All Things Stealth

[lucklucky]

19 hours ago, TrustMe said:

I meant in technology. The only reason why countries buy non-US is for protection, or wanting to have several countries in the supply chain to ensure that one will remain open or that the US won't sell them more modern equipment.

The idea behind stealth is not simply that they can avoid enemy radar.

They also do not need lots of specialized support aircraft to accomplish a goal. If you look at operation Desert Storm, the F117 flew without Compass Call support ( to jam ground CGI ) EW aircraft and AWACS support. All expensive and vuln

erable platforms that are no longer needed. 

Now that the US is selling stealth aircraft left right and centre to smaller air forces, they can now function just like the US did 30 years ago without all these specialised aircraft hence the air force is much efficent.

 

 

Desert Storm was 30 years ago. Well before miniaturization, complex radar signal analysis and against a non peer adversaire. I don't think it is representative.

Concerning F-35 it is a bunch of paradoxes: expensive, profitable and monstrous failure of efficiency. The time it takes to put weapons on it, the time it took to being developed. 

I wonder if the Tempest program is not accelerating because of its limitations.

19 hours ago, Josh said:

There's a lot more to F-35 than a low RCS. It's basically an out of the box SEAD/ECR aircraft, so there's a lot of value to it outside it just being a fighter.

That can be accomplished in other aircraft.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Tempest is going ahead. You may be mixing it up with the French and German project which seems to have completely stalled over workshare.

[DB]

18 hours ago, lucklucky said:

I wonder if the Tempest program is not accelerating because of its limitations.

I would suggest rather that Tempest *exists* primarily because of the limitations imposed by the US on F-35, and the prospect that any future programmes would be at least as strongly affected.

Although there is the "sovereign capability" argument as well, that would be significantly weakened if  the F-35 programme wasn't so resistant to the integration of non-US weapon systems. Whilst the US almost certainly argues that programme delays limit the opportunity for integration airframes to be made available, there is a belief that this is an excuse for backsliding on agreements for integration time to the point where it looks like a deliberate policy rather than a force majeure thing. And it's not just F-35.

[lucklucky]

I agree that isa factor too, it seems a deliberate obstruction by US to allow integration of other country weapons. Sort making F-35 as the aircraft equivalent of Apple.

[Cajer]

On 7/21/2022 at 9:06 AM, lucklucky said:

Desert Storm was 30 years ago. Well before miniaturization, complex radar signal analysis and against a non peer adversaire. I don't think it is representative.

Concerning F-35 it is a bunch of paradoxes: expensive, profitable and monstrous failure of efficiency. The time it takes to put weapons on it, the time it took to being developed. 

I wonder if the Tempest program is not accelerating because of its limitations.

That can be accomplished in other aircraft.

F35 is not expensive at all if you look at the fly away costs for the latest batch it's actually cheaper than allot of other gen 4 aircraft.  A perfect example of this is the F15-EX at 110 vs 78 million (F35-A) flyaway cost as they are both American aircraft, and the F15-EX is allot less capable than the F-35 with a fully amortized development and tooling cost.  The Gripen (considered a cheaper aircraft) is 85 million, Growler 125 million, and Rafale ~100 million.

If you look at weapon (smart/guided weapons) qualification/integration times/budgets for other countries' aircraft you'll find it to be similarly slow and expensive.

Additionally it is debatable whether stealth negation (well enough for targeting) exists in an experimental format let alone something that is mass produced and then deployed in mass.  This will take at minimum a decade, and even then the detection and engagement ranges for the F35 will be allot better than gen4.

It can be done with other aircraft however you'd need to design a new stealth platform, sensors, networking ,and then qualify them and even then you'd not have them be everywhere at once like the F35.  So at the end of the day still superior to your proposed option. 

The F35 is so far ahead of other platforms in situtation awarness, data integration and processing, and networking.  Just basically everything computerized and electronics as it's really the only operational aircraft designed since the whole networked distributed lethality concept was developed/could be implemented.

 

Edited July 23, 2022 by Cajer

[bfng3569]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/our-best-look-yet-at-chinas-j-35-carrier-capable-stealth-fighter

 

[Josh]

On 7/21/2022 at 12:06 PM, lucklucky said:

That can be accomplished in other aircraft.

Not as effectively and generally at the expense of the low RCS, which is really useful in the SEAD role. Pretty much anyone who is offered the F-35 is buying it, given the choice. What in service aircraft would you replace it with?

[lucklucky]

4 minutes ago, Josh said:

Not as effectively and generally at the expense of the low RCS, which is really useful in the SEAD role. Pretty much anyone who is offered the F-35 is buying it, given the choice. What in service aircraft would you replace it with?

I think the F-35 buy is related to US protection. How many of those countries will have SEAD missiles or a fleet with enough depth for the mission?

[Josh]

8 minutes ago, lucklucky said:

I think the F-35 buy is related to US protection. How many of those countries will have SEAD missiles or a fleet with enough depth for the mission?

A SEAD specific missile isn't necessary. Some USAF F-16CJ squadrons used Mavericks and/or CBU-87 as their primary SEAD weapon in 2003, with the AGM-88 carried by the wingman and used more as a distraction. These tactics were probably developed after the rather miserable performance of ARMs over Serbia/Kosovo in 1999. Bojan said the most effective "SEAD" weapons in that war were LGBs dropped on batteries that were visually sighted.

As for people buying F-35 just for protection - it is possible that it is a component of the decision, but on the other hand the F-35 is in the same price range as any other in production fighter and has an avionics fit that blows away all of them. The program was horrible mismanaged and horribly expensive, but that is the US's problem not the client country's.

[lucklucky]

I think that can only work with those weapons if they are already neutralized by ECM or are very short range systems. 

[Olof Larsson]

On 7/23/2022 at 2:00 AM, Cajer said:

F35 is not expensive at all if you look at the fly away costs for the latest batch it's actually cheaper than allot of other gen 4 aircraft.  A perfect example of this is the F15-EX at 110 vs 78 million (F35-A) flyaway cost as they are both American aircraft, and the F15-EX is allot less capable than the F-35 with a fully amortized development and tooling cost.  The Gripen (considered a cheaper aircraft) is 85 million, Growler 125 million, and Rafale ~100 million.

If you look at weapon (smart/guided weapons) qualification/integration times/budgets for other countries' aircraft you'll find it to be similarly slow and expensive.

Additionally it is debatable whether stealth negation (well enough for targeting) exists in an experimental format let alone something that is mass produced and then deployed in mass.  This will take at minimum a decade, and even then the detection and engagement ranges for the F35 will be allot better than gen4.

It can be done with other aircraft however you'd need to design a new stealth platform, sensors, networking ,and then qualify them and even then you'd not have them be everywhere at once like the F35.  So at the end of the day still superior to your proposed option. 

The F35 is so far ahead of other platforms in situtation awarness, data integration and processing, and networking.  Just basically everything computerized and electronics as it's really the only operational aircraft designed since the whole networked distributed lethality concept was developed/could be implemented.

 

As for the F-15-EX vs. the F-35, the F-15-EX is a much larger aircraft, that can fly far further and carry far more weapons then the F-35 if the F-35 wants to remain stealthy. If the F-15-EX should be compared with any 5th generation aircraft it's the F-22, but even that comparision is not fair, because the F-15-EX can still fly further and carry more weapons than the F-22. The F-35 should reasonably be compared with the F-16E/F and the F/A-18 Super Hornet.

 

As for the flyaway cost for the F-35, I wonder if they have started to include the cost of the engine in the cost of the F-35. And there is allways the flight hour costs as well.

 

As for "networked distributed lethality" there is nothing new or revolutionary about that. The techology that the US is planning to use (MADL and so on) is obviously an improvement over old tech, but datalinks have been used by other nations for distributed lethality for decades to coordinate strikes between multiple SAG's and multiple aircraft formations. And there is also the issue of achiving "networked distributed lethality" while working with allies that don't have the same data links.

[Olof Larsson]

53 minutes ago, Josh said:

A SEAD specific missile isn't necessary. Some USAF F-16CJ squadrons used Mavericks and/or CBU-87 as their primary SEAD weapon in 2003, with the AGM-88 carried by the wingman and used more as a distraction. These tactics were probably developed after the rather miserable performance of ARMs over Serbia/Kosovo in 1999. Bojan said the most effective "SEAD" weapons in that war were LGBs dropped on batteries that were visually sighted.

As for people buying F-35 just for protection - it is possible that it is a component of the decision, but on the other hand the F-35 is in the same price range as any other in production fighter and has an avionics fit that blows away all of them. The program was horrible mismanaged and horribly expensive, but that is the US's problem not the client country's.

Well. The Brimstone would be a great SEAD and general use weapon for the F-35, but that is NIH, and therefore the US is not going to integrating them. As for F-35  avionics is does have EODAS, but the rest of the avionics does certainly not blow away all of the competition. Don't get me wrong. It's a great bit of kit, but radar, EW and so on is comparable (better in some areas and worse in some) to what is a available on the latest versions of the EF2000. Rafale and Gripen. The use of a fixed AESA antenna and the absence of a Ga N AESA (and as I recall) Ga N transmitters in the EW are exemples where the F-35 is not at the top of game.

[Josh]

18 hours ago, lucklucky said:

I think that can only work with those weapons if they are already neutralized by ECM or are very short range systems. 

The F-16CJs using short ranged guided ordnance against single digit SAMs is well documented. Those aircraft do have specialized electronic equipment and in particular the towed decoys were commended for their effectiveness in the book I read. An F-35 could use SDB for a bigger load and more standoff.

[Josh]

18 hours ago, Olof Larsson said:

As for the F-15-EX vs. the F-35, the F-15-EX is a much larger aircraft, that can fly far further and carry far more weapons then the F-35 if the F-35 wants to remain stealthy. If the F-15-EX should be compared with any 5th generation aircraft it's the F-22, but even that comparision is not fair, because the F-15-EX can still fly further and carry more weapons than the F-22. The F-35 should reasonably be compared with the F-16E/F and the F/A-18 Super Hornet.

 

As for the flyaway cost for the F-35, I wonder if they have started to include the cost of the engine in the cost of the F-35. And there is allways the flight hour costs as well.

 

As for "networked distributed lethality" there is nothing new or revolutionary about that. The techology that the US is planning to use (MADL and so on) is obviously an improvement over old tech, but datalinks have been used by other nations for distributed lethality for decades to coordinate strikes between multiple SAG's and multiple aircraft formations. And there is also the issue of achiving "networked distributed lethality" while working with allies that don't have the same data links.

F-35 has a plane jane Link 16 system for anyone who uses that (all of NATO). MADL is probably a generation or two in front of that in that it is a directional datalink, so the chances of counter detection, let alone effective coms jamming, is miniscule. No other NATO produced fighter has such a datalink as far as I know, though perhaps the Chinese J20 does.

[Josh]

18 hours ago, Olof Larsson said:

Well. The Brimstone would be a great SEAD and general use weapon for the F-35, but that is NIH, and therefore the US is not going to integrating them. As for F-35  avionics is does have EODAS, but the rest of the avionics does certainly not blow away all of the competition. Don't get me wrong. It's a great bit of kit, but radar, EW and so on is comparable (better in some areas and worse in some) to what is a available on the latest versions of the EF2000. Rafale and Gripen. The use of a fixed AESA antenna and the absence of a Ga N AESA (and as I recall) Ga N transmitters in the EW are exemples where the F-35 is not at the top of game.

I thought the Brits were going to insist on Brimstone integration?

As for avionics, I think the key enabler is the DAS and broadband ESM combined with data sharing via MADL. Single aircraft have a decent idea where a threat emitter is and a flight of four likely can do a far more precise differential time of arrival if they are all in the emitter path at the same time. The DAS system can spot launches and share that among the flight. I think that is a SEAD capability rather far in front of any other aircraft in service. Even if SEAD isn't the primary mission, that should be a big enabler for avoiding air defenses.

What aircraft uses a GaN AESA?

[Stuart Galbraith]

Basically, the yanks have been blowing us off on Brimstone integration, and now we cant afford to do it on our own. So it seems that, just like Stormshadow, its another urgent capablity that will get cut. I wouldnt be surprised if we bin Meteor integration before too long.

[Olof Larsson]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

I thought the Brits were going to insist on Brimstone integration?

As for avionics, I think the key enabler is the DAS and broadband ESM combined with data sharing via MADL. Single aircraft have a decent idea where a threat emitter is and a flight of four likely can do a far more precise differential time of arrival if they are all in the emitter path at the same time. The DAS system can spot launches and share that among the flight. I think that is a SEAD capability rather far in front of any other aircraft in service. Even if SEAD isn't the primary mission, that should be a big enabler for avoiding air defenses.

What aircraft uses a GaN AESA?

A fixed SAAB GaN AESA antenna has been tested and is offered as a upgrade for the SAAB Gripen C/D. The Gripen E/F and EF2000 Tranche 4 have related AESA.s that can re repositioned, allowing the launching aircraft to notch and maintaining radar contact, and while avioding to fly towards the enemy. The Gripen C/D/E//F (not sure about the EF-2000) also has a two way data link with the Meteor missiles allowing data from the missiles to be sent to the launch aircraft as well. The data link for the Gripen A/B/C/D can work within a four ship formation. The datalink for the Gripen E/F is  AFAIK directional.

[Josh]

Fair enough, the Swedes have been busy. I still doubt Gripen has F-35s level of integration or ESM.

[bfng3569]

On 2/8/2022 at 10:30 PM, bfng3569 said:

 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44181/f-22-raptor-spotted-flying-with-stealthy-underwing-pods

 

pretty much confirmed in this article, at least one of the pods is an IRST system.

 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/f-22-raptor-being-readied-for-aim-260-missile-by-green-bats-testers

AIM-260 live firing supposedly coming this summer too, which is weird timing for the article considering how far into summer we are.

 

Quote

The big headline for R1 is that it prepares the Raptor for JATM – the secretive new AIM-260 Joint Air Tactical Missile, designed to give U.S. fighters a new edge in air combat. “We are in the middle of getting ready for live-fire tests this summer, part of a huge joint test effort between the operational testers at Nellis, and the developmental testers at Edwards AFB, California. The JATM program is completely dependent on RACR-standard, and the F-22 needs R1 and R2 – to an extent – to shoot JATM. That’s everything from integrating the missile into our software, the indications we see in the cockpit, the information we can share with the missile, and the way we interact with the missile from a targeting perspective. There’s a lot of new technology in JATM that is much more advanced than our current [AIM-120 AMRAAM] missile’s technology.”

 

[lucklucky]

That F-22 "stealth" seems a lot like the French Astac Elint pod from earlier 90's

https://cmano-db.com/weapon/1031/

Edited August 14, 2022 by lucklucky

[Strannik]

ALCM Х-69 (JASSMsky in spirit, but not in shape) presented at Russian  Army Expo 2022

 

[glenn239]

Article that goes into detail on some of the alleged capabilities of the J-20 vs. F-22 and F-35,

https://eurasiantimes.com/china-confirms-j-20-stealth-fighters-participated-in-action/

 

Edited August 16, 2022 by glenn239

[Domobran7]

On 7/26/2022 at 7:35 PM, Olof Larsson said:

A fixed SAAB GaN AESA antenna has been tested and is offered as a upgrade for the SAAB Gripen C/D. The Gripen E/F and EF2000 Tranche 4 have related AESA.s that can re repositioned, allowing the launching aircraft to notch and maintaining radar contact, and while avioding to fly towards the enemy. The Gripen C/D/E//F (not sure about the EF-2000) also has a two way data link with the Meteor missiles allowing data from the missiles to be sent to the launch aircraft as well. The data link for the Gripen A/B/C/D can work within a four ship formation. The datalink for the Gripen E/F is  AFAIK directional.

Eurofighter Typhoon does have two-way datalink. It is Tranche 3 Rafale that doesn't - that capability will only be integrated into T4.

[Josh]

16 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Article that goes into detail on some of the alleged capabilities of the J-20 vs. F-22 and F-35,

https://eurasiantimes.com/china-confirms-j-20-stealth-fighters-participated-in-action/

 

I wouldn't call it detail. They just say they tracked F-22/35 and that's about it.

[glenn239]

If the article is generally accurate then the Chinese problem is no longer technical capability, it's lack of numbers.  Been sweeping to see if any information will pop up on current J-20 production, but I've found nothing.