Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Belesarius

Bash the F-35 thred.

Recommended Posts

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2016/september/160913-rms-f-35-and-aegis-combat-system-successfully-demonstrate-integration-potential-in-first-live-missile-test.html

 

During the Sept. 12 test, an unmodified U.S. Marine Corps F-35B from the Marine Operational Test and Evaluation Squadron 1, acted as an elevated sensor and detected an over-the-horizon threat. The F-35B sent data through the aircraft’s Multi-Function Advanced Data Link (MADL) to a ground station connected to the Aegis Weapon System on the USS Desert Ship (LLS-1), a land-based ship. The target was subsequently engaged and intercepted by a Standard Missile 6.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The commentator seems very skeptical of LPI (low probability of intercept) techniques for radar and insists that as soon as it turns on its active sensors, a stealth fighter is no longer stealthy.  I am curious why; the idea behind LPI is fairly straightforward and at the very least theoretically sound.  The radar (which has to be AESA to do this) spreads out its emission energy onto multiple, random frequencies instead of using only a single frequency.  The total energy output is still high enough to get a clear picture, but to a radar warning receiver it doesn't look like a radar signal, it looks like random noise.  This, combined with the AESA's extremely precise and rapid beam steering means that hostile ECM will have a hard time determining that it is being pinged.

The receiver has access to the same technology as the transmitter these days, you know. RWR's aren't the kind of 60's thing that simply turns the received radar sweep into an audible sine wave so you can hear it go beep in your headset anymore. Sure, you'll fool older systems but if the other guy has the same level of technology you're back to the radar equation and the defending side always has the advantage of their energy being inversely proportional to R² rather than R⁴. If the transmitting radar can detect the bouncing signal the illuminated aircraft sure as heck can.

Also related, someone on SA posted this thing in response to a post about ~aerospace technology~ in acoustic noise cancelling headphones:

 

I actually have a provisional patent that does that cancellation (super-position of opposing amplitudes at the same phase) through a combination of digital and analogue systems adaptively in real time (<5ns delay , anyway) across broad bands of non-contiguous spectrum.

It works great, we've done > 80 db reduction on a broadband Gaussian white-noise chirp in a lab environment.

If there is an audiophile out there who wishes for this kind of performance please let me know, my rates are quite reasonable and I would be happy to implement this in the room of your choosing for mid 7 figures (hardware included). Unclassified whitepaper available upon written request, US Citizens only please. Military & governmental customers welcome.

e: That ad specifies 1uV on the power supply lines (40 db). Pshah, we beat that by orders of magnitude over RF.

I'm pretty sure I recall Saab mentioning something like this in connection to the Gripen E, and I think that stuff (well all the EW computer thingies in general) is one of the reason for the new cooling air intake on the base of the tailfin. It wouldn't surprise me if that kind of technology is on all the 4.5th generation fighters within the next ten years or so.

edit: then one of the guys who work with future warfare stuff posted this in a different discussion:

It seems to me like emission control is one of the things that laypeople really don't understand very well about the modern battlefield. It is absolutely crazy when you see graphical representations of how emitters "look" to collection assets...it really is like turning on a flashlight in a dark room, except that you can tell exactly who manufactured the flashlight, and when, and you can be pretty sure who the specific owner of the flashlight is, and how much juice the flashlight batteries have left, and etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The receiver has access to the same technology as the transmitter these days, you know. RWR's aren't the kind of 60's thing that simply turns the received radar sweep into an audible sine wave so you can hear it go beep in your headset anymore. Sure, you'll fool older systems but if the other guy has the same level of technology you're back to the radar equation and the defending side always has the advantage of their energy being inversely proportional to R² rather than R⁴. If the transmitting radar can detect the bouncing signal the illuminated aircraft sure as heck can.

 

 

That was the thinking in the 1980s, but given modern technology it ain't necessarily so.

 

A radar warning receiver can positively identify a radar pinging it from further away than the radar can make out precisely because of the 1/R^2 1/R^4 mismatch you identify, provided that the RWR knows the transmitting radar's frequency and pulse width.

 

MSA and PESA radars are constrained to a single, or fairly narrow range of frequencies.  AESAs aren't, and furthermore not only can they hop frequencies, they can spread their power over multiple frequencies at once.  And change which frequencies they transmit with each pulse.  And change PRF at will too.  It would be trivial to design the software controlling the frequency hopping to do so in a cryptographically secure manner, so it should be assumed that it does.

 

There are fundamental trade-offs in antenna design which mean that no actual antenna has equal gain over a wide range of frequencies.  There are trade-offs in sensitivity to a peak frequency vs sensitivity over a wide band.  The RWR needs to be able to detect signals from millimeter band radars used in short range SAMs to the L band radars used in long-range detection systems.  There are also trade-offs in coverage vs sensitivity, since antenna gain is a linear function of directivity.  The RWR has to give spherical coverage.

 

So the RWR is necessarily compromised in a number of ways the LPI AESA is not.  Additionally, there's going to be a certain amount of RF noise hitting the RWR.  In order to avoid processing spurious signals, the RWR is going to need a clutter cut-off threshold.  The AESA is going to need to filter out clutter as well, but it can turn down its clutter rejection threshold for the frequencies its broadcasting on at the time its broadcasting on them; the RWR doesn't know exactly what signals it's listening for, so it has no such luxury.

 

So, given the above, it is at least theoretically possible that 1/R^4 is bigger than 1/R^2.  Those who know for sure are not speaking.

 

Also related, someone on SA posted this thing in response to a post about ~aerospace technology~ in acoustic noise cancelling headphones:

 

I'm pretty sure I recall Saab mentioning something like this in connection to the Gripen E, and I think that stuff (well all the EW computer thingies in general) is one of the reason for the new cooling air intake on the base of the tailfin. It wouldn't surprise me if that kind of technology is on all the 4.5th generation fighters within the next ten years or so.

 

 

AIUI, wide-scale active cancellation is too computationally intensive for conventional (4th and 4.5th gen) fighters.  The sheer number of modes in which radar waves can bounce off, or creep around, or interfere on a conventionally-designed aircraft is simply too large for a computer to handle.  I mean, look at the weird shit that radio waves can do:

 

surface_wave_types.jpg

 

Yes, active cancellation works in audio.  In headphones.  Have you seen any active cancellation stands that can muffle out all sound that passes by them in an open area?  Neither have I.  It's that sort of problem.

 

Furthermore, a device that would actively cancel out radar waves has a lot less time to respond with an out of phase waveform than one that's dealing with audio.  Human hearing is hertz to kilohertz.  L-band is a few gigahertz and millimeter wave is a lot more than that.

 

Not counting passive, cheaty bullshit like Salisbury Screens, I would expect active cancellation to be limited to a narrow frequency window and to be of limited effectiveness.  But it would work much better on aircraft that restrict radio reflections to a limited number of modes and directions, i.e. 5th gen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty damn sure that if you have an AESA yourself your own radar antenna is a significant part of your RWR. Even back in the early 70's radars had passive modes that let you see and record whatever jamming was coming at you (I know for a fact that the AJ 37 had this when it entered service in '71 and I'd be really surprised if everyone else didn't have it too). Today, it'd be really silly to have all this emissions control and then not use your best antenna for listening. It's not like shuffling signals around between different systems is a hard problem these days.

As far as active cancellation goes, I can only reiterate that the dude claims that they could do wide spectrum radio cancellation. Granted, in a lab, but still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the AESA radar is tied into the RWR and probably also the jamming suite on any fifth-gens.  So RWR performance will be better in the frontal sixty degrees.

 

Point still stands; the AESA can use frequency hopping, frequency spreading and pulse width modulation to hide its total signal strength in the RF noise and suffer no loss in sensitivity thanks to matched filtering.  The RWR just has to hope that it's still sensitive enough to tell the spread-out AESA signal apart from this noise.

 

On top of that, even if the RWR does identify that it's been lit up by a radar, the aircraft with the radar still has an advantage.  RWR doesn't have the same resolution as a radar, basically due to antenna design compromises.  Also, it fundamentally can't provide range data the way a radar can, because the radar can time the difference between sending out the pulse and receiving it, and the RWR just knows when it got hit.

 

There was some talk of AN/ALR-94 being able to sling an AMRAAM off in the direction of an RWR contact, and Russian firms were working on something similar.  But this technique would necessarily be less accurate and shorter ranged than properly painting the target with the radar in order to get a firing solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, FWIW, the Swedish army textbook "Electronic warfare handbook for the air defense forces: radar and radar technology" from 2004 (an excellent book, it's a pity I don't have time to translate it) briefly discusses stealth/signature reduction and says there are three practical ways to reduce radar returns, namely:

1) shaping (the single most important method)

2) using radar absorbent materials (several techniques are discussed)

3) active interference (the active cancellation thing we're talking about here)

but that only the first two are operational "today" (so in 2004).

So they seem to have viewed it as thing that was not yet practically achievable in 2004 but one that was likely to become so in the near future. I really do wonder if there's a newer edition of this book somewhere...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, FWIW, the Swedish army textbook "Electronic warfare handbook for the air defense forces: radar and radar technology" from 2004 (an excellent book, it's a pity I don't have time to translate it) briefly discusses stealth/signature reduction and says there are three practical ways to reduce radar returns, namely:

1) shaping (the single most important method)

2) using radar absorbent materials (several techniques are discussed)

3) active interference (the active cancellation thing we're talking about here)

but that only the first two are operational "today" (so in 2004).

So they seem to have viewed it as thing that was not yet practically achievable in 2004 but one that was likely to become so in the near future. I really do wonder if there's a newer edition of this book somewhere...

 

 

Active interference is possible, pending improvements in electronics processing speed.  So eventually it will be a useful technique if it isn't already, since Moore's Law exists.

 

But last I'd heard, the processors weren't there yet, and also active cancellation would be much easier to achieve if it were combined with stealth shaping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/09/flight-ops-of-15-f-35as-suspended-due-to-fuel-tank-problem/

 

The US Air Force and Norway announced the temporary suspension of flight operations for 15 F-35As today because of “peeling and crumbling insulation in avionics cooling lines inside the fuel tanks.”

 

The problem, caused by a supplier, was discovered during depot modification of an F-35A and affects a total of 57 aircraft, 42 of them still on the production line.

 

The Air Force statement by Ann Stefanek says 10 planes at Hill AFB, Utah, four at Luke AFB, Ariz. (including the two Norwegian planes), and one at Nellis AFB, Nev. are affected. Of the aircraft still in production, 28 belong to the U.S. and partner nations (three are Norwegian) and 14 are Foreign Military Sales aircraft.

 

The problem “was discovered during depot maintenance on one of the impacted jets where loose insulation was discovered. The issue is confined to one supplier source and one batch of parts,” Mike Rein, Lockheed Martin spokesman, says in a statement.

 

The Joint Program Office provides some more detail, identifying the all-important “root cause.” It was the “use of nonconforming material for the tubing insulation and improper manufacturing processes during fabrication of the cooling lines.” The material, sad to say, “is not compatible with fuel, causing degradation of the insulation and resulting in it falling off the tubing.” I wouldn’t want to be that supplier.

 

The fleet aircraft will probably have go to the depot to fix the problem. The others will be fixed before delivery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious as to how it got that far. Usually the first question you ask in regards to materials that will be in/around fuel tanks is something along the lines of "Can this withstand prolonged exposure to said fuel?" It sounds like somebody knows what material was supposed to be used, but someone along the way decided to use a "nonconforming" material for whatever reason. The TDP was given to you for a reason, follow it and you won't have these problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Active interference is possible, pending improvements in electronics processing speed. So eventually it will be a useful technique if it isn't already, since Moore's Law exists.

But last I'd heard, the processors weren't there yet, and also active cancellation would be much easier to achieve if it were combined with stealth shaping.

As I understand it we're already post Moore, and starting to get uncomfortably close to the end of being able to reasonably expect more than maybe three more node shrinks for CMOS if we're lucky. We might get something good for more progress but that's not the sort of promise it used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      Compared to the most well known Japanese fighter of World War 2, the A6M “Zero”, the J2M Raiden (“Jack”) was both less famous and less numerous. More than 10,000 A6Ms were built, but barely more than 600 J2Ms were built. Still, the J2M is a noteworthy aircraft. Despite being operated by the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN), it was a strictly land-based aircraft. The Zero was designed with a lightweight structure, to give extreme range and maneuverability. While it had a comparatively large fuel tank, it was lightly armed, and had virtually no armor. While the J2M was also very lightly built, it was designed that way to meet a completely different set of requirements; those of a short-range interceptor. The J2M's design led to it being one of the fastest climbing piston-engine aircraft in World War 2, even though its four 20mm cannons made it much more heavily armed than most Japanese planes.
       
       

       
      Development of the J2M began in October 1938, under the direction of Jiro Hirokoshi, in response to the issuance of the 14-shi interceptor requirement (1). Hirokoshi had also designed the A6M, which first flew in April 1939. However, development was slow, and the J2M would not make its first flight until 20 March 1942, nearly 3 ½ years later (2). Initially, this was due to Mitsubishi's focus on the A6M, which was further along in development, and of vital importance to the IJN's carrier force. Additionally, the J2M was designed to use a more powerful engine than other Japanese fighters. The first aircraft, designated J2M1, was powered by an MK4C Kasei 13 radial engine, producing 1430 horsepower from 14 cylinders (3) (compare to 940 horsepower for the A6M2) and driving a three bladed propeller. The use of such a powerful engine was driven by the need for a high climb rate, in order to fulfill the requirements set forth in the 14-shi specification.
       
      The climb rate of an aircraft is driven by specific excess power; by climbing an aircraft is gaining potential energy, which requires power to generate. Specific Excess Power is given by the following equation;
       
      (Airspeed*(Thrust-Drag))/Weight
       
       
       
      It is clear from this equation that weight and drag must be minimized, while thrust and airspeed are maximized. The J2M was designed using the most powerful engine then available, to maximize thrust. Moreover, the engine was fitted with a long cowling, with the propeller on an extension shaft, also to minimize drag. In a more radical departure from traditional Japanese fighter design (as exemplified by aircraft such as the A6M and Ki-43), the J2M had comparatively short, stubby wings, only 10.8 m wide on the J2M3 variant, with a relatively high wing loading of 1.59 kN/m2 (33.29 lb/ft2) (2). (It should be noted that this wing loading is still lower than contemporary American aircraft such as the F6F Hellcat. The small wings reduced drag, and also reduced weight. More weight was saved by limiting the J2M's internal fuel, the J2M3 had only 550 liters of internal fuel (2).
       
      Hirokoshi did add some weight back into the J2M's design. 8 millimeters of steel armor plate protected the pilot, a luxurious amount of protection compared to the Zero. And while the J2M1 was armed with the same armament as the A6M (two 7.7mm machine guns and two Type 99 Model 2 20mm cannons), later variants would be more heavily armed, with the 7.7mm machine guns deleted in favor of an additional pair of 20mm cannons. Doubtlessly, this was driven by Japanese wartime experience; 7.7mm rounds were insufficient to deal with strongly built Grumman fighters, let alone a target like the B-17.
       
      The first flight of the J2M Raiden was on March 20th, 1942. Immediately, several issues were identified. One design flaw pointed out quickly was that the cockpit design on the J2M1, coupled with the long cowling, severely restricted visibility. (This issue had been identified by an IJN pilot viewing a mockup of the J2M back in December 1940 (1).) The landing speed was also criticized for being too high; while the poor visibility over the nose exacerbated this issue, pilots transitioning from the Zero would be expected to criticize the handling of a stubby interceptor.
       

      Wrecked J2M in the Philippines in 1945. The cooling fan is highly visible.
       
      However, the biggest flaw the J2M1 had was poor reliability. The MK4C engine was not delivering the expected performance, and the propeller pitch control was unreliable, failing multiple times. (1) As a result, the J2M1 failed to meet the performance set forth in the 14-shi specification, achieving a top speed of only 577 kph, well short of the 600 kph required. Naturally, the climb rate suffered as well. Only a few J2M1s were built.
       
      The next version, the J2M2, had several improvements. The engine was updated to the MK4R-A (3); this engine featured a methanol injection system, enabling it to produce up to 1,800 horsepower for short periods. The propeller was switched for a four blade unit. The extension shaft in the J2M1 had proved unreliable, in the J2M2 the cowling was shortened slightly, and a cooling fan was fitted at the the front. These modifications made the MK4R-A more reliable than the previous engine, despite the increase in power.
       
      However, there were still problems; significant vibrations occurred at certain altitudes and speeds; stiffening the engine mounts and propeller blades reduced these issues, but they were never fully solved (1). Another significant design flaw was identified in the summer of 1943; the shock absorber on the tail wheel could jam the elevator controls when the tailwheel retracted, making the aircraft virtually uncontrollable. This design flaw led to the death of one IJN pilot, and nearly killed two more (1). Ultimately, the IJN would not put the J2M2 into service until December 1943, 21 months after the first flight of the J2M1. 155 J2M2s would be built by Mitsubishi (3).
       
      By the time the J2M2 was entering service, the J2M3 was well into testing. The J2M3 was the most common variant of the Raiden, 260 were produced at Mitsubishi's factories (3). It was also the first variant to feature an armament of four 20mm cannons (oddly, of two different types of cannon with significantly different ballistics (2); the 7.7mm machine guns were replace with two Type 99 Model 1 cannons). Naturally, the performance of the J2M3 suffered slightly with the heavier armament, but it still retained its excellent rate of climb. The Raiden's excellent rate of climb was what kept it from being cancelled as higher performance aircraft like the N1K1-J Shiden came into service.
       

       
      The J2M's was designed to achieve a high climb rate, necessary for its intended role as an interceptor. The designers were successful; the J2M3, even with four 20mm cannons, was capable of climbing at 4650 feet per minute (1420 feet per minute) (2). Many fighters of World War 2, such as the CW-21, were claimed to be capable of climbing 'a mile a minute', but the Raiden was one of the few piston-engine aircraft that came close to achieving that mark. In fact, the Raiden climbed nearly as fast as the F8F Bearcat, despite being nearly three years older. Additionally, the J2M could continue to climb at high speeds for long periods; the J2M2 needed roughly 10 minutes to reach 30000 feet (9100 meters) (4), and on emergency power (using the methanol injection system), could maintain a climb rate in excess of 3000 feet per minute up to about 20000 feet (about 6000 meters).
       
       
       
       
       

       
       
       
       
       

       
      Analysis in Source (2) shows that the J2M3 was superior in several ways to one of its most common opponents, the F6F Hellcat. Though the Hellcat was faster at lower altitudes, the Raiden was equal at 6000 meters (about 20000 feet), and above that rapidly gained superiority. Additionally, the Raiden, despite not being designed for maneuverability, still had a lower stall speed than the Hellcat, and could turn tighter. The J2M3 actually had a lower wing loading than the American plane, and had flaps that could be used in combat to expand the wing area at will. As shown in the (poorly scanned) graphs on page 39 of (2), the J2M possessed a superior instantaneous turn capability to the F6F at all speeds. However, at high speeds the sustained turn capability of the American plane was superior (page 41 of (2)).
       
      The main area the American plane had the advantage was at high speeds and low altitudes; with the more powerful R-2800, the F6F could more easily overcome drag than the J2M. The F6F, as well as most other American planes, were also more solidly built than the J2M. The J2M also remained plagued by reliability issues throughout its service life.
       
      In addition to the J2M2 and J2M3 which made up the majority of Raidens built, there were a few other variants. The J2M4 was fitted with a turbo-supercharger, allowing its engine to produce significantly more power at high altitudes (1). However, this arrangement was highly unreliable, and let to only two J2M4s being built. Some sources also report that the J2M4 had two obliquely firing 20mm Type 99 Model 2 cannons in the fuselage behind the pilot (3). The J2M5 used a three stage mechanical supercharger, which proved more reliable than the turbo-supercharger, and still gave significant performance increases at altitude. Production of the J2M5 began at Koza 21st Naval Air Depot in late 1944 (6), but ultimately only about 34 would be built (3). The J2M6 was developed before the J2M4 and J2M6, it had minor updates such as an improved bubble canopy, only one was built (3). Finally, there was the J2M7, which was planned to use the same engine as the J2M5, with the improvements of the J2M6 incorporated. Few, if any, of this variant were built (3).
       
      A total of 621 J2Ms were built, mostly by Mitsubishi, which produced 473 airframes (5). However, 128 aircraft (about 1/5th of total production), were built at the Koza 21st Naval Air Depot (6). In addition to the reliability issues which delayed the introduction of the J2M, production was also hindered by American bombing, especially in 1945. For example, Appendix G of (5) shows that 270 J2Ms were ordered in 1945, but only 116 were produced in reality. (Unfortunately, sources (5) and (6) do not distinguish between different variants in their production figures.)
       
      Though the J2M2 variant first flew in October 1942, initial production of the Raiden was very slow. In the whole of 1942, only 13 airframes were produced (5). This included the three J2M1 prototypes. 90 airframes were produced in 1943, a significant increase over the year before, but still far less than had been ordered (5), and negligible compared to the production of American types. Production was highest in the spring and summer of 1944 (5), before falling off in late 1944 and 1945.
       
      The initial J2M1 and J2M2 variants were armed with a pair of Type 97 7.7mm machine guns, and two Type 99 Model 2 20mm cannons. The Type 97 used a 7.7x56mm rimmed cartridge; a clone of the .303 British round (7). This was the same machine gun used on other IJN fighters such as the A5M and A6M. The Type 99 Model 2 20mm cannon was a clone of the Swiss Oerlikon FF L (7), and used a 20x101mm cartridge.
       
      The J2M3 and further variants replaced the Type 97 machine guns with a pair of Type 99 Model 1 20mm cannons. These cannons, derived from the Oerlikon FF, used a 20x72mm cartridge (7), firing a round with roughly the same weight as the one used in the Model 2 at much lower velocity (2000 feet per second vs. 2500 feet per second (3), some sources (7) report an even lower velocity for the Type 99). The advantage the Model 1 had was lightness; it weighed only 26 kilograms vs. 34 kilograms for the model 2. Personally, I am doubtful that saving 16 kilograms was worth the difficulty of trying to use two weapons with different ballistics at the same time. Some variants (J2M3a, J2M5a) had four Model 2 20mm cannons (3), but they seem to be in the minority.
       

       
       
      In addition to autocannons and machine guns, the J2M was also fitted with two hardpoints which small bombs or rockets could be attached to (3) (4). Given the Raiden's role as an interceptor, and the small capacity of the hardpoints (roughly 60 kilograms) (3), it is highly unlikely that the J2M was ever substantially used as a bomber. Instead, it is more likely that the hardpoints on the J2M were used as mounting points for large air to air rockets, to be used to break up bomber formations, or ensure the destruction of a large aircraft like the B-29 in one hit. The most likely candidate for the J2M's rocket armament was the Type 3 No. 6 Mark 27 Bomb (Rocket) Model 1. Weighing 145 pounds (65.8 kilograms) (8), the Mark 27 was filled with payload of 5.5 pounds of incendiary fragments; upon launch it would accelerate to high subsonic speeds, before detonating after a set time (8). It is also possible that the similar Type 3 No. 1 Mark 28 could have been used; this was similar to the Mark 27, but much smaller, with a total weight of only 19.8 pounds (9 kilograms).
       
       
       
      The first unit to use the J2M in combat was the 381st Kokutai (1). Forming in October 1943, the unit at first operated Zeros, though gradually it filled with J2M2s through 1944. Even at this point, there were still problems with the Raiden's reliability. On January 30th, a Japanese pilot died when his J2M simply disintegrated during a training flight. By March 1944, the unit had been dispatched to Balikpapan, in Borneo, to defend the vital oil fields and refineries there. But due to the issues with the J2M, it used only Zeros. The first Raidens did not arrive until September 1944 (1). Reportedly, it made its debut on September 30th, when a mixed group of J2Ms and A6Ms intercepted a formation of B-24s attacking the Balikpapan refineries. The J2Ms did well for a few days, until escorting P-47s and P-38s arrived. Some 381st Raidens were also used in defense of Manila, in the Phillipines, as the Americans retook the islands. (9) By 1945, all units were ordered to return to Japan to defend against B-29s and the coming invasion. The 381st's J2Ms never made it to Japan; some ended up in Singapore, where they were found by the British (1).
       

       
       
      least three units operated the J2M in defense of the home islands of Japan; the 302nd, 332nd, and 352nd Kokutai. The 302nd's attempted combat debut came on November 1st, 1944, when a lone F-13 (reconaissance B-29) overflew Tokyo (1). The J2Ms, along with some Zeros and other fighters, did not manage to intercept the high flying bomber. The first successful attack against the B-29s came on December 3rd, when the 302nd shot down three B-29s. Later that month the 332nd first engaged B-29s attacking the Mitsubishi plant on December 22nd, shooting down one. (1)
      The 352nd operated in Western Japan, against B-29s flying out of China in late 1944 and early 1945. At first, despite severe maintenace issues, they achieved some successes, such as on November 21st, when a formation of B-29s flying at 25,000 feet was intercepted. Three B-29s were shot down, and more damaged.

      In general, when the Raidens were able to get to high altitude and attack the B-29s from above, they were relatively successful. This was particularly true when the J2Ms were assigned to intercept B-29 raids over Kyushu, which were flown at altitudes as low as 16,000 feet (1). The J2M also had virtually no capability to intercept aircraft at night, which made them essentially useless against LeMay's incendiary raids on Japanese cities. Finally the arrival of P-51s in April 1945 put the Raidens at a severe disadvantage; the P-51 was equal to or superior to the J2M in almost all respects, and by 1945 the Americans had much better trained pilots and better maintained machines. The last combat usage of the Raiden was on the morning of August 15th. The 302nd's Raidens and several Zeros engaged several Hellcats from VF-88 engaged in strafing runs. Reportedly four Hellcats were shot down, for the loss of two Raidens and at least one Zero(1). Japan surrendered only hours later.

      At least five J2Ms survived the war, though only one intact Raiden exists today. Two of the J2Ms were captured near Manila on February 20th, 1945 (9) (10). One of them was used for testing; but only briefly. On its second flight in American hands, an oil line in the engine failed, forcing it to land. The aircraft was later destroyed in a ground collision with a B-25 (9). Two more were found by the British in Singapore (1), and were flown in early 1946 but ex-IJN personnel (under close British supervision). The last Raiden was captured in Japan in 1945, and transported to the US. At some point, it ended up in a park in Los Angeles, before being restored to static display at the Planes of Fame museum in California.
       
       

       
       
      Sources:
       
       
      https://www.docdroid.net/gDMQra3/raiden-aeroplane-february-2016.pdf#page=2
      F6F-5 vs. J2M3 Comparison
      http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/j2m.htm
      http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Jack-11-105A.pdf
      https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015080324281;view=1up;seq=80
      https://archive.org/stream/corporationrepor34unit#page/n15/mode/2up
      http://users.telenet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/fgun/fgun-pe.html
      http://ww2data.blogspot.com/2016/04/imperial-japanese-navy-explosives-bombs.html
      https://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/j2m/3008.html
      https://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/j2m/3013.html
      https://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/j2m/3014.html
       
       
      Further reading:
       
      An additional two dozen Raiden photos: https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/japan/aircrafts/j2m-raiden/
       
       
    • By Belesarius
      Possible image of the H-20 bomber. Screengrab.  This will be the thread for the H-20 as more information becomes available.
       
      Anyone want to take a shot at translating what's on screen for us?
       
      Edit: This is a photoshop, as confirmed later in the thread where it was posted.
      But I'll keep the thread going for later stuff, and H-20 discussion.
       
       
       
    • By Alzoc
      Topic to post photo and video of various AFV seen through a thermal camera.
      I know that we won't be able to make any comparisons on the thermal signature of various tank without knowing which camera took the image and that the same areas (tracks, engine, sometimes exhaust) will always be the ones to show up but anyway:
       
      Just to see them under a different light than usual (pardon the terrible pun^^)
       
      Leclerc during a deployment test of the GALIX smoke dispenser:
       
      The picture on the bottom right was made using the castor sight (AMX 10 RC, AMX 30 B2)
       
      Akatsiya :
       

       
      T-72:
       


       
      A T-62 I think between 2 APC:
       

       
      Stryker:
       

       
      Jackal:
       

       
      HMMWV:
       

       
      Cougar 4x4:
       

       
      LAV:
       

    • By Collimatrix
      I found this interesting picture of the Yakovlev MFI design:
       

       
      Obviously, it was never built.  The MiG submission was the 1.44 and the Sukhoi submission was the SU-47.
×
×
  • Create New...