Did Iran disable a U.S. F-35 with heat-seeking missiles? Unpacking the potential vulnerability of advanced stealth technology against infrared threats.
By Kris Osborn, Warrior
A growing number of public reports continue to suggest that the U.S. F-35 which was “hit” by Iranian fire may have been detected by infra-red, heat-seeking sensors as opposed to electromagnetic “radar” which typically arms ground-based air defenses. Operational specifics related to these combat variables are not likely to be available in the public realm anytime soon, as Pentagon weapons developers have little interest in highlighting any possible F-35 “vulnerability.”
Is there a previously under-recognized F-35 “vulnerability?” Or was the Iranian hit on an F-35 simply a “lucky shot?” Perhaps the aircraft was flying too slowly or at a lower altitude, something quite possible given that the F-35 is increasingly thought of as a Close-Air-Support-capable platform. While an F-35 is “thin skinned” compared to a “flying tank” A-10, it can maneuver at much greater speeds and use longer-range high-fidelity sensors to identify and precisely hit ground targets from higher altitudes. The circumstances may not be clear, and might perhaps seem slightly surprising given that the U.S. and Israel have for weeks been operating with air superiority above Iran. Iran does not seem to operate any threatening Russian-built S-300 or S-400 air defenses, as they have likely been destroyed for quite some time. It’s possible the F-35 was flying at a lower altitude to perform closer-in reconnaissance or strike missions, or perhaps ground-based Iranian weapons fired “area” weapons or used “proximity” fuses to blanket a general “area” with explosive material. Hitting the F-35 may have simply been coincidence or “accidental.” United States Central Command says that yes the F-35 was “hit” by hostile fire, but that the aircraft made an emergency landing and the pilot is in “stable” condition.
Infrared Targeting
An interesting essay in the Times of India posits that indeed the Iranians may have been using heat-seeking infrared surface-to-air-weapons such as the Misagh-2, Majid and Herz-9. The shoulder-launched surface-to-air Stinger missile is also a “heat seeking” weapon, yet that is used against helicopters, drones and some fixed-wing aircraft flying at much lower altitudes than a typical F-35 would fly.. Instead of using “radar” or electromagnetic “pings” to detect an aircraft, these weapons simply home in on a “heat signature,” something which an F-35 may emit to some extent. However, while engine heat generated by propulsion or acceleration will undoubtedly emit some heat, F-35s and other stealth aircraft are carefully engineered with specific “cooling” technologies and “thermal management” systems designed to lessen or lower an aircraft’s heat emissions. These can be certain cooling fluids used throughout the fuselage, exhaust emissions management systems or technologies called “IR Suppressors” which negate, minimize or counter an aircraft’s heat signature. These systems are known to be quite effective, as they enable the aircraft to operate at temperatures as close to the surrounding atmosphere as possible in order to remain undetected by infrared targeting.
Range to hit F-35
While the specifics of the incident remain unknown and are certainly a subject of examination at the Pentagon, there is a general discrepancy between the known range of most MANPADs and shoulder-fired infrared-guided anti-aircraft fire. Most of these weapons can reach maximum ranges of 3-to-8km, whereas an F-35 can conduct effective combat missions from more than 50,000 feet or at least 15km. Therefore, it stands to reason that the F-35 may have simply been flying at much lower altitudes than it typically operates if the “hit” was generated by an Iranian infrared seeker. Given these dynamics, some might be inclined to wonder if Iran has developed a longer-range infrared anti-aircraft weapon.
Kris Osborn is the President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a highly qualified expert in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University