F-35

[Vindekarr]

Here's a question, and mind you this isn't a joke, I'm throwing this out here as a hypothetical.

 

Do we NEED stealth capability? Why not design something that's A simple and efficient and B highly durable.

 

The other problem is jumping on a technology before everyone else. Russia and China both now have planes equivalent to the Raptor in a war-ready form, and they have a helluva lot more than we do. More concerning is that the PAK-FA atleast seems to also have a relatively high payload, certainly more than an F-35. They also designed them around the Raptor's weaknesses, since the Raptor jumped first, and told them what needed to be done.

OK , I'll treat your question as a fair one. In terms of air combat the pilot who sees his opponent before they see him is the usual survivor. Most all dogfights are really only seconds long in duration in rare cases minutes. Any advantage in detection or lack of detection is vital. That being said I am not totally convinced that the F-35 is a platform that meets those criteria but the technological envelope is stretched by every new generation of fighter development. We (US) do not utilize quantity but rather quality in our engagement philosophy, it is presumed that we will be outnumbered in air to air combat and that superior training and technology will be the advantage that will provide survivability for our aviators / pilots. Technological edges are the most fleeting of advantages in warfare, either you are ahead or you are dead.

 

Thank you, that makes perfect sense, and explains why the emphasis lately has been on stealth.

[Syco21]

The PAK-FA is still in development, and there are currently only 4 built.

[MajKrAzAm]

Here's a question, and mind you this isn't a joke, I'm throwing this out here as a hypothetical.

 

Do we NEED stealth capability? Why not design something that's A simple and efficient and B highly durable.

 

It’s called the A-10.

 

In all seriousness, the weight of the armor required to make an aircraft withstand even the weakest shrapnel would weigh down the aircraft so much that the resulting inefficient thrust to weight ratio as well as drag of the aircraft would prevent it from being able to fulfil the majority of air roles, with the exception of ground-attack.

 

A low flying aircraft will be extremely susceptible to even slightly sophisticated anti-air systems. Indeed, take a look at the A-10’s performance in the Gulf War, even with its heavy armor the A-10 was forced into medium altitudes by Iraqi AA. At this altitude the capabilities difference between the F-35 and the A-10 quickly disappear. The future threat environment will continually push aircraft into higher altitudes, and so we must develop systems to operate efficiently at this altitude. Stealth and radar detection become important here as they allow a lighter aircraft to do the job of a heavily armored one. After the Libya debacle we saw hundreds if not thousands of anti-air missiles smuggled out of the country that are most likely now in the hands of AQIM and other outfits. The missiles taken weren’t just old Soviet relics but sophisticated systems like the SA-24. Hell even the SA-7s taken should cause low flying aircraft a lot of trouble.

 

The A-10 and the technology question you ask is a good example of the on-going debates currently in the air-power community. The key question though isn’t about the particular advantages of one specific technology, but instead the doctrinal argument between the AF and Army about strategic vision: Whether war should be conducted as the AF believes by utilizing highly specific tools and operations to target the opposition according to operational objectives e.g. Libya. Or as the Army has viewed war: Pursuing the total collapse of fielded enemy forces.

 

The other problem is jumping on a technology before everyone else. Russia and China both now have planes equivalent to the Raptor

 

Well, in case you’re wondering both the USN and the USAF are now looking at developing 6th gen fighters.

[Gracinfields]

Well all in all the Airforce is looking at getting away from manned aircraft for high risk situations that involve air to ground in a anti air rich enviroment; this is the reason drone are becoming ever more popular in the airforce. One such ground attack drone is a gbu (cluster bomb) once it gets to its target area it looks for targets then locks on and deploys SFW (sensor fused weapons) to destroy the targets and then send itself flying head long right into the nearest hard target on its list. Some people are know are saying the F-35 is likely the last manned fighter to be built everything else will be done by drone. But even these will be enploying stealth tech. due to the increases in radar detection combind with increase anti air capablities (range, rate of fire, speed, accuracy, etc) jets need a new way of getting around AA. During WW2 it was flying higher, during the Cold War it was going faster, and higher, but with each inovation to out pace AA; AA just move forward as well now we have missiles that can catch a SR-71 at top speed with have a massive head start while flying at the edge of space, can't really go higher then that. So the only way to avoid getting hit is to avoid being scene in the first place. But as I said before the F-35s light payload compared to the F-22, and PAK-FA the F-35 fills the role of the AV-8 and F-16, where as the F-22 and PAK-FA fill the role of the F-15E Strike and the SU-35. So its kind of hard to really compare the F-35 to the F-22.

 

To add on to the comment about the limited purchase of the F-22 its likely due to the fact the 6th Generation fighters are nearing their Prototyping stage and we know other nations know the weaknesses of the F-22 far before they completed their entry into the serves thanks to far to many leaks. So we have a fighter just getting into the field and possible enemies are already making adjustments to their anti air capablities to counter the F-22. As for Lockheed Martin they are by far pushing the aircraft tech to the limit and from what I know they are working on its 25 to 30 years more advanced then what is currently rolling off the assembly lines.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Gracinfields

[MajKrAzAm]

Well all in all the Airforce is looking at getting away from manned aircraft for high risk situations that involve air to ground in a anti air rich enviroment; this is the reason drone are becoming ever more popular in the airforce. One such ground attack drone is a gbu (cluster bomb) once it gets to its target area it looks for targets then locks on and deploys SFW (sensor fused weapons) to destroy the targets and then send itself flying head long right into the nearest hard target on its list. Some people are know are saying the F-35 is likely the last manned fighter to be built everything else will be done by drone.

 

I think that is quite unlikely. The USAF is not looking to get away from manned aircraft. That would be like McDonald’s saying that they want to shift their focus away from burgers to salads because the more health conscious 21st century threat environment would prevent them from being able to operate as they were once able to. It is also not how we should be thinking about future air warfare. All branches are increasingly procuring and investing in UAVs. However, drones are much more vulnerable to EW than most people assume. If Iran is able to ground a RQ-170 drone with an off-the-shelf Russian jamming system then imagine what the Chinese could do. Even GPS signals and SATCOM uplinks would come under threat. The idea that we are moving to a drone era is highly exaggerated. Sure, the USN is slowly shifting the focus of its CVWs away from strike roles but this is due to the increasing role of CCGNs and surface launched cruise missiles, and not unmanned assets.

 

I think you’ve misunderstood the USAF’s strategy in this regard. No branch is trying to get away from manned aircraft. Rather the US appears to want an all LO tacair fleet. And this would consequently mean that drones are utilized more in certain roles than manned aircraft, as we are already seeing. This is different to a zero-sum UAV vs. manned aircraft vision.

 

But even these will be enploying stealth tech. due to the increases in radar detection combind with increase anti air capablities (range, rate of fire, speed, accuracy, etc) jets need a new way of getting around AA. During WW2 it was flying higher, during the Cold War it was going faster, and higher, but with each inovation to out pace AA; AA just move forward as well now we have missiles that can catch a SR-71 at top speed with have a massive head start while flying at the edge of space, can't really go higher then that. So the only way to avoid getting hit is to avoid being scene in the first place.

 

To add on to the comment about the limited purchase of the F-22 its likely due to the fact the 6th Generation fighters are nearing their Prototyping stage and we know other nations know the weaknesses of the F-22 far before they completed their entry into the serves thanks to far to many leaks. So we have a fighter just getting into the field and possible enemies are already making adjustments to their anti air capablities to counter the F-22. As for Lockheed Martin they are by far pushing the aircraft tech to the limit and from what I know they are working on its 25 to 30 years more advanced then what is currently rolling off the assembly lines.

 

You’re correct in your analysis but some of your assumptions are misguided. It’s a mistake to consider stealth as a single specific tech. The term stealth is actually incorrect. What we’re really aiming for is low-observability which is not a single platform. LO capability evolves against the response, just like you said. In the genesis of air combat LO was considered a visibility issue, but as technology advanced it came to be seen as a speed/altitude issue: below radar/over horizon.

 

The tech we’re dealing with is dynamic. Claiming that new AA innovations makes current LO redundant is thus wrong. These systems have their own weaknesses. Consider that a lot of sensor systems find it difficult to differentiate threats i.e. Compare the effectiveness of subsonic to hypersonic missiles. Hypersonics are fast hot IR targets which can be quickly picked up by radar from a great distance. Whereas the LO of a subsonic reduces the time between detection and target impact thus limiting the range of defensive measures.

 

There is no single cure-all to counter AA. As I said the tech we are dealing with is not static and neither is the response. Take the F-22 as an example. The aircraft was designed to manage LO by having the ability to improve and upgrade things like active and passive sensor capabilities, meaning that the F-22 can continue to exploit AA coverage gaps for the foreseeable future.

 

Plus as low-observability suggests the F-22 doesn’t have to be fully undetectable. It is part of an integrated system that includes additional assets that can be utilized to exploit a target’s coverage grid weakness.

 

The F-22 not just an impressive airframe. The broader selling point part of it and the F-35 is that they are part of joint systems that act in tight coordination with other platforms such as AWACS, control aircraft , other aircraft, to act as effective force multipliers. I am less certain of how other nations conceive of their fighters in terms of their joint network capabilities. Both the Chinese and Russians are approaching their 5th gen planes in a different manner with less emphasis on integrated network capabilities.

[Gracinfields]

I am well aware of everything that goes in to the broad term stealth tech. I was trying not to go into much detail and keep it simple and to the point. Calling the tech that goes into these aircraft stealth tech is quite fitting as the tech is there for the craft to avoid detection which itself means low to no observation.

 

As for going full on drone that is not likely to happen for at least 40 years or more how they do this is of several possibities; these range from AI (I have seen some very functional AI software in R&D) to new and improved uplinks that use different bands of broadcast frequencies that most jammers don't operate in at this time, to even fast tracking line of sight communication tech the final way is precoded mission information using a simple script fuction that has can be used to determine the course of action that is hard coded into the mission parameters. (Effectively the pre-flight plan with a lot of room for change if the mission has trouble once the mission is executed.0

[HeyYou]

The trouble with 'stealth' is, it works right up until you fire a weapon, then, everyone and their cousin knows you are there.......

[csgators]

The trouble with 'stealth' is, it works right up until you fire a weapon, then, everyone and their cousin knows you are there.......

 

True to a point, stealth tech is also designed to defeat tracking systems though. Just because they know you are there does not mean they can hit you.

[HeyYou]

As I understand it, our detection range is only a few miles better than the 'other' guys..... at the kind of closure speeds we are talking about here, the 'first to detect' will have mere seconds to get a shot off, at which point, they will also be in detection range, (and loudly announcing their presence by firing a missile....) so, the other guy is gonna fire as well.... the missiles will pass each other in flight..... what it's going to come down to is, whose missile is more accurate/harder to shake/fool.

[csgators]

As I understand it, our detection range is only a few miles better than the 'other' guys..... at the kind of closure speeds we are talking about here, the 'first to detect' will have mere seconds to get a shot off, at which point, they will also be in detection range, (and loudly announcing their presence by firing a missile....) so, the other guy is gonna fire as well.... the missiles will pass each other in flight..... what it's going to come down to is, whose missile is more accurate/harder to shake/fool.

 

Agreed. How good is the 'stealth' tech vs how good is the missile. The better the tech the better the chance. One trade off is speed vs stealth. The faster you go the harder you are to hide but the slower you go the harder it is to evade incoming fire. If the stealth is good enough though the tracking systems of the oncoming missile should be fooled and it should lose acquisition.