Top pilot calls for halt on stealth programs

[wilky510]

I guess a lot depends on how stealthy the J-20 and PAK-FA will be. As a first attempt at stealth, they may not be any better than an F-117, which isn't much better than a EF2000 or Rafale from some RCS figures I've seen banded about (all between 0.025 - 0.1m2). What was classed as a stealth plane 20 years ago, wouldn't be one today. Unless the RCS falls under 0.003m2, it might not even be correct to class them as 5th gen fighters.

 

If they have 1700 F-35s, then problem solved I guess.

Too hard to tell with current prototypes. We don't even know how effective their RAM coatings are, and even if they're gonna add such a thing. RAM coatings weren't added until very later versions for both the F-35/F-22.

 

I've seen alot of RCS figures for the PAK-Fa, all from 0.05, to the apparent F-22 RCS of 0.0001. Time will tell.

[Pilotasso]

Both the chinese and Russan took steps to take down development costs to a fraction o those of theamerican jets. While you cant pinpoint values (not even for F-22 RCS which is classfied) you can certainly tell that the end product always reflects the ammount of money your wiling to spend on it. ;)

 

This often also come in hand to hand in the way the aircraft looks. IMHO th russina plane is aimed at fontal and lateral RCS area reductions without breaking the fighter like sillouette too much (performance). The Chinese J-20 and 31 seem to go a at faceting techniques, in the case of the J-20 it clearly is not meant o be agile. Perhaps a long range strike fighter.

[Groove]

It is esoteric.

 

The idea of bi-static radar has nothing to do with 'holes' in the sky, you can't track such a thing since you're not mapping EM density. The idea is the same as bi-static radar.

 

Since what we consider normal radar can be evaded by stealth because it depends on receiving reflected energy at the same location where it was emitted from, and stealth is used to reflect this signal elsewhere, the multitudes of antennae in those new systems are use to receive those reflections in different locations than the emitter. Whether that can be particularly successful is hard to say ... I'd bank on ECM completely wiping such a system out.

 

It's so esoteric multiple countries develope it and have working prototypes already.

[GGTharos]

And yet, stealth fighter production and design continues. Although I suppose one could easily presume that even with those things acting as EWRs, they still can't guide weapons, and stealth still works just fine against fire-control radars.

[Groove]

The processing power for real-time airspace surveillance with passive radars are avaiable for not a year now.

 

Stealth development will continue for sure, not every country will be able to get their hands on such systems, at least for the next years.

[marcos]

Too hard to tell with current prototypes. We don't even know how effective their RAM coatings are, and even if they're gonna add such a thing. RAM coatings weren't added until very later versions for both the F-35/F-22.

 

I've seen alot of RCS figures for the PAK-Fa, all from 0.05, to the apparent F-22 RCS of 0.0001. Time will tell.

Well if 0.05 is all they have to offer, that's no better than the 'non-stealth' EF2000, which is stated as a third of the Rafale's 0.1.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Exactly!

Exactly, what? We "need" thousands of F-35's so that we do not fail, as Germans did, in taking other people's land? You got some wrong ides my friend ...

[sobek]

The processing power for real-time airspace surveillance with passive radars are avaiable for not a year now.

 

I don't know Groove, it seems pretty far fetched. I can't remotely imagine how this is supposed to work.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

A comment that did not contribute anything. You can just as well build a fighter with geometry that would not reflect the wavelength used by those modified radars.

 

You can fly B-52 with ECM that cancels radar energy and be completely invisible to radars. I use this secret technology all the time to cancel airplane noise when I travel. No matter what kind of geometry, there will be some reflection of energy. My reaction to your comment was simply a reminder how a military that was completely overwhelmed, managed to track and shoot down a stealth airplane. Stealth does not mean invisible.

[wilky510]

You can fly B-52 with ECM that cancels radar energy and be completely invisible to radars. I use this secret technology all the time to cancel airplane noise when I travel. No matter what kind of geometry, there will be some reflection of energy. My reaction to your comment was simply a reminder how a military that was completely overwhelmed, managed to track and shoot down a stealth airplane. Stealth does not mean invisible.

Was never advertised officially as 'invisible', and if anyone has ever said that in the aviation community, then they need to rethink a new hobby/job. Stealth only decreases effective range of systems. That's why the USSR feared the B-2, it allowed the radar nets that overlapped and covered all the airspace to decrease the range of said radar systems into little holes that these aircraft could slip through.

 

That's what needs to be said here. Noone is claiming stealth is some magical fairy dust.

 

Just like everything else, stealth has strengths and weaknesses, to which they can be exploited. While i won't get into too much detail. the F-117 shootdown was impressive, but not THAT impressive as everyone claims.

 

By the way, are you one of those who believe a B-2 was hit and somehow repaired without anyone knowing? Curious.

[wilky510]

Well if 0.05 is all they have to offer, that's no better than the 'non-stealth' EF2000, which is stated as a third of the Rafale's 0.1.

Almost positive those are of clean configurations. Also, i'm almost positive the 0.05 quote was from Sukhoi, believe it or not. I forget where i read that. Could be wrong.

[sobek]

You can fly B-52 with ECM that cancels radar energy and be completely invisible to radars. I use this secret technology all the time to cancel airplane noise when I travel.

 

ECM and ANC don't really have a lot in common.

[EtherealN]

ECM and ANC don't really have a lot in common.

 

heheh, newsflash: sound and light don't act identically.

 

Only one of them can boss time around, for example. :D

[EtherealN]

Stealth does not mean invisible.

 

It doesn't have to mean invisible to be a considerable force multiplier.

 

The only people to ever think stealth means "invisible" or "invulnerable" are those with very little clue, such as media.

[sobek]

heheh, newsflash: sound and light don't act identically.

 

They do to an astoundingly great degree. However, when you try to predict a signal that changes so fast that even the time it would take to pass the ADC and DAC in your signal chain seems like an eternity, you are outta luck trying to run active cancellation on it.

[winz]

It's so esoteric multiple countries develope it and have working prototypes already.

You're most likely talking about VERA, the last generation of czechoslovak pasive radar line (started in the 60s). They don't look for any magical holes in the sky. They just use time of arrival of signals at diferent sites to triangulate the target location. And it certainly cannot be packed at the back of a sedan.

[marcos]

An interesting stat is that the money spent of the Iraq and Afghan conflicts would buy 400 Raptors per year.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

By the way, are you one of those who believe a B-2 was hit and somehow repaired without anyone knowing? Curious.

 

I know my answer will be a big disappointment for you. My answer is ... I do know that B-2 was not shot down over Yugoslavia.

 

Now, where did you come up with idea of B-2 being hit and then repaired?

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

An interesting stat is that the money spent of the Iraq and Afghan conflicts would buy 400 Raptors per year.

Even more interesting fact is that our government cut taxes before/during these wars, so we borrowed the money for these wars. Thus, our debt to GDP ratio is now equal to Italian. And if we do not drasticly cut our spending (read: military), we will be in the similar situation as Greece, very soon.

[marcos]

Even more interesting fact is that our government cut taxes before/during these wars, so we borrowed the money for these wars. Thus, our debt to GDP ratio is now equal to Italian. And if we do not drasticly cut our spending (read: military), we will be in the similar situation as Greece, very soon.

You would be lucky to be in the same situation as Greece. Greece has countries like Germany and France and the ECB trying to bail it out. They also have the option of going back to the Drachma. Nobody is going to bail out the US because nobody is able to.

[Pilotasso]

They are still in time to turn round, too late for us (Europe) over here though. We're doing it the hard way.

 

BTW, military spending cannot account fo the debt alone nor cuts in defens alone will solve the debt problem. 700 billion a year is still small compared the 16 trillion. I think the rate of debt growth each year is still a order of magintude higher than the entire defense budget.

[GGTharos]

No, they wouldn't be. The stuff that's happening in Greece is pretty terrible right now both socially and economically ... and the US isn't anywhere near that right now.

 

You would be lucky to be in the same situation as Greece. Greece has countries like Germany and France and the ECB trying to bail it out. They also have the option of going back to the Drachma. Nobody is going to bail out the US because nobody is able to.

[wilky510]

I know my answer will be a big disappointment for you. My answer is ... I do know that B-2 was not shot down over Yugoslavia.

 

Now, where did you come up with idea of B-2 being hit and then repaired?

Not a surprise at all, was just curious. Alot of people believe a 2nd F-117 was damaged, and was able to return to base. Some also believe a B-2 was damaged heavily and crashed landed somehow (not sure) and was repaired without anyone noticing.

[marcos]

It would be easier to see a B-2 than an F-117 in theory, simply due to the size, but then it probably packs more juice to make up for it.

[VAOZoky]

Not a surprise at all, was just curious. Alot of people believe a 2nd F-117 was damaged, and was able to return to base. Some also believe a B-2 was damaged heavily and crashed landed somehow (not sure) and was repaired without anyone noticing.

 

Well story of second F-117 being damaged first came from US military not Yugoslavs. Same thing with allegedly downed B2. Only thing that Yugoslavs said was that they hit "something" and that same "something" disappeared for radar over Spacva forest in Croatia. They never officially said anything about B2 (again this idea came from US). To me US reaction was like calling police over phone and saying "I didn't kill Bob, bye" :lol: It's going to raise some question. What i believe is that we will never know the real truth.

 

PS. While we at subject, does anyone want to buy piece of F-117A? Starting price is only 100000$

Edited November 14, 2012 by VAO*Zoky