When US Air Force F-16CM Falcon or US Navy EA-18G Growler fighters fly Wild Weasel missions they use Self Protect mode.
In this mode the Falcon's AN/ASQ-213 HTS R7 (to the left of the air inlet) and the Growler's AN/ALQ-218(V)2 (on the wingtips) sensor systems detect, locate, 2/n
analyze, and identify sources of radio frequency emission. Once a threat is identified the pilot transmits the target data to the missile and launches it.
There is no chance this would work with Ukrainian fighters as US sensor systems can't be installed on Ukrainian planes
3/n
and there is no way to transmit targeting data to the missiles.
Self Protect mode can also be used with aircraft like the F-15C, F-15E, F/A-18C (photo), which lack the aforementioned sensor systems.
In this case the aircraft's own less accurate, less powerful radar warning
4/n
receiver would be used to identify targets. This would also not work with Ukrainian planes as there is no way to transmit the targeting data to the missiles.
In the Target Of Opportunity mode the AGM-88's own passive radar homing seeker scans for and detects targets.
5/n
Once the missile detects a target it transmits the target data to the plane's avionics and the pilot decides if it is a threat. The pilot then fires the missile, which attacks the target autonomously.
This wouldn't work with Ukrainian planes either as the missile can't
6/n
transmit target data to the pilots.
BUT - most importantly: Self Protect and Target Of Opportunity modes are suicide UNLESS a plane carries a full range of jamming and self-protection pods. This is why the US nowadays only uses the AGM-88 with F-16CM and EA-18G planes.
7/n
F-16CM carry an ALQ-184 ECM electronic countermeasures pod and at least one AN/ALE-50 towed decoy system.
EA-18G carry three AN/ALQ-99F(V) tactical jamming system pods (photo: one centerline and two under the wings).
8/n
Without these systems planes will not survive flying high and deep into an enemy air-defense bubbles.
This leaves only the Pre-Briefed mode. In this mode a AGM-88 is programmed before the fighter departs from the air base with the coordinates of an enemy radar site.
9/n
Once in the air the fighter releases the AGM-88 at maximum speed and maximum altitude, giving the missile a range in excess of 150 km.
Once released the AGM-88 will fly towards the coordinates, and when it reaches lock-on range it will scan for, detect, lock on and attack
10/n
the target autonomously.
This mode works with Ukrainian fighters jets. All they have to do is lift the AGM-88 up, go supersonic, and release the missile.
While AGM-88B and AGM-88C-1 use INS to steer them towards a target area, where they then scan for targets, the
11/n
AGM-88D also includes GPS-guidance, which enables the missile to strike known radar and air-defense sites, even when they do not emit radio frequencies.
And C-1 and D also have the ability to home-on-jam, which forces russia to switch off it's electronic warfare systems.
12/n
And how does Ukraine know where to aim the AGM-88... I think there are two ways:
1) locals reporting the locations of russian air defense systems, radars, jammers, electronic warfare systems 2) US Air Force or UK Royal Air Force RC-135V/W Rivet Joint aircraft, which are
13/n
used to detect, identify and geolocate electromagnetic signals.
US Air Force Rivet Joints have been used before to detected enemy radar and radio emissions and then vector AGM-88 carrying fighters towards these targets. However RC-135 flying over Romania can only scan the
14/n
Kherson Oblast... anything further is out of range.
Ukraine using AGM-88 forces the russians to switch off all their systems emitting radio frequencies. If they leave them on 24/7 as they did until now Ukraine will destroy them all with AGM-88.
15/n
And thanks to russia showing us the remnants of a AGM-88, we know that Ukraine received the D variant with GPS guidance.
So even if the russians switch their systems on and off, once the AGM-88D has locked on, there is no escape for the russians. Absolutely no escape.
16/end
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
These are the π¬π§ UK's HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales aircraft carriers.
First, as you can see in this picture, only one actually carries aircraft. The UK barely had enough money to buy the F-35B for one. For the other the Blairites expected the US Marine Corps 1/9
to provide the required aircraft, because the two carriers were bought so the Royal Navy could fight alongside the US Navy against China in the Pacific.
But the US does NOT want the British carriers anywhere near its carrier strike groups, because the UK carriers would slow
2/9
down a US carrier strike groups, as the UK did not have the money for nuclear propulsion.
And as the UK doesn't have the money for the ships that make up a carrier strike group (destroyers, frigates, submarines) the UK expected the US Navy to detach some of its destroyers and 3/9
π¬π§ decline: Only one SSN is operational, three are no longer fit for service and got no crews. One carrier has no air wing and has been sent to rust away. The other carrier only has an air wing when the RAF cedes a third of its fighters. Only 1 destroyer is operational. The
1/5
frigates are falling apart. New Type 31 frigates won't get Mark 41 VLS or bow Sonar. The RAF took 48 of its Eurofighters apart, because it got no money for spares. The army has just 14 155mm howitzers. The Ajax vehicle is injuring the troops it carries. The Warrior IFVs are
2/5
outdated and falling apart. They amphibious ships are not deployable / crewed for lack of funds. The UK has not anti-ballistic missile system (e.g.Patriot). There is only money for 12 F-35A, the smallest F-35A order on the planet. The tank force is at its smallest since 1938.
3/5
International Law is worthless paper if you cannot and will not back it up with military power.
Dictators do not care for international law. But they fear the US Air Force. The moment the US signaled it would no longer back "international law" putin annexed Crimea and Assad
1/10
gassed his people. International Law is what defence laggards hide behind to not have to spend for their own security (hoping the US will save them from their irresponsibility) .
European politicians like to grandstand about "international law" but NO European nation has the
2/n
the means (nor the will) to the enforce it. European politicians grandstanding about international law always do so in the belief that the US will enforce their balderdash.
So European politicians lecturing the US about "international law" now are utter morons, because they
3/n
All this "NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war in Ukraine" is ridiculous, because:
β’ of course NATO is unprepared for the use of drones like the war IN (!) Ukraine,
β’ because that is not how a NATO-russia war will be fought. NATO, even just European NATO,
1/4
fields: 244 F-35, 403 Eurofighter, 183 Rafale, 177 modern F-16, 3 Gripen E, and 896 older fighter types.
A total of 1,906+ fighters (without the US Air Force and Royal Canadian Air Force; and with more new fighters entering European service every week).
russia, when counting
2/4
generously can't even put half that fighter strength into the field, and the 1,010 modern European NATO fighters would devastate russia's fighter force.
With NATO air supremacy comes absolute dominance of the battlefield. Every russian moving near the front would get bombed
3/4
Gripen fans keep hyping the Gripen with fake claims & as long as they do, I will counter them:
Scandinavian Air Force officer about the Gripen E: It can either be fully fueled or fully armed or flown from short runways. Never can 2 of these things be done at the same time.
1/25
The Gripen fans keep claiming that the Gripen has a better range than the F-35 and can fly from short runways... then admit that its max. range can only be achieved with external fuel tanks, which weigh so much that the Gripen E can no longer fly from short runways.
2/n
External fuel tanks also mean: the Gripen becomes slower, the radar cross section increases (making detection more likely), the fuel consumption increases,... and even with all 3 external fuel tanks the Gripen E carries 1,340 kg less fuel than the F-35A carries internally.
3/n
Gripen fans continue to spam my mention with claims how fantastic Sweden's Bas 90 and Gripen combination is... and that it would work for Canada's North too...
Ok, let's quickly compare Canada's three northern territories (Yukon, Northwest, Nunavut) and Sweden... ... 1/6
Land area:
πΈπͺ 450,295 km2 (173,860 sq mi)
π¨π¦ terr.: 3,593,589 km2 (173,860 sq mi)
The land area of just the three territories (without Canada's 10 provinces) is already 8 times bigger than all of Sweden...
(In total Canada's land area is 9,984,670 km2
2/6
(3,855,100 sq mi) or 22 times Sweden).
Population:
πΈπͺ 10.61 million
π¨π¦ terr.: 0.13 million
Sweden's population is 81.6 times bigger than that of the three territories... and if you look at population density:
πΈπͺ 23,6/km2
π¨π¦ terr.: 0,013/km2
3/6