The F-35 No Holds Barred topic

[Arjen]

Of course, I still think the F-35 is the right direction to go for most. As far as I'm concerned, fighter design has long since hit the wall of what's physically possible. At great cost (well evident in the F-22 and Eurofighter), you might go a little faster, or turn a little harder; but the only direction in which real advances can be made (and advantages gained) for one's money is in VLOs and on-board systems. If that means the F-35 won't be as much fun to watch at an airshow, I'll live with it.

F-35 has big cost issues too. Development hasn't finished yet, which usually is a guarantee for costs going up. Then there's the issue of projected running costs, which caused the Canadian government to reconsider the CF-18 being replaced by the F-35. The jury is still out on that.

Dutch think tank Clingendael has investigated four scenarios for a future Dutch defense policy. The F-35-included scenario finishes last, with the cost of using the F-35 damaging other defense tasks (my translation):

No role for JSF in future armed forces

A defense force which contains the controversial JSF fighter, is the least attractive scenario for future Dutch armed forces. Clingendael Institute writes today in a report to Minister of Defense Hennis. The Joint Strike Fighter is missing in three of the four possible future models for the armed forces.
The fighter is only necessary if the Netherlands, together with the United States and major European countries, are to participate in the opening phase of military interventions - the 'highest-intensity' scenario. This keeps the Netherlands influence on the international stage and delivers a significant contribution to the NATO and European military capabilities. "
Because of high cost, however, armed forces including JSF imply a serious limitation 'for maritime operations (for example, Dutch trading interests to protect against piracy) and long-term stabilization operations. Also at stake are participation in peacekeeping forces and the contribution of the armed forces to promote human rights and humanity.

Future
Clingendael's vision for the future of the armed forces will play an important role in Minister Hennis's future plans. The Defense budget must be cut sharply - an annual 250 million euros extra on top of the € 1 billion cuts imposed by the previous Rutte coalition government. In the new coalition agreement, the government promised to provide a plan on how the future armed forces will fit within the available budget while safeguarding Dutch interests.
"It is inevitable that the operational objectives of the armed forces be adjusted. Choices must be made, "says the Clingendael report. There appears to be a 'mismatch between aspirations, available budget and the structure of the armed forces. "
The unpredictability of the JSF costs means that less aircraft can be bought by the Netherlands to replace the current fighter, the F-16. Hennis has already indicated she needs good understanding of the costs without unwelcome surprises in that area. End of 2013, Hennis will decide on the replacement of the F-16.

Stability
Clingendael defines the 'robust stabilization force' as the armed forces that best fit Dutch interests. In this scenario, the Netherlands is no longer involved in operations in the upper spectrum of force, but contributes mainly to security and stability operations. In this scenario, the submarine force is abolished with the JSF not absolutely necessary, Netherlands instead buys some other new fighters 'off the shelf'. This is to keeps costs down. This scenario takes 9 stars in the calculation of Clingendael.
The scenario that the Dutch armed forces in the future develops into a "flying intervention force '- including JSF - with 5 stars, scores the worst of the four models. This means that these armed forces are least able 'to serve various Dutch interests. " Then there is the 'maritime trading power' with 6 stars and the 'supporting peacekeeping', also 6 stars.

 

[JFC Fuller]

I imagine PIRATE could potentially cue a Meteor shot.

I wouldn't give much credence to the whole "Typhoon can't see F-35" statements, its probably not true and will get less true after 2015 with the introduction of CAPTOR-E. F-35 is low observable, it's not invisible, a powerful and clever enough radar will still be able to find it and should be able to cue a BVRAAM shot. F-35 should still see a Typhoon before the Typhoon sees it but it would be very silly to suggest that Typhoon will be unable to find an F-35 with its radar. There is a bizarre tendency amongst certain interwebz-experten to assume that radar technology has not evolved in the last 20 years and that low observable means invisible. Of course there is then the whole ESM/EW can of worms, a Typhoon might not be able to see an F-35 on its radar whilst an F-35 may be able to see Typhoon on its AN/APG-81 at certain ranges and angles but Praetorian will likely be able to tell the Typhoon pilot that there is a radar pointing at him and roughly what direction it is coming from. Obviously the BAE EW suite in the F-35 can do the same thing.

 

[2IDSGT]

Of course, I still think the F-35 is the right direction to go for most. As far as I'm concerned, fighter design has long since hit the wall of what's physically possible. At great cost (well evident in the F-22 and Eurofighter), you might go a little faster, or turn a little harder; but the only direction in which real advances can be made (and advantages gained) for one's money is in VLOs and on-board systems. If that means the F-35 won't be as much fun to watch at an airshow, I'll live with it.

F-35 has big cost issues too. Development hasn't finished yet, which usually is a guarantee for costs going up. Then there's the issue of projected running costs, which caused the Canadian government to reconsider the CF-18 being replaced by the F-35. The jury is still out on that.

I believe my key words were "for one's money." All the new fighters are ruinously expensive; it's just a matter of what you want to spend on... real combat advantage, or the Jane's numbers that fanboy's like? If cost is your overriding concern... http://www.aircraftdealer.com/aircraft_for_sale_detail/MIG/1962_MiG_17/28161.htm

 

[2IDSGT]

...F-35 should still see a Typhoon before the Typhoon sees it...

That's a much bigger deal than you (or anyone else who's never been shot at) seem to realize. In any case, which EF customers (or potential customers) are planning to deal with the F-35? What really matters is which plane would Flanker customers rather NOT deal with.

 

[Arjen]

All the new fighters are ruinously expensive

Quite. But some more so than others. Which is why I included the Clingendael piece, because it is an example of what happens when ambition runs into limited means. Choices will have to be made.

 

[2IDSGT]

...what happens when ambition runs into limited means...

Well, when the Russian/Chinese equipment stops improving... let me know. Otherwise, Europe and Canada need to stop crying.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I wouldn't give much credence to the whole "Typhoon can't see F-35" statements, its probably not true and will get less true after 2015 with the introduction of CAPTOR-E. F-35 is low observable, it's not invisible, a powerful and clever enough radar will still be able to find it and should be able to cue a BVRAAM shot.

Radars still work in the physical domain and detection range is still dependent on antenna gain, peak power and target RCS. APG-79 AESA (Super Hornet) will only be able to detect the F-35 at a range of around 15 NM assuming F-35 frontal RCS to X-Band is only -30 dbsm (it might be lower). The same radar will detect a FLANKER at over 160 NM and something like the Typhoon at around 60 NM. These are very significant differences in detection distances and about 50% of why everyone wants to buy the F-35.

Detecting a closing target at 15 NM that can see you at over 60 NM does not provide enough separation to actually be able to detect a tactically competent fighter. Because they won’t enter your radar’s field of regard and will be coming at you from the flanks because of their huge advantage in situational awareness. Hoping RWR or IRST will provide you with enough SA to avoid being so bushwhacked in a full scale air battle environment is wishful thinking.

 

[2IDSGT]

Detecting a closing target at 15 NM that can see you at over 60 NM does not provide enough separation to actually be able to detect a tactically competent fighter. Because they won’t enter your radar’s field of regard and will be coming at you from the flanks because of their huge advantage in situational awareness. Hoping RWR or IRST will provide you with enough SA to avoid being so bushwhacked in a full scale air battle environment is wishful thinking.

What?!!! Don't you know that the F-35 will always charge head on with it's radar blaring the whole time? Don't you understand the the magic eye-of-Sauron IRST sees all?

 

[Arjen]

Well, when the Russian/Chinese equipment stops improving... let me know. Otherwise, Europe and Canada need to stop crying.

Dutch Defense is also investing in stuff like this

...which is consuming serious money. To keep up with other Russian and Chinese equipment. Choices to be made.

 

[Hanse]

I imagine PIRATE could potentially cue a Meteor shot.

If it knew where to look.

 

[piko1]

i agree to disagree with all of you


first all of you talk about RCS what RCS one King Kong ( MiG-31M) with Zaslon-M detecting RCS = 5m2 on 270km the whole 4.5/5 th gen RCS go's to hell just like that and we are talking for radar that was made like 25 years ago with material base like on a Atari what stealth... where ?
about the close a2a combat i will bet on the Typhoon not on the F-35 i will bet even on MiG-21 Lancer in close combat against F-35

 

[AeroFranz]

I wouldn't give much credence to the whole "Typhoon can't see F-35" statements, its probably not true and will get less true after 2015 with the introduction of CAPTOR-E. F-35 is low observable, it's not invisible, a powerful and clever enough radar will still be able to find it and should be able to cue a BVRAAM shot. F-35 should still see a Typhoon before the Typhoon sees it but it would be very silly to suggest that Typhoon will be unable to find an F-35 with its radar. There is a bizarre tendency amongst certain interwebz-experten to assume that radar technology has not evolved in the last 20 years and that low observable means invisible. Of course there is then the whole ESM/EW can of worms, a Typhoon might not be able to see an F-35 on its radar whilst an F-35 may be able to see Typhoon on its AN/APG-81 at certain ranges and angles but Praetorian will likely be able to tell the Typhoon pilot that there is a radar pointing at him and roughly what direction it is coming from. Obviously the BAE EW suite in the F-35 can do the same thing.

This goes to the core of a question that I have been asking myself for a while.
The effectiveness of VLO platforms (all, not just F-35) hinges on delaying detection. Two main factors determine detection range: RCS on one hand and radar power, gain, and signal processing on the other.
I get the sense that we have reached the limit of what is practical to achieve as far as RCS reduction. Case in point: the F-35 deliberately does not try to go all-out on stealth (F-22 and B-2 style) because there is little to gain trying to achieve the last 10dBsm, and a lot to lose in terms of affordability and maintenance costs. I guess that coatings will keep improving, but that's a second order effect.

Now contrast this to radars. Power aboard fighters keeps increasing. If we're ever to put DEW on aircraft, that means ~1MW power generation to get ~100kW out the front end (eventually...). Apertures are constrained in the nose by aerodynamic considerations, but there is a push to put additional ones on the sides, leading edges of the wings. Signal processing keeps improving seemingly unabated.

What i'm saying is that in the race between radar and low RCS, it seems like physical limits favor radar.
RCS reduction technology seems to be on the end portion of its S-curve, while radar has got a bunch of tricks still to be completely exploited. AESA is probably now on the ramping-up part of its S-curve.

If that's the case (and I don't know that it is), then low RCS will provide diminishing returns. All things equal, low RCS will still delay detection, but its advantage will be greatly decreased. If anyone has got any evidence that we can keep decreasing RCS as fast as we can increase radar performance, then i'd like to hear it.

 

[GTX]

This Typhoon vs F-35 debate is quite amusing if one remembers that you are extremely unlikely to ever see them facing off against one another outside of fighter acquisition competitions.

 

[shedofdread]

This Typhoon vs F-35 debate is quite amusing if one remembers that you are extremely unlikely to ever see them facing off against one another outside of fighter acquisition competitions.

However, it'll be interesting to hear whatever comes out when the RAF are operating both types...

 

[Hanse]

This Typhoon vs F-35 debate is quite amusing if one remembers that you are extremely unlikely to ever see them facing off against one another outside of fighter acquisition competitions.

However, it'll be interesting to hear whatever comes out when the RAF are operating both types...

And which one gets retired first.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I get the sense that we have reached the limit of what is practical to achieve as far as RCS reduction. Case in point: the F-35 deliberately does not try to go all-out on stealth (F-22 and B-2 style) because there is little to gain trying to achieve the last 10dBsm, and a lot to lose in terms of affordability and maintenance costs. I guess that coatings will keep improving, but that's a second order effect.

just for the record stealth coating on the F-35 is much improved and has even been retrofitted to F-22s to save costs.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/F-35-Tech-Rescues-The-F-22-4-22-2011.asp

I found something online a while ago that talked abour moore's law regarding radar processing that pretty much shot down the whole idea of a better processing radar being able to track stealth aircraft but I can't seem to find it...

"People need to understand stealth is not invisibility," Deptula told AOL Defense. As current sensor technology improves, he said, "you're going to be able to detect aircraft with current levels of low-observability at further distances." That said, non-stealth planes are much bigger targets, he said: "It's a piece of cake for an adversary with a sophisticated air defense system to engage and kill a 4th generation aircraft; it's very difficult for them to do that with a 5th gen aircraft. Will it get easier in the future? Possibly."

from the same article:

Not that all radars are created equal. Even back in the 1980s, author Andrew Cockburn warned that, ironically, the Soviet Union's oldest, crudest radars might detect stealth bombers that newer systems missed. Stealth aircraft rely on carefully designed shapes and thin surface coatings to baffle incoming radar beams. But the lower the frequency of the incoming radar, the longer the wavelength, which means the less it reflects such subtleties at all: It's essentially too stupid to be tricked.

The upside is such relatively crude radars may detect a stealth aircraft is out there somewhere, but not accurately enough to shoot it down. The low-frequency, long-wavelength radars that are most likely to see through stealth are, for the same reasons of physics, the least precise. They're also too big to fit in anything but a ship or a fixed ground installation, where they are typically used to give warning that aircraft are in the general area. Actually tracking and hitting a target depends on smaller, shorter-wavelength radars which can fit in, say, an interceptor aircraft or surface-to-air missile and which offer more precision but are also more easily baffled by stealth technologies.

"Just because you can see someone now doesn't mean you can kill them," said Deptula. "Acquisition radars, which are what people generally tend to focus on, are only one element in an adversary's air defense equation." After a target is initially "acquired," he went on, "you need to be able to track the asset to then get to a firing solution; then you need to transfer that tracking data to the missile, which then needs to be able to acquire and track the aircraft [after it launches]. Presuming that the missile can track... now the fuse needs to be able to detect the aircraft" in order to detonate at the right time.

Break any link in that "kill chain," and the stealth aircraft survives, even if it's seen. So while stealth can't defeat all the radars all the time, it doesn't need to.

http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/27/will-stealth-survive-as-sensors-improve-f-35-jammers-at-stake/

This is a long article I would suggest reading the entire thing.

There are physical limits to both optical sensors and what can be detected by radar at what range no matter how much computer power you throw it. The whole point of Stealth is to sneak up on the enemy and you can't do that with your Radar pinging away giving away your position. So with Stealth aircraft you are limited to how and when you use your radar much the same way a submarine is limited in how it can use its Sonar and pierscope.

You could have all the processing power in the universe, but radar waves are essentially light and subject to well understood laws of physics.

I love how popular science writers act as if we are a couple CPU upgrades away from some kind of massive counter-stealth breakthrough.


Where are the articles saying things like :

Will Moore's law allow my backyard telescope to out-perform the Hubble?

Will Moore's law allow my cellphone camera to beat my long-lens camera for wildlife photography?

Will Moore's law make submarine stealth obsolete?

Will Moore's law make jammers obsolete?

Somehow it is always stealth, as if defeating stealth were primarily a problem of insufficient processing power.

The Radar capability in the Typhoon will be limited to what you actually fit in the damn thing, and how much power you can feed it, among other limitations.

The last thing I want to add, is even as detection systems improve how many countries can afford to constantly upgrade and buy the latest and greatest? every year new, improved cars come out. do we buy a new car every year? or do we buy a new car with the idea that it will last us about 10 years? The country that can constantly afford to upgrade their entire system with the latest and greatest stealth detecting tech, must have more money than god. Do governments clamor to buy the latest and greatest at all times? is that why as piko pointed out Bulgaria flies MiG-31s? Even if the Pak-Fa is the greatest thing to ever fly, how many can actually be procured? the F-22 is the king of the skies and the US couldn't afford even 200 of them.

If you can buy the worlds most awesome stealth detecting radar, but can only afford 6 of them, where do you put them? and how long will they last? I'm guessing not past 24 hours, especially as anything fixed like that can be targeted by things like cruise missiles. They won't be in fighters I will tell you that. You are creating a tactical problem for your opponent that is unsolvable. You want him to have to decide whether he wants to lose an arm to save a leg, or a leg to save an arm.

I didn't think it was any secret that if an F-35 tries to out typhoon a typhoon, it will come up short, just like if an F-22 tries to out typhoon a typhoon. Maybe the F-35 has key advantages over the typhoon which is why we are talking about upgrading radars in hopes of detection, and PIRATE meteor shots? If its such an open and shut case of Typhoon superiority why are we concerned? If the caveat for the Typhoon winning is that stealth is suddenly detectable what does that tell you?

 

[Sundog]

This goes to the core of a question that I have been asking myself for a while.
The effectiveness of VLO platforms (all, not just F-35) hinges on delaying detection. Two main factors determine detection range: RCS on one hand and radar power, gain, and signal processing on the other.
I get the sense that we have reached the limit of what is practical to achieve as far as RCS reduction. Case in point: the F-35 deliberately does not try to go all-out on stealth (F-22 and B-2 style) because there is little to gain trying to achieve the last 10dBsm, and a lot to lose in terms of affordability and maintenance costs. I guess that coatings will keep improving, but that's a second order effect.

Now contrast this to radars. Power aboard fighters keeps increasing. If we're ever to put DEW on aircraft, that means ~1MW power generation to get ~100kW out the front end (eventually...). Apertures are constrained in the nose by aerodynamic considerations, but there is a push to put additional ones on the sides, leading edges of the wings. Signal processing keeps improving seemingly unabated.

What i'm saying is that in the race between radar and low RCS, it seems like physical limits favor radar.
RCS reduction technology seems to be on the end portion of its S-curve, while radar has got a bunch of tricks still to be completely exploited. AESA is probably now on the ramping-up part of its S-curve.

If that's the case (and I don't know that it is), then low RCS will provide diminishing returns. All things equal, low RCS will still delay detection, but its advantage will be greatly decreased. If anyone has got any evidence that we can keep decreasing RCS as fast as we can increase radar performance, then i'd like to hear it.

Basically, the Pantagon/ USAF has stated that the "stealth" of the F-35 will be obsolete around the 2020 to 2022 time frame. Basically, right after it becomes fully operational. Maybe if they can place some Meteors in the F-35 and up it's RADR's power, it will stand a chance.

The T-50 and the J-20 shouldn't have any problem with it, but I find that mostly academic, because the U.S., China, and Russia aren't going to be going into a "hot" war with each other. The only wars they'll fight between each other will be economic. If there was a hot war, then the fighters each side uses would be largely moot, since none of them will ever have enough to wage total war with and it would escalate so fast to tatctical/strategic missiles that the planes themselves become irrelevant, other than in fanboy fantasy scenarios.

As such, the F-35 will do well since it will be extremely rare that it will go up against anything more advanced.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Basically, the Pantagon/ USAF has stated that the "stealth" of the F-35 will be obsolete around the 2020 to 2022 time frame.

Source?

 

[Hanse]

Basically, the Pantagon/ USAF has stated that the "stealth" of the F-35 will be obsolete around the 2020 to 2022 time frame.

Source?

Good luck.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Meteors are already headed to the F-35 and the radar can be upgraded as technology improved.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Basically, the Pantagon/ USAF has stated that the "stealth" of the F-35 will be obsolete around the 2020 to 2022 time frame.

Source?

Good luck.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/stealth-isnt-becoming-obsolete-anytime-soon-usaf-379671/

Someone needs to tell the USAF they think that. Also with F-35 materials added to the F-22, its curious that only the F-35 would be affected by the obsolescence of stealth...

The T-50 and the J-20 shouldn't have any problem with it,

because their stealth isn't obsolete?

it would escalate so fast to tatctical/strategic missiles that the planes themselves become irrelevant, other than in fanboy fantasy scenarios.

Of course, airpower plays no role in the deployment and opposition of missiles. (even though the F-35 can detect missile launches and relay that information to AEGIS cruisers)

 

[lantinian]

...RCS reduction technology seems to be on the end portion of its S-curve, while radar has got a bunch of tricks still to be completely exploited. AESA is probably now on the ramping-up part of its S-curve. If that's the case (and I don't know that it is), then low RCS will provide diminishing returns. All things equal, low RCS will still delay detection, but its advantage will be greatly decreased. If anyone has got any evidence that we can keep decreasing RCS as fast as we can increase radar performance, then i'd like to hear it

True if one employs all the new power of computing to enhance the radar for the sole purpose of detection.There are many other options to achieve a stealth effect trough active measures:[list type=decimal][*]An AESA radar could also be used to jam or even fry the sensors of enemy electronics effectively rendering the enemy unable to see.[*]Coupled with a supercomputer an AESA is an active stealth device onto itself, capable of detecting, analyzing and generating return signals to confuse the enemy radar. [*]I've aslo read that you can insert computer code into an enemy radar netword to achieve all sorts of other purposes.[/list]The classic cat and mouse game of radar wavelength vs shape & RAM is just moving to the realm of computing power and software. In that arena the F-35 is the best equipped aircraft to date, even more so than the F-22.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

...RCS reduction technology seems to be on the end portion of its S-curve, while radar has got a bunch of tricks still to be completely exploited. AESA is probably now on the ramping-up part of its S-curve. If that's the case (and I don't know that it is), then low RCS will provide diminishing returns. All things equal, low RCS will still delay detection, but its advantage will be greatly decreased. If anyone has got any evidence that we can keep decreasing RCS as fast as we can increase radar performance, then i'd like to hear it

True if one employs all the new power of computing to enhance the radar for the sole purpose of detection.There are many other options to achieve a stealth effect trough active measures:[list type=decimal][*]An AESA radar could also be used to jam or even fry the sensors of enemy electronics effectively rendering the enemy unable to see.[*]Coupled with a supercomputer an AESA is an active stealth device onto itself, capable of detecting, analyzing and generating return signals to confuse the enemy radar. [*]I've aslo read that you can insert computer code into an enemy radar netword to achieve all sorts of other purposes.[/list]The classic cat and mouse game of radar wavelength vs shape & RAM is just moving to the realm of computing power and software. In that arena the F-35 is the best equipped aircraft to date, even more so than the F-22.

You are not supposed to know all that ;D

 

[AeroFranz]

...RCS reduction technology seems to be on the end portion of its S-curve, while radar has got a bunch of tricks still to be completely exploited. AESA is probably now on the ramping-up part of its S-curve. If that's the case (and I don't know that it is), then low RCS will provide diminishing returns. All things equal, low RCS will still delay detection, but its advantage will be greatly decreased. If anyone has got any evidence that we can keep decreasing RCS as fast as we can increase radar performance, then i'd like to hear it

True if one employs all the new power of computing to enhance the radar for the sole purpose of detection.There are many other options to achieve a stealth effect trough active measures:

• An AESA radar could also be used to jam or even fry the sensors of enemy electronics effectively rendering the enemy unable to see.
• Coupled with a supercomputer an AESA is an active stealth device onto itself, capable of detecting, analyzing and generating return signals to confuse the enemy radar.
• I've aslo read that you can insert computer code into an enemy radar netword to achieve all sorts of other purposes.

The classic cat and mouse game of radar wavelength vs shape & RAM is just moving to the realm of computing power and software. In that arena the F-35 is the best equipped aircraft to date, even more so than the F-22.

Agreed, but this is true of any platform equipped with suitable apertures, software, antenna and back end, not just the F-35. What I'm saying is that 'classic' stealth based on RCS reduction may not be an absolute, non-tradeable, platform attribute in the future, at least not to the extent it is today. There are other ways, such as the ones you mentioned, that can improve survivability. All things equal, i would certainly prefer a platform with lower RCS, but i think it's importance will wane compared to what these new developments can offer - i might add, at a lower cost in terms of overall configuration trades. I think it's fair to say that IF (and i'm just making stuff up here) you could achieve the same frontal RCS of an F-35 with a moderately-LO aircraft with external weapons in semi-conformal carriage using active cancellation, that could be a favorable trade. Internal carriage is great, but 'fat' aircraft tend to fare worse when looking at an area rule distribution, not to mention extra wetted area.

TT, i'd be interested in reading that article you mentioned about limits of radar. I'm no EE, so I'm only familiar with the main principles, so it's entirely possible the limits are closer than I imagine.

I still believe that there is only so much RCS reduction that you can afford with shaping. We're already pretty good at doing that, and I doubt that you can do significantly better than a B-2. It goes back to the Hopeless Diamond; there may be REALLY stealthy shapes available, but it would make for a REALLY crappy aircraft.
As far as RAM coatings and paint are concerned, yeah, they are probably getting better, but you are limited by how thick you can make the coats, it's probably very poor as a structural material, and I doubt the chemistry of it can be improved that much any more; these things have been around for a while now.
Mind you, if they have compositions that are easier to apply/more durable, then it's a very welcome thing.

As for radar, I'm sure I am not the first one to come up with the idea, but what happens if you have a large, high-power, fixed, low-frequency antenna that locates your platform within a volume of, say, a cubic mile and then lobs at you an active homing missile with a high-frequency seeker? Say the missile is datalinked, so your general position can be updated. Once it's within a couple of miles from you, the laws of physics should negate much of your advantage. Once again, i'm no radar expert so I welcome explanations. [edit: this link http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/27/will-stealth-survive-as-sensors-improve-f-35-jammers-at-stake/ deals with this partially; although it doesn't address the active homing scenario on the missile]

Finally, seems to me it's easier to take advantage of radar advances than advances in the LO domain.
Your planform is pretty much set for the lifetime of the planform. The coatings, well, those can probably be changed frequently, but it's a second order effect. The radar and software, on the other hand, provided it fits within the SWAP of the host aircraft, can be replaced relatively easily, budget permitting (see F-16 currently).

Thanks for this link:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/stealth-isnt-becoming-obsolete-anytime-soon-usaf-379671/
this quote seems relevant:

But Hostage says that while stealth technology continues to evolve, this will not be forever. "I'm sure there is a point of diminishing returns somewhere," he says. "And that's why we're already looking at what defines the sixth-generation."
There will have to be a sixth-generation fighter at some point, which Hostage says is notionally around 2030. Unlike fifth-generation fighters, where Hostage says the definitive technology is stealth, there may not be one particular attribute that defines a sixth-generation machine. There could a combination of several emerging technologies, but it is too early to say. "It'll be some type of game-changing capability," Hostage says. "It's not going to be an iterative growth of this capability."

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Absolutely, but both RCSs and actual (not public brochure) radar capabilities are unknown in the public domain. Furthermore the analytics capability in the back-end will also play a significant role in maximising the use of the physical attributes of a radar. We really have no idea at what range a Typhoon will see an F-35 or vice-versa.

The maximum detection ranges are not going to be too different from the quoted ranges and the back end ability about the system won’t make this range longer. It will of course come into play in the time taken to establish a track which is quite important against a stealth aircraft which isn’t closing. However it is rather wrong to say we have “no idea” at what ranges Typhoon and F-35 will see each other. We have an idea, not a precise figure, that is accurate enough in a head to head closing situation to note the huge detection difference between the two.

The F-35's advantages in situational awareness face the same fundamental limits as the Typhoon's- EO is range limited by physics and pointing a radar at an aircraft with a credible ESM suite goes some way to giving the game away. The F-35 needs to know where its opponent is before it can take advantage of that knowledge, but gaining that knowledge with its on-board sensors immediately degrades its ability to make maximum use of that knowledge by virtue of the detectability of active sensors or the required proximity of EO sensors. There is always the off-chance that the F-35 has its radar off and the Typhoon has its on and the F-35 can make an entirely passive approach but that's an unlikely scenario.

Since combat aircraft are rarely going to fight one on one the simple solution to ESM is to use multiple aircraft. One plays the role of hunter/beater while another with nose silent is the killer. That the prey can’t use its own radar to sanitise air space against a VLO aircraft to make sure there isn’t someone trying to get around behind is a significant handicap for the Typhoon up against the F-35. If they don’t want to die today the only option their ESM gives them is a chance to break off and head for home. Which is mission defeat.

The idea that a formation of F-35s versus a formation of Typhoons, each with identical off-board support, will inevitably result in the Typhoon's being "bushwacked" is fanciful in the extreme, the F-35 will certainly come out on top more times than not but its advantages are not that extreme.

Yet simulations with LO aircraft in the mix demonstrate overwhelmingly that this is the result.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

This Typhoon vs F-35 debate is quite amusing if one remembers that you are extremely unlikely to ever see them facing off against one another outside of fighter acquisition competitions.

It’s a possibility for Israel as an F-35 customer with Saudi Arabia being a Typhoon operator.

 

[GTX]

True...though still very unlikely in reality.

 

[bobbymike]

Portions of this debate remind me of a story an acquintance told me. He was a 'combat pistol shooter' he had no military experience but because he would practise on the exact mock up of the competitions he could consistently beat SWAT, SEALs and even Delta operators in competition as they were amazing shooters but spent time doing, ahem, other things as well.

The moral of my boring story is that the F-35 will be a world beating aircraft with unprecedented avionics amd stealth. I am trying to find an article that talks about how a large portion of the black budget is spend on - my words - 'voodoo magic' electronic warfare systems. I strongly believe, with no proof mind you (please feel free to critic my post) that awesome F-35 capabilities are being hidden and the reason we seemingly don't have the backlash from the delays and cost overruns is due to these possible capabilities.

Sorry for all the 'I think or probablies and possiblies' but it is the "No Holds Barred Thread" ;D

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

But Hostage says that while stealth technology continues to evolve, this will not be forever. "I'm sure there is a point of diminishing returns somewhere," he says. "And that's why we're already looking at what defines the sixth-generation."

exactly, like how dog fighting evolved and won't be forever. so Typhoons and F-22s get you diminishing returns for what they cost. like how dogfighting evolved to using sensors and missiles rather than risky EM turning contests.

or dedicated jamming aircraft and wild weasels. all these other systems and fighting styles that saw diminishing returns and evolved to stealth aircraft. Or is this one of the cases where there was no point in buying F-4s because one day they will be obsolete?

If I have 10 dollars and you have 5 dollars, and we both get taxed 80 percent I still have more. One day the F-35 may "lose a step" but it has "more steps to give" than what is flying now.

6th generation fighters will be here someday, but just like how the F-22 arriving didn't mean the end of the F-15, or the Super Hornet the end of the legacy hornet, there will still be room for F-35s even when 6th gen fighters show up. in fact if the negative story plays out and we never have enough F-35s, 6th gen fighters will be replacing F-16s, F-18s, and F-15s that are still struggling along-- decades longer than they were ever intended to be operational rather than F-35s.

I guess its all a matter of perspective I'm told that stealth will be obsolete and worthless one day, but all fighters still need guns, even if they aren't the primary weapon they were years ago, its still a requirement because somethings are "never obsolete".

The idea is to make them "work for it" sure you can beat an F-22, but what does it cost? What will you have to sacrifice to do it? Sure you can detect an F-35, but what will it cost you in blood sweat tears and treasure? and is it worth it? can you have those capabilities everywhere you need them? or will the F-35 simply use other means to bypass them or find and exploit weaknesses? Look at the F-22. Best damn fighter ever that we could never afford enough of. People have been predicting that AT weapons will mean the death of the tank, for 90 years, but here we are. tanks still matter. They come up with new AT weapons, and tanks come back with better armor and other countermeasures. A Javelin is an excellent AT weapon. of course we never have as many as we need, and they cost a lot of money, and they cost a lot to develop. and damned if the tanks won't come up with countermeasures...

For all we know the requirement of a 6th generation fighter is space flight, or mach 3+ capability, something that not even an F-22 can match. Stealth becoming less important in the future doesn't automatically mean that a Typhoon somehow wins by default. It means it just slides further into obsolescence.
One day the F-35 will be obsolete. At that point Stealth may still be very viable advantage, but it may have evolved to the point where the F-35 can no longer compete. (in the same way that the F-117 was retired, but as we can see stealth is still a big deal) The ante has been upped. Just like how all fighters have jet engines, the genie is not going back into the bottle. once everyone has LO/VLO and detection systems everyone will evolve all over again, and we will have endless debates about who has better radars, and who has stealthier skin. dogfighting will come up about as often as we discuss rigging and wooden wings in this thread.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The F-35 is a fantastic piece of engineering and a better overall package than the Typhoon but its lower RCS, whilst providing a definite edge, is not a panacea.

Who said it was a panacea? The point I’ve made is it provides a significant edge against the Typhoon which doesn’t have the same low observability. You keep coming back time and time again both agreeing with this edge but then trying to qualify things to keep the Typhoon in the game. A classic case of a trying to eat a cake and still having it. Tis better to be LO than not and operators will and do take full advantage of this capability to stomp all over those that don’t.

 

[lantinian]

All things equal, i would certainly prefer a platform with lower RCS, but i think it's importance will wane compared to what these new developments can offer - i might add, at a lower cost in terms of overall configuration trades.

I agree with your general line of thoughts and conclusions but I with to make a different point altogether.

A lot of people count on the eventual "loss of coolness" of Stealth, because with the F-117, it upset the balance in a huge way not seen since the invention of ..... well, the RADAR. Both are based on the same fundamental physics principles but applied differently and developed at the different points in time. So, its not practical for one to win over the other completely any more than we are expect our eyesight to never be tricked by a good camouflage.

The same technological battle has been fought for ages between the armor and the projectile.

Lowering RCS will not be the primary design driver for Stealthy aircraft forever. Right now, that is the case because RADAR is the primary was of detecting aircraft. That may change in the future with the adoption of more passive sensors like DAS on the F-35.

RCS is important as its a major component of the aircraft survivability and it is that trait of the F-35 that interest me.I also think that extrapolating on the past is never a good way to predict the future. You have to jump ahead of the trend and foresee not just the impact of improvement of exisitng technology but the emergence of a whole new ones.

One thing, I have not read enought about is the impacts of lasers on the battlefield and especially in air combat, where the nature of the vehicles: lightweight & full with electronics makes them especially vulnerable. In my opinion, contrary to popular belief where battles will move to WVR combat as Stealth will be overcome trough better sensors, I think quite the oposite will happen. Battles will be fought ever further out, on the edge of your laser system weapons range. If todays close range missiles are lethal, what chance do you have against evading a laser?The best defense will be distance which will give you protection from the atmosphere and stealth as at great distance the advantage of stealth is magnified, making it more difficult to get an accurate lock from the enemy's laser system. At some point A2A missiles will also become irrelevant as lasers will become too good are targeting them too.

I think the F-35 is the only platform currently in development or in service that I have read about that has some sort of provisions build in to support a laser system of some sorts as an upgrade.

 

[lantinian]

This Typhoon vs F-35 debate is quite amusing if one remembers that you are extremely unlikely to ever see them facing off against one another outside of fighter acquisition competitions.

Two Words: RED FLAG


P.S. To those that already suggested the same was true for F-22 vs SU-30MKI or F-22 vs Typhoon comparison engagements, pls refer to my two word comment above.

 

[lantinian]

Yup, and 4.5 gen aircraft can operate in multiples too. Nothing special about the F-35 doing it.

I think the F-35 does it in a LPI way : which is kind of important.

 

[lantinian]

a definite edge, is not a panacea.

From what I have followed so far, I think this quote perfectly summarized the whole discussion
;D

 

[quellish]

I still believe that there is only so much RCS reduction that you can afford with shaping. We're already pretty good at doing that, and I doubt that you can do significantly better than a B-2. It goes back to the Hopeless Diamond; there may be REALLY stealthy shapes available, but it would make for a REALLY crappy aircraft.
As far as RAM coatings and paint are concerned, yeah, they are probably getting better, but you are limited by how thick you can make the coats, it's probably very poor as a structural material, and I doubt the chemistry of it can be improved that much any more; these things have been around for a while now.
Mind you, if they have compositions that are easier to apply/more durable, then it's a very welcome thing.

There are limits on what RAM can do, though there is room to be creative in combining RAM with shaping. For example, using shaping to funnel energy into one area that is a black hole to one set of wavelengths, and a clever combination of surface treatments addresses a finite set of others. This does not explain it well, but you may get the general idea.

As always it's the threat that determines your observables requirements. The B-2 was designed for a pretty wide range of threats as it had to persist in a very diverse threat environment. The F-117 and F-22 had very different requirements, as did TSSAM. So for a very diverse set of threats the B-2 does well overall, even if in specific bands it may not be as low as an F-22. The YF-118G Bird of Prey demonstrator did very, very well for threats comparable to the F-22.
Hypothetically.
If there were just one threat you were interested in - like HAVE BLUE against GUN DISH - today you could have a very, very, very low signature - but that may not be a realistic requirement. Just like anything else in engineering, it's a set of tradeoffs.

As for radar, I'm sure I am not the first one to come up with the idea, but what happens if you have a large, high-power, fixed, low-frequency antenna that locates your platform within a volume of, say, a cubic mile and then lobs at you an active homing missile with a high-frequency seeker? Say the missile is datalinked, so your general position can be updated. Once it's within a couple of miles from you, the laws of physics should negate much of your advantage. Once again, i'm no radar expert so I welcome explanations. [edit: this link http://defense.aol.com/2012/11/27/will-stealth-survive-as-sensors-improve-f-35-jammers-at-stake/ deals with this partially; although it doesn't address the active homing scenario on the missile]

That is basically what LORRAINE was.

Finally, seems to me it's easier to take advantage of radar advances than advances in the LO domain.
Your planform is pretty much set for the lifetime of the planform. The coatings, well, those can probably be changed frequently, but it's a second order effect. The radar and software, on the other hand, provided it fits within the SWAP of the host aircraft, can be replaced relatively easily, budget permitting (see F-16 currently).

That's mostly true, but with some configurations there can be a higher degree of longevity - very large simple shapes like AARS and the original B-2, for example.
There are also opportunities to change the signature of the aircraft significantly without changing the outer mold line. Some current aircraft have been designed with this in mind.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Much like the swim in a triathlon, you don't win with a great swim, but you lose without it. Thats the future of stealth. In the future you may not be able to win with it alone, but without it you lose. its one more thing that top tier fighters must take into account. Which is where things are now if you look around at the J-20 and Pak Fa and F-22. If you are talking about being a viable 21st century warplane you better have stealth.

 

[quellish]

One day the F-35 will be obsolete. At that point Stealth may still be very viable advantage, but it may have evolved to the point where the F-35 can no longer compete. (in the same way that the F-117 was retired, but as we can see stealth is still a big deal) The ante has been upped. Just like how all fighters have jet engines, the genie is not going back into the bottle. once everyone has LO/VLO and detection systems everyone will evolve all over again, and we will have endless debates about who has better radars, and who has stealthier skin. dogfighting will come up about as often as we discuss rigging and wooden wings in this thread.

I am not sure what you mean here in regards to the F-117. The F-117, for a number of reasons, was getting (more) expensive to keep around. The F-117 fleet was competing with other programs for dollars and money. The aircraft themselves still had plenty of life in them, and had in fact just received a set of upgrades to increase their longevity.
Money that had been going into the F-117 fleet ended up going into other programs.

 

[quellish]

I think the F-35 does it in a LPI way : which is kind of important.

Only with other F-35s, which is an important thing to remember.

 

[quellish]

There are physical limits to both optical sensors and what can be detected by radar at what range no matter how much computer power you throw it. The whole point of Stealth is to sneak up on the enemy and you can't do that with your Radar pinging away giving away your position. So with Stealth aircraft you are limited to how and when you use your radar much the same way a submarine is limited in how it can use its Sonar and pierscope.

The point of stealth is survivability, which is not the same as "sneaking up on the enemy". That is the distinction that Deptula was making in the article you quoted earlier. Knowing that a B-2 is around isn't as useful as being able to track and hit it.

Somehow it is always stealth, as if defeating stealth were primarily a problem of insufficient processing power.

In some cases it very much is, for instance picking a LO target like a cruise missile out of ground clutter.

If the caveat for the Typhoon winning is that stealth is suddenly detectable what does that tell you?

Anything is detectable at a short enough range.

 

[kcran567]

sorry mods repeated post