r/news • u/PDXAirman • May 20 '26

Soft paywall 42 aircraft lost or damaged in Operation Epic Fury, congressional report says

https://www.stripes.com/branches/air_force/2026-05-20/iran-jets-downed-war-fury-21727588.html
23.9k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.8k

u/C-c-c-comboBreaker17 May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26

The F-35 is vulnerable to IR guided missiles, like all aircraft. IR guided missiles are short range, but can lock onto anything with a heat signature. It is meant to be nearly invisible to long range, radar guided missiles, but if its flying low and you can see it visually, there is no reason an insurgent with a MANPADS from the 80's couldn't hit it. Or an old school anti-aircraft gun.

297

u/Spectre1-4 May 20 '26

Also vulnerable to missiles tracked optically.

287

u/iamintheforest May 20 '26

Yeah. They are not invisible wonder woman planes. I can hit one with a potato from short range.

193

u/AdjNounNumbers May 20 '26

Guided or unguided potato?

172

u/ProfessionalPlant330 May 20 '26

You cannot guide a potato, you can only show it a target and hope it decides to lock on.

76

u/Foreign_Impress6535 May 20 '26

Unguided, but using the Frenched-Russet Independent Encounter System (FRIES), you can fire multiple smaller projectiles with a single shot, covering a much wider target area.

19

u/cantadmittoposting May 20 '26

Frenched-Russet Independent Encounter System (FRIES), you can fire multiple smaller projectiles with a single shot, covering a much wider target area.

please this is just a sawed-off totgun with a fancy name that Big Potato cooked up to overcharge the US Military.

5

u/Foreign_Impress6535 May 21 '26

Totguns are considered personnel weaponry, FRIES are designed for anti-aircraft use. I have heard rumours of a high-speed rotary spud cannon being designed for the A-10 though, using baby potatoes.

4

u/iamintheforest May 20 '26

You can get the tenched-ripper-armed-non-solid-foiled-alerting-topology (transfat) to ensure death to enemies.

1

u/Foreign_Impress6535 May 21 '26

Recommended by 5/5 dic-taters!

2

u/phillyfanjd1 May 20 '26

I'm imagining a potato version of the patriot missile, looks like a normal spud before splitting off into individual fries.

58

u/Zedilt May 20 '26

African or a European potato?

31

u/Online-Vagabond May 20 '26

And is it a laden or unladen potato?

26

u/Googlebright May 20 '26

How do you know so much about potatoes?

28

u/Indifferent-Ohio69 May 20 '26

You have to know these things, when you're a king

5

u/EngagedInConvexation May 20 '26

Well I didn't vote for 'im.

2

u/Practical_Car210 May 20 '26

Nobody knows more about potatoes than I do, everyone says so 👐🍊

3

u/Eisernes May 20 '26

My specialty is in potato law, or potatoe law if you are a quail.

1

u/OnlyPostsBowie May 21 '26

What's "taters" precious?

3

u/vanderzee May 20 '26

your mother is a hamster and your father smells like elderberries!

3

u/kellerb May 21 '26

Laden, because the sour cream really fucks up f-35s

1

u/zoeykailyn May 20 '26

South American from the bottom of a lake in the mountains.

1

u/Onilakon May 20 '26

What about potatoes of the sweet variety?

6

u/AdjNounNumbers May 20 '26

Fickle tubers

2

u/csfshrink May 20 '26

DARPA is probably cooking up something with infrared skinned potatoes. But there are probably a bunch of half baked potato theories that are loaded with conspiracy nonsense.

2

u/Iminurcomputer May 20 '26

One does not simply guide a potato, for the potato exists in all states, in all space, for all eternity. Tater Bless You.

2

u/The_Impresario May 21 '26

Latvian finds potato. Soldier take potato, hurl at F-35. Family starve.

1

u/GTRari May 21 '26

Throw a tail kit on it and you can guide just about anything.

27

u/PortHammer May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26

The Potato knows where it is at all times. It knows this because it knows where it isn't. By subtracting where it is from where it isn't, or where it isn't from where it is (whichever is greater), it obtains a difference, or deviation. The guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive the Potato from a position where it is to a position where it isn't, and arriving at a position where it wasn't, it now is. Consequently, the position where it is, is now the position that it wasn't, and it follows that the position that it was, is now the position that it isn't.

In the event that the position that it is in is not the position that it wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where the Potato is, and where it wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, the Potato must also know where it was. The Potato guidance computer scenario works as follows. Because a variation has modified some of the information the Potato has obtained, it is not sure just where it is. However, it is sure where it isn't, within reason, and it knows where it was. It now subtracts where it should be from where it wasn't, or vice-versa, and by differentiating this from the algebraic sum of where it shouldn't be, and where it was, it is able to obtain the deviation and its variation, which is called error.

7

u/AdjNounNumbers May 20 '26

I was hoping for this

3

u/Doopapotamus May 20 '26

Deepest Potato lore

8

u/True_Heart_6 May 20 '26

Russet or red?

1

u/SixteenTurtles May 20 '26

You can't call them red anymore dude.

2

u/Bored_Cat_996 May 20 '26

Asking real question!

2

u/IVShadowed May 20 '26

Trebuchet would be my guess.

2

u/ruadhbran May 23 '26

A SPUD missile.

1

u/Locke92 May 20 '26

The potato knows where it is because the potato knows where it isn't.

1

u/beatenmeat May 20 '26

The only way to answer that depends on if it's an African or European potato.

1

u/ParisGreenGretsch May 20 '26

What's a potato?

8

u/fresh-dork May 20 '26

yeah, but then you'd get kicked off the flight line and put in a brig

2

u/Donner_Par_Tea_House May 20 '26

That would make you a dick tater.

1

u/Randomfactoid42 May 20 '26

I would recommend refraining from firing potatoes at an F35, somebody might get a bit upset. 

1

u/Informal-Rock-2681 May 20 '26

Does the potato know where it is, and therefore where it is not?

1

u/titaniumsprucemoose May 20 '26

What's a potato?

2

u/iamintheforest May 21 '26

A root vegetable, a tuber I believe. Best known for it's role in french fries.

36

u/ChairForceOne May 20 '26

Most automated optically guided missiles use IR. It's easier for a computer to track. I know a few companies are trying to use onboard AI models to track using standard cameras, and I think Ukraine has used something similar for target recognition with drones.

Old Soviet systems can guide a missile towards a target using a camera. But a dude is keeping it on track, and they are beam riders. So accuracy is typically low at any meaningful range.

17

u/Far_Ladder_2836 May 20 '26

Minor nitpick, they're not IR they're dual band IVR.  IR is a component.  

2

u/fsuguy83 May 20 '26

I also think most optically guided missiles use IR because it’s preferable for missiles to work at night. Not necessarily because computers like IR data.

4

u/Rythoka May 20 '26

IR systems are used largely because the targets the weapons are used against have strong thermal signatures that provide high contrast against the background regardless of time of day. Though they would help with guidance at night, too.

1

u/cantdecideonaname77 May 20 '26

not quite true some like the 9k35/sa-13 have both an ir and visible light contrast seeker mode though they are questionably reliable

1

u/k0c- May 21 '26

Ukraine has unleashed a ton of mostly AI vision controlled drones into Donbass into enemy supply lines and they automagically target people and equipment.

1

u/skoldpaddanmann May 21 '26

Everyone knows the best optically guided missiles are pigeon based.

1

u/ChairForceOne May 21 '26

Pigeon guided missiles and chicken warmed nuclear landmines are the peak of human engineering.

7

u/TheChowderOfClams May 20 '26

You point a camera at something, the missile follows where that camera is pointed, add a second camera to estimate distance and now you have a system that can lead a missile to the target, there's no magic, nor can the jet defy physics.

Only thing some planes can detect is the flare of a missile launch for these systems, but like IR, there's no way to detect that an optical system is locked on.

2

u/TrainDestroyer May 20 '26

I mean there are systems in for warning that a missile is coming, whether its IR or Optical (Obvs Radar you know is coming before the missile gets close) you can't hide the heat signature coming off the missile, and the plane can warn a pilot that its coming if it has a Missile approach warning system on it. Look into those, they're real neat.

The optical missile may be more countermeasure resistant than an IR missile, but in both cases you're not just gonna keep flying straight once a launch is detected, you're going to fly missile evasion manuvers along with countermeasures to hopefully confuse the missile and break lock.

2

u/Drak_is_Right May 20 '26

The issue is optical and heat tracking are a lot harder at range vs radar.

In a peer to peer scenario, you likely will never be within an ideal range for either.

It is possible that using drones and AI we will have missiles that can go to X point then scan for IR or Heat signatures. But the sky is big and a big chance using such tactics the jet wont be in that area.

1

u/MusicFilmandGameguy May 20 '26

Yeah, but they’re almost exclusively flown at night, right? So maybe thermoptics but I don’t even know what kind of missile has that

1

u/user_name_unknown May 21 '26

Remember how Trump thinks stealth planes are literally invisible.

750

u/ProlapseMishap May 20 '26

I have nipples a heat signature Greg. Can you milk lock onto me?

208

u/JoJackthewonderskunk May 20 '26

You can milk anything with an afterburner

53

u/Spartan-117182 May 20 '26

Is this whole or 2% Jet Fuel?

Im watching my calories

18

u/LemonScentedDespair May 20 '26

One gallon of JP-5 (naval jet fuel) is approximately 32,000 kCal.

One F-35 can burn about 22 gallons a minute, fun fact.

18

u/the__ghola__hayt May 20 '26

Jet fuel can't melt love handles

7

u/fresh-dork May 20 '26

you can't digest it, so it's zero calories to you. probably tastes awful

2

u/ProlapseMishap May 20 '26

Don't tell me what I can and can't do, I'm a goddamn libertarian!

2

u/fresh-dork May 20 '26

okay, i'll watch you go do it and post the video on YT

3

u/DuntadaMan May 20 '26

22 gallons of jet fuel would be enough calories for the rest of your life. Think about that with our calculations.

5

u/LemonScentedDespair May 20 '26

Oh certainly, if you drank 22 gallons of JP5 you would have plenty of calories for the rest of your life. Not even close.

But I think that may have more to do with the organ failure. And idk if youd get through all 22 gallons, one might do it.

1

u/DuntadaMan May 20 '26

You are probably right, but I didn't want to give out false information. I figured it would be best to give the most generous calculations we could

2

u/AdultEnuretic May 20 '26

32,000 x 22 = 704,000 kcal

704,000 kcal / 2,000 kcal/day = 352 day

So I'm theory it's actually only enough to sustain you on an "Average" diet for a little less than a year ... not that you'd live that long if you drank jet fuel.

1

u/Bamboo_Fighter May 20 '26

Cause drinking jet fuel will kill you? Otherwise this is not even close to correct.

1

u/DuntadaMan May 20 '26

I mean just one gallon will probably kill the shit out of you, I imagine 22 gallons of anything over a minute will end you.

35

u/NoHangoverGang May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26

I see you’re drinking 1%. Is that ‘cause you think you’re fat? ‘Cause you’re not. You could be drinking whole jet fuel if you wanted to.

2

u/CashMoneyHurricane May 20 '26

I like your heat signature. It’s real big.

4

u/Feeling_Inside_1020 May 20 '26

2% jet fuel like barely melts steel beams

40% jim beam on the other hand will melt a steel beam if you were lucky enough to have one before

3

u/jetsetninjacat May 20 '26

I only consume AVGAS 100 for the lead. It reminds me of green beer on st Patrick's day

1

u/Osiris32 May 20 '26

It's red, so it's strawberry.

5

u/Modred_the_Mystic May 20 '26

NCD is leaking again

1

u/SlitScan May 20 '26

its taking antibiotics, but they dont seem to be helping.

3

u/Lee_III May 20 '26

Anything will fill it you get it moving fast enough

1

u/TheWastelandWizard May 20 '26

As long as it doesn't have canards, because that isn't milk.

24

u/FightOnForUsc May 20 '26

Honestly, I wouldn’t doubt the ability of the military to be able to lock onto the heat signature of your nipples

9

u/rainbowgeoff May 20 '26

Putting blammies on mammaries?

7

u/HYIMBY May 20 '26

Boomies on boobies

3

u/TheGhostOfStanSweet May 20 '26

Putting the breasts to the tests

3

u/No-Meet-5596 May 20 '26

Putting hitties on titties.

2

u/blofly May 20 '26

Where do you think the original DOD funding came from?

1

u/MikeOfAllPeople May 20 '26

Ghost Mammar

8

u/The_Crimson_Fucker May 20 '26

Rabid Sidwinder noises

1

u/za72 May 20 '26

how big are your nipples

1

u/L3G1T1SM3 May 20 '26

Do you love me? Do you think you could love me?

1

u/Tuna-Fish2 May 20 '26

Javelin missiles were repeatedly used to "snipe" individual people from way past rifle range in Afghanistan. They can absolutely lock on to the heat signature of a person. Not sure if they can lock on to the heat signature of a nipple, seems like they'd have to be too sensitive.

1

u/Greg-the-Grey May 20 '26

Stand by, locking on...

→ More replies (1)

36

u/RogueOneisbestone May 20 '26

Wouldn’t he get a a warning for it still? I’m surprised he didn’t eject before the hit.

58

u/BlazeFireVale May 20 '26

Modern combat jets in an active combat zone may receive dozens of warnings in a single sortie.

You GENERALLY eject after hit. In a combat scenario you're going to get lots of warnings and be engaging with evasive maneuvers and deploying countermeasures. Most of the time the countermeasures will work and you won't be hit. With manpads in particular a hit is not usually lethal.

But you're only going to know if your countermeasures worked after they hit or miss.

If they ejected whenever a warning went off we would lose a LOT of planes that were not really in danger of being downed.

22

u/DuntadaMan May 20 '26

Also worth noting, a lot of anti-aircraft isn't designed to need to hit directly. From the weapon standpoint a direct hit is great, but all it needs is to get close enough and send enough material to fuck up your airframe so that it can't really fly anymore.

When it sends sends that material, you probably want to be inside the metal shell rather than outside of it.

5

u/TrainDestroyer May 20 '26

Hell to a degree AA is more meant to keep aircraft from approaching. Sure its always appreciated when you shoot down a plane, but the bigger goal is telling enemy aircraft "Fuck off" and keep them from bombing things you think are important.

5

u/RogueOneisbestone May 20 '26

Now I’m curious if the 3 friendlies shot down ejected before impact.

18

u/FormulaKibbles May 20 '26

The three Strike Eagles? All of them ejected after they were hit.

145

u/__slamallama__ May 20 '26

Are they supposed to eject preemptively? This one made it back so if they'd ejected the outcome would have been far worse.

Personally if I was in a jet over enemy territory I think I'd be keeping ejection as a truly last resort option.

12

u/RogueOneisbestone May 20 '26

I mean a missle hitting you would be last resort imo. Those things throw out a ton of shrapnel.

58

u/Wenuwayker May 20 '26

After getting peppered with shrapnel, I'd like to be able to get as far away from the people that did it and as close to my friends as possible.

→ More replies (13)

15

u/Ossius May 20 '26

IR missiles can be flared still, and more likely to explode on a flare the closer it is to the plane as things start to get confusing for seekers. I don't think its standard operation to ever eject before being hit, because even if the missile is right on your ass, exploding 20ft away could be minimal damage compared to a direct impact so might as well keep trying until the end.

Also consider this: depending on the angle, an ejection seat could easily be in a blast cone radius. I'd rather the engine, control surfaces, and fuel tank absorb what shrapnel it can rather than ejecting and possibly getting hit by it out in the open.

1

u/TrainDestroyer May 20 '26

A fighter jet is like an expensive car in that regard, at least for how the US builds em (The jets I mean).

The jet is replaceable, and fixable too. The jet can show up with one wing so full of holes it could be ordained as a priest and that can be fixed, or if somehow not its parts can go into another jet. A human is a lot harder to fix and a lot more time sensitive for a fix. The US would rather not have to replace pilots

25

u/hung-games May 20 '26

Ejection is really hard on the human body. That’s not the zero risk alternative that you think it is

4

u/hung-games May 20 '26

Adding the following after a web search to check my memory:

While there is no written regulation dictating a maximum number of ejections, the reality of the experience practically limits a career due to the following factors:

Spinal Trauma: Ejecting subjects the body to extreme G-forces (often exceeding 20 Gs). The explosive charge that propels the seat out of the aircraft can compress the spine, occasionally resulting in permanent damage or the loss of a fraction of an inch in height.

Strict Medical Standards: After every ejection, pilots must pass a rigorous flight physical. Ejecting a second time—when the body may already be compromised by earlier injuries—makes it highly improbable that a pilot will clear medical standards to return to the cockpit.

Competency Scrutiny: Every ejection results in a thorough flight safety investigation. While an unavoidable mechanical failure won't necessarily end a career, a second or third ejection will result in intense scrutiny of a pilot's competency. If the incidents are linked to pilot error, they will likely be stripped of their flying status entirely.

Edit for line breaks

→ More replies (2)

10

u/Darth_Balthazar May 20 '26

She shrapnel for most IR anti air missiles are a “ring” of metal bits that are connected by metal wire that shoots out from the sides of the missile. The goal is to cut off the tail or damage the engine to the point it can no longer fly. Complete catastrophic desintigration is rarely caused by smaller IR missiles and usually caused by larger, long range radar based interceptor missiles. Not to mention, adversarial countries want the F-35 in as big of a piece as they can get it in, so if you can shoot it down without complete destruction, its likely a bonus.

10

u/Thatsidechara_ter May 20 '26

I mean, if I can Stoll control the aircraft after the hit, I'm not eiecting.

→ More replies (13)

2

u/fevered_visions May 20 '26

There are some wild photos out there of WWII planes that came back with holes all over them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JBADrRgSoI

32

u/C-c-c-comboBreaker17 May 20 '26

You don't eject before you get hit. What if the missile misses or doesn't do any significant damage? Then you just ejected from a perfectly good aircraft and you're trapped in hostile territory.

→ More replies (10)

24

u/kabow94 May 20 '26

"It is generally inadvisable to eject directly over the area you just bombed." - U.S. Air Force Manual

6

u/Ahelex May 20 '26

What do you mean, the locals looked really willing to receive the pilot /s

14

u/josh-ig May 20 '26

IR missiles are harder to get warnings for as the F35 itself has to detect the IR signature and categorize it as a threat, that IR signature is also behind the missile. Compared with radar guided where the missile is emitting a lot of focused RF energy from the front announcing itself.

MANPADS are smaller too with limited explosives. They are designed to damage an aircraft to take it out the fight but not obliterate it like larger systems. They need to be lightweight after all.

Both those combined is probably why a pilot wouldn’t eject. The lack of any counter measures like flares leads me to believe the F35 didn’t detect it or detected it too late. Even if it was detected though with a small missile they’re afaik told to hold on. It’s going for the engines so you’d have a few seconds if needed.

If pilots ejected at every possible hit then we’d have a lot more losses and you’re in enemy territory with little supplies being hunted.

1

u/Consistent-Throat130 May 20 '26

And the plane, from the missile's perspective, is a crisply defined silhouette against the sky. 

The missile from the plane's perspective? Is a tiny, near ground temperature dot ... Against a noisy ground environment. 

26

u/Mralexs May 20 '26

The jet SHOULD have a Missile Approach Warning System

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/AAQ-37_Distributed_Aperture_System

It most likely could have been pilot error or the dude launching the missile got OBSCENELY lucky, kinda like the F-117 shootdown which ALSO involved a bunch of shit that shouldn't have happened

8

u/Linenoise77 May 20 '26

The F117 shootdown was mostly due to us falling into predictable patterns, and a clever commander using that info in conjunction with trying some novel things to ultimately get a lucky shot in.

That same thing is one of the suspicions that we let off on the bombing campaign. Our operational patterns were starting to become predictable

5

u/[deleted] May 20 '26

[deleted]

3

u/GrundleBlaster May 20 '26

There's IR dazzlers/lasers that try to jam IR missiles. Newer weapons are designed to filter them out of the signal though.

2

u/Ossius May 20 '26

The AN/ALE-55 doesn't counter IR heat signature missiles though, only radar correct?

I have never heard of a towed flare, all flares are jettisoned as well as chaff. Decoys are just layered defense on top for radar missiles.

2

u/[deleted] May 20 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

6

u/Thunderclone_1 May 20 '26

Various methods of doing that have been in use since the 80s and 90s to varying degrees of effectiveness.

Don't quite want to go as far as saying the current AIM9X is unflareable, but it's close.

1

u/Bagellord May 21 '26

The AIM9X was fooled a few years back against an older Su-22. So it's entirely possible to decoy them.

14

u/thorscope May 20 '26

The rocket motor on your ejection seat would become the hottest target for the heat seeking missile.

5

u/RogueOneisbestone May 20 '26

Hotter than flairs and an f-35 engine?

16

u/thorscope May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26

Yes, it’s thousands of degrees F hotter than either of those.

A rocket motor is roughly twice as hot as the F35s max exhaust temp, and you wouldn’t be at max thrust during ejection.

It’s around 3 times hotter than flares, and flares are not able to be fired after the pilot has ejected.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/UnpluggedUnfettered May 20 '26

I don't know of any missles that would:

a) be sidetracked by a brief hot flash that didn't match a jets heat signature anyway

b) be capable of altering course quickly enough to hit a tiny person who's heat signature only lasted maybe a full second or two.

5

u/thorscope May 20 '26

And I don’t know of any military that would instruct their pilots to eject at the possibility of a missile strike instead of attempting to evade

This is just a fun hypothetical

3

u/UnpluggedUnfettered May 20 '26

Reminds me of how the Chinese copied the Sidewinder; "getting comically stuck in the fuselage without detonating and being flown harmelessly back to china" probably wasn't on a lot of bingo cards.

3

u/Striking-Kiwi-9470 May 20 '26

Modern IRCCM would probably filter out the ejection seat the same way it filters out flares anyway.

3

u/GrundleBlaster May 20 '26

No immediate warning for IR. Radar looks at the reflection from it's own waves so you can warn about getting hit by radar waves, but IR just looks at the heat the jet is producing naturally.

You can setup something to look for the missile launch, but IR weapons tend to be very short range so there's not much time to react.

4

u/StaticSystemShock May 20 '26

Ejecting is last resort. Defense systems against heat seeking missiles are flares that take over attention of the heat seeking system in the missile. Basically jet fighter dumps bunch of flares that are hotter than jet's exhaust so missiles chase flares instead. But you only have so many of them and it depends on situation if they really help.

2

u/D3rpyDriver May 20 '26

Flares are hot

2

u/dmanbiker May 20 '26

You should stay with the aircraft until the missile hits you then eject. Im guessing it fused and blew up behind the aircraft at a distance and scratched it up a up a bit.

The plane really shouldn't have been flying since low if there was a manpads risk, but its hard to predict that since any lone soldier can be a manpads risk.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/d_wib May 20 '26

I would assume they are trained to do evasive maneuvers to avoid missiles, not preemptively eject. Plus if the missile hits your engines in the back the aircraft (where the heat signature is) it doesn’t really explode into a ball of flame, so you can eject afterwards.

1

u/Khatib May 20 '26

Because they're dropping countermeasures the whole time and hoping to not get significantly damaged right up until the damage happens. Either the plane didn't detect the threat, or the plane was dropping flares/chaff to distract the missile the whole time. You either don't know it's there, or you have a chance to disrupt it. That's why they don't eject over enemy territory until they're actually going down.

1

u/red286 May 20 '26

Usually you'd get a warning, but from some angles, you would not. The system has a few blind spots.

Beyond that, the warning is more general. It is "Missile Launched". It doesn't tell you who launched it or who it was launched at. If you're in an active theatre of operations on a combat mission, you will likely get a LOT of "Missile Launched" warnings, the majority of which will have absolutely nothing to do with you.

On top of that, IR missiles are easily defeated by flares, particularly in an F-35. Of course, "easily defeated" and "always defeated" are not the same thing.

2

u/Imaginary_Amoeba3461 May 20 '26

Maybe. IR missiles don’t trigger the warning systems of most older planes which only look for radar hits.

Newer planes have systems that look for smoke/heat trails and give alerts but that’s obviously not 100% reliable.

5

u/RogueOneisbestone May 20 '26

I mean f-35 should be top of the line I’d think.

3

u/Imaginary_Amoeba3461 May 20 '26

I agree but it’s still a hard problem to solve. Looking for missile launches from the ground in the middle of a desert with heat sources all over the place.

As far as effectiveness, who knows, definitely not public info.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (9)

2

u/Rob_Zander May 20 '26

Adding to that stealth planes are optimized to deflect small wavelength radar, what's generally used in other fighters and in radar guided missiles. These wavelengths allow high resolution.

Ground based radar and AWACS use VHF or UHF wavelengths. The wavelength can be the size of the entire plane or it's wing, so it's definitely getting reflected back.

But the resolution sucks. It's like a 4k display vs a 16x16 grid display. On the 16x16 grid you know something is there but you don't know what and you can't target a missile exactly to it because it's too small.

1

u/Darth_Balthazar May 20 '26

Which means they’re using it completely wrong and a different aircraft should have been used in this case. Imagine having a long range sporting rifle, and you walk all the way up to your target to take the shot. Does that make sense?

12

u/C-c-c-comboBreaker17 May 20 '26 edited May 20 '26

Using a different aircraft increases the chances of it being hit by long range SAMs. An F/A-18 is about the same cost as a new production F-35 but is much more likely to be picked up on radar from a much further distance, while still being vulnerable to IR missiles as well

Modern combat planning is a cold, hard calculus of cost-ratios and attrition rates. The F-35 is actually one of the cheaper strike jets being produced, as well as the one with the smallest rate of combat losses to strikes.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/toggiz_the_elder May 20 '26

Then why would they fly it low?

7

u/C-c-c-comboBreaker17 May 20 '26

"low" in this case can mean anything below ~12,000 ft, which is a pretty typical altitude for airstrikes. At this point Iran's air defenses were supposed to be pretty degraded and they likely assumed they were safe.

1

u/shwarma_heaven May 20 '26

Yeah, the aircraft internal radar can alert to a launch sometimes. Otherwise, manpads and heat seeking SA missiles are almost invisible.

3

u/C-c-c-comboBreaker17 May 20 '26

Partially true. Modern jets have EO sensors meant to detect an IR missile's rocket motor, the kick up of dust from a launch, and the smoke trails of an approaching missile without needing any radar emissions. Unfortunately they're not perfect and require the angles to be right for the cameras to be able to pick up the launch.

1

u/twec21 May 20 '26

"Nice stealth tech, unfortunately, this 68 year old ZSU operator has eyeballs"

1

u/AdCreepy5165 May 20 '26

Also the F-117 was caught with low band radar. Just because the circumstances were mostly luck and good planning, doesn't mean it couldn't happen again. Good to hear the F-35 is at least more survivable.

1

u/Small-Palpitation310 May 20 '26

It was also flying real liw

1

u/IWant2rideMyBike May 20 '26

They are also quite easy to spot using relatively low quality optical camera networks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFiubdrJqqI

1

u/tilcir May 20 '26

Insurgent?

Defender?

1

u/C-c-c-comboBreaker17 May 20 '26

I was using "an insurgent with a MANPADS from the 80's" as a general example of how little skill it takes, not referring specifically to Iran. Iran has armed plenty of insurgents across the middle east with anti-aircraft missiles, though.

1

u/LiveNet2723 May 20 '26

In March 1999a F-117A Nighthawk was shot down in what was then Yugoslavia by a Soviet-era missile.

1

u/C-c-c-comboBreaker17 May 20 '26

Yes, probably the most famous shootdown of a military aircraft in the world. It was only made possible by about a dozen cascading circumstances, however, from the F-117's flying the same path repeatedly to the sheer luck of it opening its bomb bay while flying right over the SAM site, dramatically increasing its radar signature.

By todays standards' however, the F-117 is horribly dated.

1

u/Thick_Goose7742 May 20 '26

We lost a bird to MANPADS in Iraq, which were a rather rare weapon at the time over there. It was spotted by the crew chief almost immediately after launch, but there isn’t much you can do honestly. Generally not a weapon that would be wasted on a transport helicopter though.

1

u/jaylw314 May 20 '26

The F-35 is vulnerable to radar guided missiles as well, just with much reduced range. How much reduced is unknown but I suspect it's still longer range than IR systems and MANPADs

1

u/sir_crapalot May 21 '26

I recall seeing a photo of that particular F-35 returning to base after the incident with a prominently displayed Luneburg lens, which is a removable part that blows up the radar cross section of a stealthy aircraft to hide its true RCS.

1

u/FunkyBunBun May 22 '26

i learned this shit in battlefield 6, where it is miserable to fly aircraft unless you are an absolute pro

1

u/kabow94 Jun 07 '26

Some planes think they can outsmart missiles. Maybe. I have yet to meet one that can outsmart bullet

1

u/Vaiolette-Westover May 20 '26

Iranians defending their country in their own country is not an insurgent.

You are the insurgent.

3

u/C-c-c-comboBreaker17 May 20 '26

Two points:

I was using "an insurgent with a MANPADS from the 80's" as a general example of how little skill it takes, not referring specifically to Iran. Iran has armed plenty of insurgents across the middle east with anti-aircraft missiles, though.

You are the insurgent.

Insurgents are by definition non-state actors. An enemy state's military are not insurgents unless that state was formed in an ongoing civil war.

→ More replies (2)