Thread 63888557

What would it take to actually shoot down an F-35? Are S-400s sufficient to overcome its stealth and countermeasures?
Iran claims they've taken out five (5) F-35s so far this war and captured multiple Israeli pilots, but without any video or photo evidence no one outside of the IRGC's most dedicated followers takes that claim seriously.

>>63888557 (OP)
Stealth isn't a binary. You're talking about a whole host of systems and designs meant to limit the detectability of a given aircraft. An S-400 could absolutely down an F-35 under the right conditions. Nobody on ths board knows exactly what those conditions are, if that knowledge exists at all.

>>63888570
>what those conditions are
maintaining speed and course after the enemy has measured them and the missile is incoming.. to be visible to radar you either need to be up close, have very advanced radar or .. something like maximizing the radar cross section by showing belly of the aircraft to the radar while turning

those shouldn't happen because of (modern) doctrine, as far as I've understood US doesn't send in planes before the AA batteries have already been taken out + pilot being warned of being targeted by radar

>S400
It's slavshit garbage with inflated specs. It's utterly unable to even see F-35, let alone produce a firing solution.

>>63888557 (OP)
is that one of the coveted F-35000s?

>>63888732
No, that's an F-150

>>63888557 (OP)
Honestly attacking them while they're still grounded is the best way to engage them. While they're in the air, I seriously doubt any country could attack one beyond visual range. And while SAMs like the S-400 could theoretically lock onto an F-35, I don't think any country would be able to do so without a lot of intelligence on its vulnerabilities and whereabouts. People point to the F-117A shootdown in the Kosovo War, but that was a unique situation where the Yugoslav Army was able to fire two missiles (one of which missed and one of which scored an indirect hit with shrapnel) in quick succession against a stealth plane which wasn't expecting any serious AA on the ground.

>>63888557 (OP)
>What would it take to actually shoot down an F-35
Pretty much any SAM or MANPAD hitting it, it's single engine so odds are any hit is bringing it down.
As for what can actually hit it at altitude I think any SAM with operator selected frequency, good speed gating and a skilled crew could get it done, thankfully skilled crews are rare in the 3rd world.

>>63888678
>US doesn't send in planes before the AA batteries have already been taken out
AA can't reach altitude and SAMs are killed by planes all the time, the US invented SEAD / DEAD counter SAM attacks.

>>63888742
>I think any SAM with operator selected frequency, good speed gating and a skilled crew could get it done,
I love these dunning-kruger retard takes.

>>63888750
>AA can't reach altitude
You're talking about AAA

>>63888755
Yeah, if you are talking about integrated air defence that would be AD.

>>63888557 (OP)
I would jump very high and punch it and then it would explode and everyone inside would explode too because I’m very cool and strong

>>63888736
>a unique situation where the Yugoslav Army was able to fire two missiles (one of which missed and one of which scored an indirect hit with shrapnel) in quick succession against a stealth plane which wasn't expecting any serious AA on the ground.
It's unique to fire two missiles at a reckless pilot?

>>63888753
>tune to see bird sized returns
>speed gate to filter out the birds under 200 knots
Why wouldn't this work? I'm not saying you are going to get a lock beyond JSOW range but I don't see why it's not possible to ambush (assuming you hide the SAMs from satellites)

>>63888678
jesus, if you have no idea what you're talking about, why post?

>>63888771
By the time you see this bird, the bird would have shot a HARM at you. Or finished its strike.

>>63888771
Even if you see the return, distinguishing it from background clutter and atmospheric noise is non-trivial.

Stealth aircraft exploit low-speed, terrain masking, EW, and standoff munitions to avoid precisely this scenario

It's not impossible, but it would be lucky ambushes rather than systemic counters

>>63888767
They blindfired the missiles where they expected the plane to be because the US had been flying the exact same route repeatedly and they had a dude with binocs and a phone telling them when it took off, and even then the stealth was good enough to defeat the seeker on one of them.

>>63888773
Your post with an opinion backed by zero information is no better

Dudes be like
>What if we just tune the radar to see smaller and slower things
Brother why do you think it's tuned to see big, fast things in the first place
Clarity

>>63888771
>how retards imagine it to be
>there's a perfectly blank canvas of the sky and you only pick up things that are actually there but you pick them up perfectly
>how it actually is
>you're trying to track a single pixel across a static filled background

>>63888797
I won't pretend to know the finer details of radar but as an electrician I had to study EM and radio.
Why does open sky give returns?

>>63888771
in the best case scenario - clear skies, no clutter, advance notice, and an excellently-built radar - the pilot gets an RWR SAM warning and chaffs the missile off.

>>63888803
Cloud, rain, snow, dust, ground clutter, birds, insects, temperature, humidity. All messes with it

>>63888557 (OP)
SAM

Don't forget the inherent electrical noise in the system even if we discount all the physical phenomon

>>63888767
It was unique in that the operators were using relatively outdated equipment combined with foreknowledge of where the f-117 was going to fly. The US was completely unaware of the SAM site until after the plane had already been downed.

>>63888557 (OP)
Anything that can kill a plane can kill an F35 - but only if it can score a hit

>>63888803
Anything from cosmic radiation to pollen can fuck with radar and the more sensitive you make your radar the more shit starts to fuck with it
And then there's decoys

>>63888557 (OP)
Any good quality SAM with skilled operators could do it on paper, but the engagements the f-35s have been involved in to date have all been overmatched against literal sandniggers, not against rival powers. I suspect China could take one down and maybe Russia too, but Iran is hilariously incompetent and the IRGC are like Saturday morning cartoon villains in how ineffective they are despite all the posturing and threats.

>>63888864
>maybe Russia too
haha
AAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAJAJAHAHAHAHAHAAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAAKKKKKKKKKKKKKKHUEHUHUEHUEHUEHUE

>>63888864
China, perhaps. Russia? Hell no, what the fuck are you smoking you retarded slavaboo

>>63888864
>and maybe Russia too,
Russia has shown that they're only capable of shooting themselves down. Let alone anything western-made that's remotely modernized

>>63888557 (OP)
In the fog of war, it would be possible but improbable to shoot one down with a SAM.
Not likely without good intelligence and forewarning.

>>63888906
Hey hey now they can also shoot down civilian airliners

>>63888736
Not to mention a shitload of dumb luck, having the radar at exactly the right point in its sweep (iirc like a 30 second 360) during the one second the bomb doors were open, along with also having intel that the F-117 was the only aircraft in the air in that area that night so they knew the weak, momentary radar contact had to be it. They also never mention the fact that the payload was dropped and the target successfully destroyed before the plane was shot down.

>>63888557 (OP)
@grok, is this pic real?

>>63888557 (OP)
You could stick an S-400 onto a catapult and fling it at a parked F-35 really hard

>>63888557 (OP)
The size difference between the people and the buildings is not enough, why would someone prompt this? Is this some kind of newfag detector?
t. newfag

>>63888557 (OP)
This image wasn't actually posted by the Iranian Government right?

>>63889305
the cockpit is the length of several buses and its taller then the three story building at the bottom (see ther buses on the road), the tail fins are several times taller then the three story building at the bottom

>>63888771
Angular resolution is still a thing.
A radar that can detect a 1m2 object at 100km is not going to pick up a 0.1m2 object at anywhere near that range.

>>63889413
Heres another picture i found of it posted on X that is even worse, the damn thing is larger then a aircraft carrier

https://x.com/DubzyOnceAgain/status/1934358017048207482/photo/1

>>63888557 (OP)
>>63889426
This is primer propaganda in case Iran actually did shoot down an F35. The original image isn't even created by Iranians.

>>63888557 (OP)
You need at least S-500 to kill F-35 since its 100 more power

>>63888783
>Low speed
>Terrain masking
Seems like a perfect target for a gepard or shilka or ciws.

>>63889432
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KF2xiXXDyk4
ITs being posted by tirdies as legit

>>63889450
Being posted by retards after being primed by foreign intellegence isn't really as difficult as you think
Think of all the boomers that repeat propaganda every day.

>>63889450
I cannot comprehend how such a large percentage of humanity are such fucking mouth breathing retards.

>>63889429
The Iranian government posted this one though.

>>63889756
>shoot down
>engine still running
Filthy zionist magic!

>>63888557 (OP)
It's just a plane that's hard to see on radar. It's not magic. Hell, there isn't even anything particularly unbelievable about Iran shooting them down, it's just that Iran hasn't presented any evidence to support their claim.

>>63889799
Yeah it's just a plane that's hard to target nothing crazy about that

>>63889804
it would be the first time in human history when defensive measures are stronger and easier than offensive ones where it comes to military hardware

>>63888750
I am not sure what you're arguing about, thats the part I quoted directly from the US military officer speaking on TV

>>63889813
What does a hard to target plane have to do with that
Do 10 pushups your brain is foggy

>>63889849
>What does a hard to target plane have to do with that
because I get the mental image of two planes circling in the air not being able to shoot each other, that would be first time in human history we'd be in that situation, knights can still kill each other despite armor, same with tanks

>>63889865
See monitor v merrimac

>>63889799
Yeah I hate these people that consider it impossible to shoot down, it's not perfect, its just superior.

>>63889756
I mean that actually looks like a shootdown, but not of an F35

>>63889813
>defensive measures are stronger
Battle of Hampton Roads
>easier than offensive ones
There's a reason why stealth aircraft are so rare. The US makes it look easy but reducing RCS this much is a lot of work.

>Battle of Hampton Roads
>Is a naval battle

>>63890040
>Battle of the River Plate
>middle of the atlantic

>>63889903
It seems that the Iraniast shot down an North American X-15A. Who knew that Americans would send these over Iran. Even mach 6.7 wasn't enough

>>63888557 (OP)
>Are S-400s sufficient to overcome its stealth and countermeasures?
Only under edge luckshitter cases like what lost the USAF an F-117.

>>63889903
It looks pretty obviously AI generated to me, no debris trail, the tail numbers dont match up, the roundel doesnt either, it's located in the wrong places and looks the wrong color. The airframe is also so malformed that it doesnt match any aircraft in existance. Doesnt even match the X-15 like the other anon's joking about.

>>63890180
>enemy has no IAD
>enemy can only sporadically turn on his radars due to SEAD
>luckshitter case
lol

>>63890247
Yes, luckshitter case. It required:
-Bad airbase security, allowing enemy observers to monitor takeoffs.
-Bad doctrine, resulting in regular flights on regular routes
-A guy willing to fire a missile on a hunch
-The plane to have its bomb bay open at the precisely correct moment

All of these things together or no joy. F-117 continued to fly missions with impunity leading up to the Serbian surrender and the feat has never been replicated. Not by Russian crews in Syria, Iranian crews in Iran, or of course by any Serb crew, even the one that managed once. And that was the F-117, an now-obsolescent bleeding edge testbed.

>>63888864
>MONKEY MODELS! DUMB ARABS!

>>63888557 (OP)
Absolutely, but they are going to need something IR guided like the IRIS-T SLS to have a chance. Anything that needs radar guidance for more than cuing an IR seeker won't be able to do shit before getting blown up.

>>63890040
>Is a naval battle
And this is relevant...why?

>>63888803
The Ionosphere can bounce certain radar bands and we get cosmic radiation on basically every wavelength imaginable.

>>63888803
You know analog TVs displaying static without any supposed signal? Radar would be the same principle.

>>63888734
I didn't know ford got the contract to build the next stealth fighter
damn, lockheed martin is getting smoked. they better up their game

>>63888557 (OP)
Guyse.... they didn't listen to Trump's ceasefire... ;(((

Thank you for Your attention to This Matter...

>>63888557 (OP)
You love posting these sand-nigger quality shopped pix, don't you.

>>63890040
>Battle of Bunker Hill
>didn't take place on Bunker Hill, actually took place on Breed's Hill

>>63889903

If the engine was still running, the plane would be on fire from the fuel tanks rupturing and making contact with an open ignition source.

>>63892091

This man just gets more deranged with every twitter post.

>>63893536

The final phase of the battle actually did take part on Bunker Hill itself.

>>63892091

This man just gets more deranged with every twitter post.

>>63893536

The final phase of the battle actually did take place on Bunker Hill itself.

>>63888864
>Iran faces a country with the latest American weapons technology and America army support, yet manages to cause damage to Israel.

>Russia has not made significant progress for 3 years against one of the poorest nations in Europe with obsolete western weapons from the 70s
Lmao ironically Iran is doing much better than Russia.

>>63888557 (OP)
Look at the size of these Persian giants, taller than the busses parked by.
It's funny to think how they manage to fit inside of their teeny tiny mud huts

Chinese stealth is still Russia-tier in all likelihood, but what is the doctrine against them in a contingency scenario anyway? Or against Su-57s for that matter.
Same thing as any other plane except not at standoff distances now?

>>63892091
>could have destroyed the entire middle east

>>63888771
>tune to see
You won't

>>63889305
Maybe it's plane for these guys from Macros?

>>63893777
Swarm them on the ground before they can outnumber us in the skies

>>63892091
What the fuck

>>63892091
Based.

>>63888557 (OP)
The formula to BTFO stealth is pretty straightforward: low-wavelength radars (e.g. L-band) + active radar homing missiles. The radar can detect stealth aircraft and can get a missile close enough to it for ARH to finish the job
The problem with this is that turdies don’t have ARH missiles for their air defense. Russia and China probably do though

>>63897325
Doubt.
Getting the first radar to actually detect it before it launches and leaves would be an extreme challenge.

>>63897325
Dunning-kruger take

>>63897325
>low-wavelength radar
congrats, you are now picking up every single water droplet in the atmosphere. want a cookie?

>>63888557 (OP)
I'm assuming heat seeking missiles still work.

>>63888557 (OP)
The way stealth works is you know where they are, but they don't know where you are.
You can route yourself in a manner that you basically void the enemy.

>>63890311
The fact the F117 had no RWR or Countermeasures also contributed a lot to the shoot down. If the pilot of the F117 been able to notice the radar turning on and launch chaff I doubt the missile battery operator would have gotten the clean radar lock that they got. Remember the missile battery had to paint the F117 with the targeting radar twice before getting a lock, with RWR the pilot would had plenty of warning to launch countermeasures.

The F35 has both RWR, Countermeasures and an EW suite. If in the same situation as the F117, the F35 wouldn't have been shot down. The only situations where I see a F35 shoot down being possible is if it was flying low and slow then a manpad was shot at it or another plane launches a infrared homing missile at it.

>>63889903
you don't notice the obvious sheen and gloss on the image that always means its AI slop?

>>63897871
you still need to be in position to launch it on them close enough that the missile can track the target

>>63893627
Damage on what though, apartment buildings?

>>63894292
Everything to a narcissist is the most extreme biggest (bigly even) thing ever when it involves them. It's very solipsistic.

>>63897274
>>63896684
I like his N-Word post better.

>>63890311
bullshit.

second f-117 loss happened after tactics changed. that f-117 didn't fly any known route.
https://www.twz.com/37894/yes-serbian-air-defenses-did-hit-another-f-117-during-operation-allied-force-in-1999

we have a f-117 pilot saying the following which is far away from 'flying with impunity':
«While the recognition that another F-117 was damaged by Serbian air defenses during Allied Force is noteworthy, Hainline emphasizes the fact that SAMs were a real concern for the “Black Jet” in any combat scenario. He describes how the F-117 would be routed to avoid “double-digit” SAMs — referring to the Russian-made SA-10 Grumble, also known as the S-300, and more advanced types — since the jet was considered “low observable, not invisible.” Even comparatively old systems, such as the SA-3, remained a genuine threat, as confirmed by the downing of “Vega 31” earlier in the campaign.»

>>63888944
>bibi netanblowhu

>>63888557 (OP)
It's hard to say exactly.
The F35 really has top of the line countermeasures.
It can release a decoy jammer that deploys behind itself behind the aircraft, still teathered.
At first it acts as a powerful jammer, and then if by some miracle it fails to work and the missile is still locked on, it switches to bait-mode, releases from the teather and adopts the F35 signature, sacrificing itself to avoid damage to the F35.

Right now the only thing that can down an F35 is an F22 or the new 6th gen aircraft not yet in service like the F47.
In terms of air defense, it's really really hard to tell what could potentially work.
Next Gen unmanned aerial drones that kamikaze into the aircraft could theoretically work in the future, but we're still far away from that right now.
Best bet right now is to destroy it while still on the ground.

>>63889756
Clearly AI.
The running engine and the debris are a dead giveaway.
There is no attachement point for the wing. The body is completely smooth where the wing should pop out of.
The way the debris isn't scattered but cluttered near the aircraft, and how it's too messy / unrealistic is easy to spot.
So many things wrong with this pic.

>>63902577
>Next Gen unmanned aerial drones that kamikaze into the aircraft
Those sure would be nice to have. Maybe we could make them rocket powered and mount them to aircraft, too?

>>63888788
Yeah, but he's right and the other anon is wrong and there's only so many times most people can be bothered correcting someone before just insulting instead, so who gives a fuck.

>>63902585
They would have to be guided manually or with an AI, instead of relying on radar or infra-red.
So not reallhy a missile, by design and definition, but I like your enthusiam.

>>63902599
>They would have to be guided manually
If you can get a missile close enough to a stealth plane for someone to guide it in manually then you have already done the hard part of defeating the stealth so why the fuck are you bothering?
>or with an AI
AI is not magic. It can only work with the input you give it. It probably will be very good at juggling around all kinds of input from networked sensors and will almost certainly be used in new missiles, but you still have to detect the thing in the first place so it knows where to go. I don't see how using an AI to do the computing for targeting and/or terminal approach makes it stop being a missile.

>>63902617
>They would have to be guided manually or with an AI, instead of relying on radar or infra-red.
I think missiles will go radar+IR+visual light spectrum all fed to "AI" that makes decision based on all data streams, won't get fooled by flares

>>63902690
>I think missiles will go radar+IR+visual light spectrum all fed to "AI" that makes decision based on all data streams, won't get fooled by flares
Yeah, that would make sense.
The optical / visual light part would have to have it's own algorythms or even AI to work.
Not sure if there are any systems that use it that work currently.

>>63902617
>What is MCLOS?

>>63903591
Yeah something like that but better and less gay.

>>63902617
>They would have to be guided manually or with an AI
JihadGPT?

>>63903654
>JihadGPT?
Fucking kek.