPS-43E radar?

One more thing to add, as new aircrafts become available, this means that stealth will be even more common. Problem is that these aircrafts wont be able to see eachother until they are on top of eachother. Well, this means dog fight! I can see the F35 being in a disadvantage here...

I love the charts you showed. This reminds me of a Sonar Technician on a Submarine. They listen like radar does and he learns and matches known sounds to unknown to identify using experience to know what the target is. Does this make sense to you?

Stealth planes have one big advantage - they can get to the enemy from direction they dont expect.. thats how F22 for example usually identified planes over Syria, where sometimes other plane had no idea F22 was that near.. and even if they were spotted, there was always another F22 covering the one that had to get into visual contact with potential enemy.

well done ..

interesting, something I had zero understanding of, explained very well I thought thanks

Great analysis as usual. In a general war there are also lots of other things that will be operated such as air space management setting out safe fly zones at specific altitudes and times. With data networking these can be changed on the go (which wouldn't have been possible historically). As you suggest, the other networked approach is advantage will be multiple radar systems on multiple bands in the theatre. On more modern systems, either the aircraft or the supporting control centre may well be combining data together electronically (ie multiple F-35 radar signals being combined giving a wider range of aspects and a much cleaner data return one one F-35 in the flight). I dont think the technology is there yet, but the same thing could be done in real time as electronic processing systems get more powerful , would be to combine data from multiple aircraft of different types in real time. The USAF is working on such systems for electronic warfare purposes at the the current time.

can you do a detailed video on synthetic aperture radar? how it works from satelites and now from sensor-fused fighter clusters and wingman drones?

Originally discovered in the 1970s on the old "raw" fighter pulse doppler radar returns head on with the bogey. What was seen was something like ||||||| I believe, behind the nose return, reflecting the blades at the front of the bogey's compressor section. It was speculated that it might work to permit BVR (beyond visual range) identification. Glad to see progress on this. Realistically, in the furball that combat becomes after the first sweep, the Admiral will still require a visual ID, just to be sure. Add Link 16, though, and it's just another tool.

I love this channel, it goes a little bit deeper than many of the other military avation channels (voiced by fvcking bots). After watching many of your videos I am confident I'm now ready to build my own delta wing/full wing body stealth aircraft at home. The enemy can't fire on me since they would have no record of my radar cross section 😂

@17.47 camera panning onto him is the very embodiment of what he wants to say.. Enter in a dogfight to know your enemy correctly and then you can decide if or not you want to kill him(if he is a semi active radar emitter..kill him ie the source) or don't kill him if u know his weapons bay is just IR and you can make your other secondary targets as primary..

A typical 4 gen fighter uses about 7 parameters to identify a BVR target. The F-22 uses about 200 parameters to identify a BVR target. The F-35 uses about 600 parameters to identify a BVR target. F-35 pilots have said they don't need E-2s, and always identify a BVR target before the AWACS aircraft.during exercises In fact the F-35 often acts as an AWACS aircraft for other fighters.The F-35 has been identifying BVR aircraft in in heavy jamming environments too. ".......in my cockpit, I saw this in Raptor and I saw this in F-35 when I went on operational missions in Nellis Test range or anywhere else, we routinely and almost never utilized an off-board system like an AWACS and when we did, we never relied on the information they pass because we had so much high fidelity information. Four-ship Raptor/F-35 does not need an AWACS to conduct missions.” " - Lt. Col. David "Chip" Berke. Over 2,800 hours in F/A-18, F-22 and F-35. Served 3 Years as Top Gun Instructor pilot and former CO of First operational F-35B Squadron." In Red Flag 17-1, the F-35 often entered into a visual fight, but it did so on its own terms. It had such a superior view of the air battle that, when it chose to enter the visual fight, it entered in an advantageous position. That’s what the F-35 gives you with it’s sensors, sensor fusion, and stealth. It gives you a “gods-eye” view of the air battle, and despite being outnumbered by Red Air in Red Flag 17-1, the F-35 still kicked derriere in the visual fight. Like German Ace Erich Hartmann said, ‘He who sees first has already half the victory.’

You are targeting an intelligent audience who knows about the Fourier Transformation already, so you should freely talk about these concepts.

Retrieving the signature of enemy aircraft is difficult. However east/west should have a very detailed database of signatures of their own types of aircraft, thus be able to identify that an an aircraft is not friendly I.e. not of our types. Unless of course enemy aircraft resemble the own types and the is not enough information to make the distinction. But given that even mission configurations make a difference, I think the chance that enemy and own can be confused is very small.

Well, my stereo amplifier may not be good enough but my knowlede of (digital) audio at least helps me to uderstand most of this! Visual radar recognition? Never thought of that untill now so thta is a real eye opener in itself. You do however surely describe all the pitfalls perfectly. Be sure the industry will claim it is only a matter of time before this conondrum will be soved. Maybe that was the centre of the argument that made you so angry? Stay cool, my friend! :-)

Page 5:00+ although we can utilize multiple return wave front (time difference echo as signature) to catalog air born shape. It is not as simple beyond a principle level. We may be dealing with a large (or even overwhelming) catalog of signatures pointing to the same aircraft model. Since the wave incidence angle at a target plane varies by the yaw pitch and roll. That create a demand for AI on board the plane.

Meanwhile F-14 crews ; "Haha, Phoenix goes wooosh"

In the first gulf war we saw this a lot. Where fights got into short ranges because of difficulty identifying enemy aircraft and the fear of friendly fire incidents. That said, in the first gulf war they didn't have modern datalinks sharing real-time information on the aircraft around them, friendly and enemy. I can't help but think a lot of what you said is less relevant now than even twenty or thirty years ago. There are a lot more options for identifying aircraft now than there were even relatively recently. This information can, and is, compiled from multiple sources now in a way that didn't really exist until relatively recently. P.S. You argued that because radar signal scales with the fourth power of distance, aircraft have to be relatively close to get a better return, but that's LITERALLY the exact opposite of the conclusion to be drawn from that fact.. Inverse fourth power scaling means even a relatively small decrease in distance results in a dramatically stronger return signal. Halve the distance to the target, and you get a 2^4 or sixteenfold increase in the strength of the return signal. In order to double the signal strength, an aircraft only has to get about 16% closer. Aircraft don't need to get much closer than their maximum range to get a significantly better signal. That part, in particular, was the wrong conclusion.

(1) Most of these are peace time issues and even then IFF solves much of the problem. (2) In war time, it is not unreasonable to assume that anything out there not known to you is the enemy and should be shot at with or without identification. (3) While it is possible for aircraft to wind up in visual range before the shooting starts -- especially when there isn't a hot war going on -- DOGFIGHTING IS DEAD. There is no reason to design an aircraft to be highly agile in terms of the ability to point it's nose. Why? Because if you are close enough for that to matter, high off boresight missiles like the AIM-9X can be shot backwards and still hit the target. If you are far away enough to worry about the missile's motor burn time, you are also far away enough that even a 747 can turn fast enough to put the enemy in the forward 45 degree cone of the nose.

I wonder how well virtual radars built out of multiple transceivers on multiple platforms and connected with a theatre datanet works? So, you encode and encrypt a serial number, location, time and metadata into your radar pulses. Then, say it gets received by multiple receivers, yours and an AWACS. You now have even more useful information for identifying that aircraft, especially if it's a low observable platform which is redirecting your radar energy away but happens to hit an AWACS. This is undoubtedly already implemented on F-35

sir how use of diff materials can confuse Nctr? also cant cyber warfare cause errors in the data base and cause false info?

So DRFM "ECM" by definition - can delineate "regular" radar scan/tracking waveforms from the engineered waveform shapes used by NCTR? Otherwise, how would DRFM cause problems for NCTR? I just wanted clarification on this point. Would not DRFM need to have the capacity to characterize a radar waveform it receives - by definition? Even LPI.

merci de vos infos de combattt

Very informative, and very clearly explained, thanks! I've just subscribed and I look forward to more. :)

Thank you for everything you teach. And thank you for finally giving us a tour of your house :) sign: One of the "experts" lol

There's also other technologies called IFF and FLIR, both of which can be used for BVR engagements.

Within Visual Range combat has been declared dead several times, but it will always come back.

Another thoughtful and authoritative treatment of some complex topics, ending with a really clear reason why dogfighting will be thing for some time to come. One emerging subject that was not covered is the use of machine learning technology for classification. Excellent as usual.

I really love this channel, wish we get F22 series

VERY GOOD EPISODE AGAIN LOVE FROM PAKISTAN

Excellent explanations, Just one piece of a intricate puzzle. I would prefer the F-35 fire zero missiles dependent on other assets in theatre. Good day sir!

So would they obscure valid radar returns on intercepts by disguising with those retro reflector things? Seems like surprise is lost so may as well remove free information.

Thanks for your awesome content

the closing speed of these aircraft also increase the odds of close-range engagements

As usual . . . Awesome stuff

If I am not wrong, upcoming 6th. Generation aircraft in future have extreme maneuverability feature ( unmanned). This tells us, close air combat is still alive. 🙏🙏

Would A.I. be able to identify an aircraft based on its RCS profile that should be unique to different models of fighter planes ie f-16 f-18 f-22

What is the benefit of an a/c firing a long range weapon at another (closer) a/c's target, over that closer a/c firing a short range weapon at the target?

most planes use support aircraft (AWACS) and ground installations, too increase the radar effectiveness. Also most likly in a "real war", you fire even if you are not fully able to identify the target based on mapping of friendly troops in the area, this is one of the reason why you have FF incidents and they are bad but most people rather take the chance than die.

But the military should have great overall picture of the battlefield where all the own units are? So if one is not own then most likely in war it is enemy.

The more stealth there is, maybe the less radar and beyond visual range will work, so the more dogfighting will be important.

I really enjoy this very straightforward approach to the information delivery. This makes understanding easier and thus the information is more useful.

Based on principle angle of incidence is the same as angle of return use stratosphere to bounce return hence NVR is limited by energy steength

I think the instances where you find one f-35 relying on only its radar to identify a long-range target are going to be slim to none . I really think you need to look at a system as a whole and not just the individual components. Especially now with the introduction of More drones into the battle field.

Great analysis, but I think that another useful NCTR technique was not mentioned, which is to compare the rcs at different frequencies, let's say that in L band it gives a much higher return than in X band is because the target is of the stealth type

And now that this MASINT thing has been implemented in C for COTS on the F-35, the next sensor suite to use it can just have the code recompiled for itself rather than having to be ported in FORTRAN.

Of course, Bvr combat has sense, with platforms (Aesa radar systems as apg-81 and Captor E) as f35 or Eurofighter and weapons as meteor misiles... Target engagement and destroy options, would be very high from ranges of 50 -70 km.

Excuse me do you know at what distance the irbis radar can catch the f-35??

Hmm, how does IFF fit into all this?

So would not the "low power" feature of an LPI radar be incompatible with the proper high-power waveform needed for NCTR? In other words, an LPI radar trying to employ NCTR would actually be a high (high) power radar emission, not a low power LPI type emission?

this is an excellent and very insightful video, despite the terrible title..

Reminds of the time a Russian Mig 31 shoot down another one during training essentially because the Zaslon komplex isnt / wasnt working correctly and iff did not work correctly therefore so the target drone lived to see another day lol

What is the frequency of a ramjet?

So those radar returns that you speak of could possibly be interfered with by the potential target to provide false information to the potential attacker? Or something similar. Hmmm, so where could this leave stealth as the claimed battle winning technology?

Are you familiar with Desert Storm? US coalition flew hundreds of sorties very successfully. I believe there may have been one friendly fire incident. They do practice combine arms; relying on other aircrafts but isn't that a strength?

Riiight 😉🍻

BVR combat existed before NCTR. So saying that F-35 can't do long range engagement is simply funny. Regardless the not bad tech. explanation of the NCTR.

sword and the shield, someone makes a new better sword, then someone makes a new shield that can stop it, then someone makes a "new" new sword that can defeat the new shield...over and over

This is a spot on introductory analysis. Really quite good.

Good attempt to describe the frequency domain to those who don't have that background. I'll just remark that if there is something specific you are looking for, cross-correlation can be more sensitive. But I have a question about how you claim that this bvr combat technique will not work because it is difficult to identify the target. When is this most likely to be used? It would be in a direct conflict with China. Wouldn't we know that any aircraft coming from China is not friendly? And if some of ours were in the area we would know that too. So I don't see the big problem there in the most likely encounter. Certainly there are more complicated tactics, but this idea that a perfect identification is required does not appear to be a deal breaker.

Assuming an attacking airforce knows that the enemy Airforce has powerful radars and AWACS in the sky, - Is it possible for that airforce to use jamming pods/EW counter measures to decieve enemy by emitting signatures that resemble civilian airliners? That will prevent an BVRs and allow the attacking Airforce to close the distance between itself and the target. With coming of precision guided bombs and glide bombs, having longer ranges of 80-120kms, that extra distance that they can close in is all that may be needed for a successful strike. May be, if the library is well updated, an attacking aircraft may be able to generate signatures of the enemy plane itself, giving the impression of friendlies in the air (assuming others pilots know of the setup)

What do you do when the enemy is using the same exact planes as you? Like for example of Greece and turkey went to war they both have F-16s and that would mean IFF would need to stay to visual.

but isn't this the problem of any military aircraft? Also isn't a 5th gen less susceptible to this issue due to better networking (which implies that 5th gen fighters might exchange data (and also mission profiles) while in the air which could make the target recognition much faster) ?

One issue with this analysis. There’s an assumption that the underlying technology is one of the solutions discussed. If technology already in the hands of others is what’s on the F-35, why the absolute control over its systems by the US? I highly suspect there are undisclosed technologies on the F-35 that put it way ahead of anything the Russians or Chinese have available. To support this argument, I want to jump to a seemingly unrelated topic. You know all those UFOs off the coast of the US? I highly suspect those are just super advanced American technology. That they show up in American training grounds during training isn’t likely an accident. The more likely explanation is they were there to see how effective current military tech is against them. So why does this matter? Well, the US puts hundreds of billions of dollars more into its defence development than any other counties, and has been consistently doing so for decades. I find it extremely hard to believe that a country like Russia that’s been crumbling economically for several decades or China, which is has only become a near-peer in the last 10-20 years have the same technological capabilities as the US. This analysis more or less argues that this is the case and that new technology not available to others isn’t on the F-35. From a development, economics and behavioural perspective (the absolute control over F-35 production and support), this is very likely not the case.

Great analyze, I learned a lot. And that is exactly why in planes is transponder with code that will send signal to all other transponders nearby that its friendly. That is crucial element to all planes, so in combination with RADAR and DATA LINK you have 3 way IFF. I agree that short range combat is relevant like solder that must have gun/knife in engagement.

And the ability to snoop on AWAC correspondence would add an extra strength to an enemy. Since a Piper Cub is unlikely to elicit a defensive response. An FA 18 or F35 is definitely a recognised threat. Modern warfare is more about digestible data than bore sighting an enemy.

Blard A term used to refer to the expelling of banana peels from the anus. This is usually a completely random occurrence and it tends to happen at the most inconvenient times.

Another reason why within visual range, maneuvering fighting capabilities will always be important : air policing and interceptions. You can't just shoot at a contact from 50+ nm away and hope for the best, even if you're sure it's an "enemy". Unless you're engaged in open warfare that would create a diplomatic incident. You have to get close and visually confirm the identity of the trespassing aircraft, establish contact and escort it. And at that point it doesn't matter how stealthy your aircraft is or how much range your missiles have. You've firmly entered the visual arena, and BFM is the only line of defense you've got left if the target suddenly decides it doesn't actually want to cooperate. Plus I always hear this argument of "oh our stealth fighters will detect and shoot down their conventional fighters before they ever get close enough to engage anyway". And sure, that sounds reasonable enough. But... what about THEIR stealth fighters ? Are you sure they can't get close either ? Overconfidence is an insidious killer.

YES DOGFIGHTS ARE STILL ALIVE

1986's Top Gun, 1 dot was actually 2 dots.