Valid Points on Stealth?

[marcos]

The article is dumb.

It considers VHF, HF radar, IRST and RWR to be magical, stealth target-spotting hardware.

It makes a lot of assumptions that are invalid, like lack of data-link on the stealth aircraft's part.

The article is definitely 'off' with some figures but equally, some people are considering AMRAAMs and BVR intercept to be magical fail-safe technology. The range claims for Gen 4.5 IRST are just as ridiculous as the effective range assumptions for AMRAAMs against Gen 4.5 fighters. IRST is probably about as likely to see an oncoming stealth fighter at 90km as an AMRAAM is to hit an oncoming Gen 4.5 fighter from 90km. It certainly can't lock from that distance.

 

WVR combat ignores the fact that some stealthed aircraft will get the shot first due to better initial position and possibly IR suppresstion.

It ignores the fact that the stealth fighters can much more easily set up drag-and-bags.

Don't really agree with that argument. Stealth fighters will not remain 'invisible' all the way up to WVR, nor probably even 3 times WVR. Neither with respect to radar nor IRST. And the 100deg off-boresight capability of weapons like the ASRAAM and Python 5 together with HMS make merging from a position of advantage virtually impossible.

 

It also ignores the fact that the huge furball they're advocating is a complete crap-shoot and turn rates and other such fun things don't matter as much.

That statement has no basis in fact.

 

Okay, I still don't see your point. It's successs rate against such a target depends on the range at which the missile is launched, and the specific maneuver that the target is executing.

Exactly and some fairly broad assumptions have been subconsciously made about range vs success rate. The nice clean BVR bottle-on-a-wall shooting gallery envisioned is probably a fallacy.

Edited February 5, 2013 by marcos

[Sierra99]

Actually that aircraft is, in a number of ways, an upgrade over the F-22. Of course, they do two very different jobs, so apples and oranges.

 

The 800lb Gorilla in the room is "Why" are we buying aircraft the way we are today. The answer is Money. 50 years ago...(Yes, the 60's were 50 years ago...) we bought aircraft designed for specific jobs based on specific requirements. Not cookie cutter airframes the contractor said they could make work for our mission. If you read some of the articles regarding the procurement the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, A-10 you see the requirements of the MISSION took precedence over all else.

 

 

The long and short of it is, yes Stealth is cool. However, not every aircraft needs to be Stealthy. Forcing the military to buy cookie cutter aircraft in an attempt to keep procurement costs down means the final result will be at best a compromise.

[Exorcet]

The article is definitely 'off' with some figures but equally, some people are considering AMRAAMs and BVR intercept to be magical fail-safe technology. The range claims for Gen 4.5 IRST are just as ridiculous as the effective range assumptions for AMRAAMs against Gen 4.5 fighters. IRST is probably about as likely to see an oncoming stealth fighter at 90km as an AMRAAM is to hit an oncoming Gen 4.5 fighter from 90km. It certainly can't lock from that distance.

I don't see that anywhere in this thread. What points here have been made with the mindset that stealth is magic?

 

As for missiles, they usually don't have an issue when fired outside of their lock on range when an aircraft is guiding them.

 

 

Exactly and some fairly broad assumptions have been subconsciously made about range vs success rate. The nice clean BVR bottle-on-a-wall shooting gallery envisioned is probably a fallacy.

 

Where did this come from?

 

The 800lb Gorilla in the room is "Why" are we buying aircraft the way we are today. The answer is Money. 50 years ago...(Yes, the 60's were 50 years ago...) we bought aircraft designed for specific jobs based on specific requirements. Not cookie cutter airframes the contractor said they could make work for our mission. If you read some of the articles regarding the procurement the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, A-10 you see the requirements of the MISSION took precedence over all else.

 

 

The long and short of it is, yes Stealth is cool. However, not every aircraft needs to be Stealthy. Forcing the military to buy cookie cutter aircraft in an attempt to keep procurement costs down means the final result will be at best a compromise.

 

What would you change? I think that anything that's intended to be a fighter should probably have stealth. It will also certainly aid bombers unless they are just going to use cruise missiles.

 

I don't see which aircraft are cookie cutter either. Each stealth plane is fairly specialized.

[marcos]

The 800lb Gorilla in the room is "Why" are we buying aircraft the way we are today. The answer is Money. 50 years ago...(Yes, the 60's were 50 years ago...) we bought aircraft designed for specific jobs based on specific requirements. Not cookie cutter airframes the contractor said they could make work for our mission. If you read some of the articles regarding the procurement the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, A-10 you see the requirements of the MISSION took precedence over all else.

 

 

The long and short of it is, yes Stealth is cool. However, not every aircraft needs to be Stealthy. Forcing the military to buy cookie cutter aircraft in an attempt to keep procurement costs down means the final result will be at best a compromise.

Great points.

 

One could well raise the question of whether the whole 3-in-1, multi-role requirement has actually driven up cost and complexity rather than reducing it, certainly where the F-35B is concerned.

 

Would it have been cheaper/easier to build the F-35A to be as good an F-16/18 replacement as possible, then work out how to navalise it and just start with a clean slate for the F-35B?

[GGTharos]

Don't really agree with that argument. Stealth fighters will not remain 'invisible' all the way up to WVR, nor probably even 3 times WVR. Neither with respect to radar nor IRST. And the 100deg off-boresight capability of weapons like the ASRAAM and Python 5 together with HMS make merging from a position of advantage virtually impossible.

 

Well now that's a very mis-informed statement. I'm a big fan of HOBS missiles but they're subject to being Rmined and other fun things just like the non-HOBS counter-parts. :)

 

That statement has no basis in fact.

 

It has a pretty good basis in historical fact, and RL pilots will tell you as much. Furballs are bad, bad things.

[GGTharos]

Not cookie cutter airframes the contractor said they could make work for our mission.

 

I think you need to re-examine a few things, starting with the fact that the JSF is a single-mission aircraft with the ability to perform other missions. No different that other capable multi-roles in this regard. Some focus on air to air first, some on strike. The JSF is the latter.

 

If you read some of the articles regarding the procurement the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, A-10 you see the requirements of the MISSION took precedence over all else.

 

And how exactly is this different with the F-35?

 

The long and short of it is, yes Stealth is cool. However, not every aircraft needs to be Stealthy. Forcing the military to buy cookie cutter aircraft in an attempt to keep procurement costs down means the final result will be at best a compromise.

 

All aircraft designs are a compromise. The ones that are not, are rather expensive 'superfighters' ... that would be the F-14 and F-15 that you mentioned above. The F-16 and A-10 were originally specifically conceived as cheap, low-tech aircraft by comparison. The F-16 no longer fits this bill.

The F-18 design is a compromise multi-role airframe whose roots once more live in a light-weight air to air fighter.

 

The JSF was designed from the start to be first-day, survivable and successful strike fighter capable of penetrating enemy defenses while obtaining and supplying huge amounts of SA.

 

The F-35B is a specific requirements for the Marines, and will supply them with an aircraft that allows them to go in with their own carriers and provide almost everything they need from a fighter. It's expensive, but in a whole bunch of situations it frees them from needing an aircraft carrier for air power.

[marcos]

Well now that's a very mis-informed statement. I'm a big fan of HOBS missiles but they're subject to being Rmined and other fun things just like the non-HOBS counter-parts. :)

You still haven't really stated why it's misinformed. It's a simple matter of fact that even an F-22 will run out of radar stealth before 20km against AESA radar, even by the most generous estimates. That's assuming IRST stays off its scent until then. And newer WVR missiles are less prone to tricks than old ones, simply because people have investing in thwarting those tricks.

 

There's only so much you can do to mask thermal image. At the end of the day you have 2 huge engines and a shed-load of electrical equipment that will bake if heat isn't released somehow.

 

It has a pretty good basis in historical fact, and RL pilots will tell you as much. Furballs are bad, bad things.

The plane with the best manoeuvrability will still come out of top, pilots/avionics being equal.

[marcos]

And how exactly is this different with the F-35?

 

 

 

All aircraft designs are a compromise. The ones that are not, are rather expensive 'superfighters' ... that would be the F-14 and F-15 that you mentioned above. The F-16 and A-10 were originally specifically conceived as cheap, low-tech aircraft by comparison. The F-16 no longer fits this bill.

The F-18 design is a compromise multi-role airframe whose roots once more live in a light-weight air to air fighter.

 

The JSF was designed from the start to be first-day, survivable and successful strike fighter capable of penetrating enemy defenses while obtaining and supplying huge amounts of SA.

 

The F-35B is a specific requirements for the Marines, and will supply them with an aircraft that allows them to go in with their own carriers and provide almost everything they need from a fighter. It's expensive, but in a whole bunch of situations it frees them from needing an aircraft carrier for air power.

I think he means the fact that the F-35 is currently set to fill the roles of the F-14, F-16, F-18, AV-8B and maybe the A-10 too depending of US DoD/Congress.

[GGTharos]

You still haven't really stated why it's misinformed. It's a simple matter of fact that even an F-22 will run out of radar stealth before 20km against AESA radar, even by the most generous estimates. That's assuming IRST stays off its scent until then. And newer WVR missiles are less prone to tricks than old ones, simply because people have investing in thwarting those tricks.

 

You know mr 'Raptor salad'? Not only did he not mention that in his fair guns fight he ended up getting about even kills with 22's, he also didn't mention that the 22's were merging with counter-HOBS maneuvers.

Again, HOBS missiles are great - I like them, they're very dangerous, but they can be dealt with.

 

The plane with the best manoeuvrability will still come out of top, pilots/avionics being equal.

 

Yes, okay, except this statement is next to meaningless when avionics and SA are not equal. And stealth makes them not equal.

[GGTharos]

Except it isn't.

 

No one is attempting to make the F-35 go mach 2 or carry AIM-54's.

No one is trying to make the F-35 loiter for 4 hours at 200kt, either.

 

They're replacing certain aircraft by necessity, but the F-35 hasn't even attempted to replace them by design. For some things it will simply be inadequate. It's a stealth first day kick-down-the-door strike fighter with some reasonable CAS and A2A capability.

 

It replaces the harrier handily and brings significant capability over that aircraft.

 

This aircraft is simply not designed as a 'jack of all trades' like some would want to call it.

 

I think he means the fact that the F-35 is currently set to fill the roles of the F-14, F-16, F-18, AV-8B and maybe the A-10 too depending of US DoD/Congress.

[Snoopy]

 

I don't see which aircraft are cookie cutter either. Each stealth plane is fairly specialized.

 

The F-35 is scheduled to replace the F-16, F-18, and A-10....doesn't seem specialized IMO....

[marcos]

You know mr 'Raptor salad'? Not only did he not mention that in his fair guns fight he ended up getting about even kills with 22's, he also didn't mention that the 22's were merging with counter-HOBS maneuvers.

Again, HOBS missiles are great - I like them, they're very dangerous, but they can be dealt with.

You mean the 'counter story' that emerged from Mr. 'I know an F-22 Pilot' after about a year or so of all fanboys flat-out denying that any engagements had ever taken place?

 

No..... I didn't forget that thread.:megalol:

 

Yes, okay, except this statement is next to meaningless when avionics and SA are not equal. And stealth makes them not equal.

No. There is no 'stealth' in WVR, or even inside 20km (being conservative).

 

Furthermore, even when the F-22 gets its AIM-9X it still won't have HMCS, making the OBS capability next to useless.

 

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2013/02/01/381748/f-22-raptors-need-helmet-mounted-cueing-system-to-take-full-advantage-of-aim-9x.html

 

Even after the US Air Force's fleet of Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor air superiority fighters starts receiving full Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder high off-boresight missle capability in 2017, the aircraft needs a helmet-mounted cueing system (HMCS) to use the weapon to its full potential. That is even taking into account the AIM-9X Block I and Block II's helmetless high off-boresight (HHOBS) capability.

 

"Without a helmet, that means the missile will need a very tight cue from somewhere," one F-22 pilot says. "[That's] something that is not always available in a dynamic, turning environment."

 

To be clear, the AIM-9X is a huge improvement over the AIM-9M version even without a HMCS . "Don't get me wrong, it will still be better than having a 9M, but it won't be anything close to what a fighter with a helmet and an externally carried missile has," the pilot says. "Hence, probably not the savior we've all been waiting on."

 

The USAF has a number of options available, if funding could be secured. One relatively simple plug-and-play solution is Gentex's Scorpion HMCS, which is a color, paddle-based system that is already in use on some versions of the Lockheed F-16 flown by the USAF's Air National Guard. Another possibility would be VSI's Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System II (JHMCS II), a version of which uses an optical tracker to measure head movements.

 

At longer ranges, the Block II AIM-9X, especially, will be a huge improvement for the Raptor. "LOAL [Lock-on after Launch] is great for the longer range shots, which will be nice as it basically gives us an additional two BVR [beyond visual range] weapons," the pilot says.

 

Even without a HMCS, the AIM-9X cannot be fielded to the Raptor fleet soon enough.

 

"We've been screaming for years that the F-22 needs to have the capability fielded, and fast," the Raptor pilot says. "Once the jets transitions from BVR [beyond visual range] to WVR [within visual range] with only AIM-9M-9s it is hugely vulnerable."

 

The huge advantage offered by such a high off-boresight missile in combination with a HMCS may give a third or fourth-generation fighter a decided edge over the fifth-generation Raptor (with AIM-9Ms) in a visual range encounter.

 

Obviously the last sentence is bollocks, because no 3rd generation aircraft I know of has HMCS, nor would they stand a chance. Author obviously isn't gen savvy, but the quotes are relevant.

 

The other relevant factor is that the kill probability of SRAAMs is far greater than that of MRAAMs.

Edited February 5, 2013 by marcos

[GGTharos]

You mean the 'counter story' that emerged from Mr. 'I know an F-22 Pilot' after about a year or so of all fanboys flat-out denying that any engagements had ever taken place?

 

No..... I didn't forget that thread.:megalol:

 

Ok, just so long as you know that your anti-stealth bias is showing :)

 

No. There is no 'stealth' in WVR, or even inside 20km (being conservative).

 

Yeah, that's why raptors tear up superior numbers of F-16's despite not having HMS yet.

 

Furthermore, even when the F-22 gets its AIM-9X it still won't have HMCS, making the OBS capability next to useless.

 

... maybe it doesn't need it? I know, novel idea - stealth fighter arrives with positional advantage. But yes I know, your fantasy radar and IRST have already detected it :megalol:

[Majinbot]

Actually that aircraft is, in a number of ways, an upgrade over the F-22. Of course, they do two very different jobs, so apples and oranges.

 

They're both multirole fighters. I watched a tv program in my country about the f-35 and I really hope they drop the contract!!! I'm sorry but the article was not all crap like someone said, especially about the money side!

[marcos]

Ok, just so long as you know that your anti-stealth bias is showing :)

Just like bias was showing for all those people who claimed that no engagement had even taken place for ages after it was stated that Typhoons had killed Raptors in a training dogfight. Many claim a perfect training record to this day.

 

Yeah, that's why raptors tear up superior numbers of F-16's despite not having HMS yet.

Another pilot story? Did the F-16s have HMS in this dogfight?

 

 

... maybe it doesn't need it? I know, novel idea - stealth fighter arrives with positional advantage. But yes I know, your fantasy radar and IRST have already detected it :megalol:

Now whose bias is showing? Are you seriously claiming it will still be undetected at the limits of visual range (8km) against AESA and IRST?

 

I think it's more a case of your fantasy stealth..... to go with your fantasy MRAAMs.

[tflash]

The F-35B is a specific requirements for the Marines, and will supply them with an aircraft that allows them to go in with their own carriers and provide almost everything they need from a fighter. It's expensive, but in a whole bunch of situations it frees them from needing an aircraft carrier for air power.

 

... And it is just plain and simple better at everything than the Harrier, which they fly from 8 Wasp-class Assault ships.

Edited February 5, 2013 by tflash

[Exorcet]

You still haven't really stated why it's misinformed. It's a simple matter of fact that even an F-22 will run out of radar stealth before 20km against AESA radar, even by the most generous estimates. That's assuming IRST stays off its scent until then. And newer WVR missiles are less prone to tricks than old ones, simply because people have investing in thwarting those tricks.

 

The radar's ability to detect a target increases as range decreases, but what also increases is the amount of the space that isn't in a radar cone (or IRST cone for that matter).

 

The likelihood of detection is going to be a combination of those two factors. Though who sees the other first gets to decide on the terms of the engagement, which could include attacking from one's blind spot. Will this always be possible? Probably not. Is it an option that the stealth plane can exercise more often than a non stealth plane? Yes.

 

There's only so much you can do to mask thermal image. At the end of the day you have 2 huge engines and a shed-load of electrical equipment that will bake if heat isn't released somehow.

And no one has ever needed invisibility to sneak up on someone. Just look at radar stealth.

 

 

The plane with the best manoeuvrability will still come out of top, pilots/avionics being equal.

Unless it starts off in a really bad spot.

 

The F-35 is scheduled to replace the F-16, F-18, and A-10....doesn't seem specialized IMO....

 

The F-16 and 18 pretty much do the same thing, one's aboard a ship And we get two F-35's to cover them. The A-10 is a very different plane true, but that does not mean that the F-35 can't take over its role. Also remember that the F-16 and F-18 have been used for CAS as well. The F-35 won't fly like the A-10, but since it won't fight like like the A-10, it does not have to. At the end of the day, whether a group of vehicles was blown away by 30mm or SDB's doesn't really matter. The A-10 is superior for the moment because it doesn't have to worry very much about SAM's or fighters. If those threats are around the F-35 could be a much better choice.

 

As for the F-35 itself, it's not trying to be the ultimate fighter, that's the F-22. It's not a strategic bomber. It's a relatively light strike fighter, which is nothing new.

 

Are you seriously claiming it will still be undetected at the limits of visual range (8km) against AESA and IRST?

Are you claiming it's impossible? Air to air combat isn't limited to planes jousting with each other from 100 miles away.

 

... And it is just plain and simple better at everything than the Harrier

 

Except maybe vertical takeoff, but the Harrier is limited there.

[GGTharos]

Not really. The F-22 was designed to bust up anything else that flies. It's ability to sling A2G munitions around is very secondary.

 

They're both multirole fighters. I watched a tv program in my country about the f-35 and I really hope they drop the contract!!! I'm sorry but the article was not all crap like someone said, especially about the money side!

[GGTharos]

Just like bias was showing for all those people who claimed that no engagement had even taken place for ages after it was stated that Typhoons had killed Raptors in a training dogfight. Many claim a perfect training record to this day.

 

We've run into plenty of one-sided stories that were made to make a lot more sense later when the other side said their piece.

 

Another pilot story? Did the F-16s have HMS in this dogfight?

 

Yep.

 

Now whose bias is showing? Are you seriously claiming it will still be undetected at the limits of visual range (8km) against AESA and IRST?

 

I think it's more a case of your fantasy stealth..... to go with your fantasy MRAAMs.

 

My bias is the Typhoon pilot's bias ... you know, when he said they got mauled by F-22's in BVR - more or less the story we keep hearing on a regular basis from just about any aircraft that face 22's.

 

The fantasy is all you.

[marcos]

The radar's ability to detect a target increases as range decreases, but what also increases is the amount of the space that isn't in a radar cone (or IRST cone for that matter).

Not if the radar is directable and used in conjunction with L-Band in the wing leading edges. And with more numerous data-linked fighters staggered horizontally, vertically and longitudinally, the coverage is good anyway.

 

In the case of IRST you're wrong anyway, given that the ASRAAM, AIM-9X and Python 5 have 100deg off-boresight capabilities. IRST is almost a 360deg capability.

As opposed to an ordinary forward looking infrared system, an IRST system will actually scan the space around the aircraft similarly to the way in which mechanically (or even electronically) steered radars work. The exception to the scanning technique is the F-35 JSF's DAS, which stares in all directions simultaneously, and automatically detects and declares aircraft and missiles in all directions, without a limit to the number of targets simultaneously tracked.

 

In most cases it can be steered by the HMCS.

 

You're also looking at this one-sidedly and assuming that a 4.5th gen fighter is just another 4th gen fighter. That couldn't be more from the truth. It isn't just because of manoeuvrability and avionics improvements they were deemed Gen 4.5. They have a remarkable reduction in RCS too.

 

E.g. a Typhoon's RCS is 0.05m^2 vs 0.0005m^2 for a Raptor. Modern AESA will detect a Raptor at ~20km by conservative estimates. 100^(0.25) = 3.16. 3.16 * 20 = 63km.

 

That doesn't provide an incredibly large cone. In fact it's only 10 times bigger than the opposing Gen 4.5 cone in terms of area of coverage at detectable ranges. Not mentioning issues about angular resolution and picking out one fighter from another at larger ranges, or actual missile radar abilities (probably a half that of the aircraft radar or less). Suddenly you have the fact that the missile radar can't self-lock until within 20-30km (i.e. IRST range) and 10 fighters at 20km can cover the same area as 1 Raptor at 63km (and better at closer ranges). With IRST, 1 fighter can cover the same area as several raptors at 30km.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unless it starts off in a really bad spot.

What if it only has narrow angle missiles or nothing to cue them with and they're outnumbered 6:1 (based on cost).

 

 

The F-16 and 18 pretty much do the same thing, one's aboard a ship And we get two F-35's to cover them. The A-10 is a very different plane true, but that does not mean that the F-35 can't take over its role. Also remember that the F-16 and F-18 have been used for CAS as well. The F-35 won't fly like the A-10, but since it won't fight like like the A-10, it does not have to. At the end of the day, whether a group of vehicles was blown away by 30mm or SDB's doesn't really matter.

It does if you're a taxpayer. It's like using Iron Dome to shoot down Katyusha rockets. It's a short-cut to bankruptcy.

 

 

The A-10 is superior for the moment because it doesn't have to worry very much about SAM's or fighters. If those threats are around the F-35 could be a much better choice.

Because there are dedicated air superiority fighters for it.

 

Are you claiming it's impossible? Air to air combat isn't limited to planes jousting with each other from 100 miles away.

Obviously not no. In fact I don't think there's ever been an operational kill from that range, nor even quarter that range AFAIK. It will get close and personally and having better manoeuvrability, IRST, HMCS and low drag ASRAAMs with body-lift technology, it's clear where the advantage will be close in.

 

Except maybe vertical takeoff, but the Harrier is limited there.

Useful for taking off from helicopter carriers and platform but nobody can really argue that the Harrier is a benchmark for a $200m fighter.

[marcos]

We've run into plenty of one-sided stories that were made to make a lot more sense later when the other side made up a counter story 12 months later.

Fixed.:lol:

 

Yep.

Maybe that story was sourced from the same place the above one was sourced from.

 

At the end of the day I can show Luftwaffe Typhoon pictures with many Raptor kills on a single aircraft. It doesn't necessarily mean they're better (obviously) but it casts serious doubt on the 1 Raptor vs 6 Typhoons fantasy. Next to that your stories stack up as little more than hearsay and tittle-tattle.

 

 

My bias is the Typhoon pilot's bias ... you know, when he said they got mauled by F-22's in BVR - more or less the story we keep hearing on a regular basis from just about any aircraft that face 22's.

 

The fantasy is all you.

I accept that they would get beaten in an even-odds contest BVR but the 1 vs 6 scenario win is pure fantasy.

[Exorcet]

Not if the radar is directable and used in conjunction with L-Band in the wing leading edges. And with more numerous data-linked fighters staggered horizontally, vertically and longitudinally, the coverage is good anyway.

Well no individual radar is going to have every direction covered, and if you can slew the radar, time may be as much a factor as coverage.

 

I also agree that you need to look at this in terms of large scale (or greater than 1v1) engagements, but stealth would effective shrink the coverage of each radar and may provide blind spots to allow aircraft to slip through.

 

Also, if the stealth aircraft can get into an advantageous firing position first, they might be able to take out some portion of the fighter wall, removing links in the chain completely.

 

In the case of IRST you're wrong anyway, given that the ASRAAM, AIM-9X and Python 5 have 100deg off-boresight capabilities. IRST is almost a 360deg capability.

100 isn't 360. And 360 can be up or down. As far as I know nose mounted IRST like the OLS-35 and PIRATE have blind spots below the aircraft. They also won't really being scanning at long range with the entire FoV at once.

 

 

You're also looking at this one-sidedly and assuming that a 4.5th gen fighter is just another 4th gen fighter. That couldn't be more from the truth. It isn't just because of manoeuvrability and avionics improvements they were deemed Gen 4.5. They have a remarkable reduction in RCS too.

 

E.g. a Typhoon's RCS is 0.05m^2 vs 0.0005m^2 for a Raptor. Modern AESA will detect a Raptor at ~20km by conservative estimates. 100^(0.25) = 3.16. 3.16 * 20 = 63km.

But that still puts the stealth aircraft at an advantage. I'm well aware that 4.5 gen can imply low RCS, but we both know RCS isn't a number. Are the 4.5 gens as stealthy away from the frontal aspect? And are their RCS figures including weapons, and if so which?

 

Factor in data linking and the plane that picks up the opposing flight doesn't need to be the one that engages. Or he has the option of handing off tracking of the target to a plane further back (how far back is limited of course) and flying a course that minimizing the risk of being detected by radar or IR.

 

Now of course it's even possible that the 4.5 gens are the ones that get the jump on the gen 5's. As you said, the F-22 would have a pretty small cone to find the EF's if the radar is only good to ~30 miles, but that's still 3 times the EF's radar range. Throw SAM's into the mix (depending on who is going offensive) and the 4.5 gen side needs them to be packed 3 times as densely. The EF's will constantly be scanning in IR as it can't give them away but without knowing how its actual detection range against something like the F-22 (which may or may not have IR signature suppression besides supercruise and the nozzles) it's hard to judge who will see who first. Assuming equal detection range, EF can't shoot first unless it remains completely undetected though. This wouldn't be true with longer range IR missiles however.

 

That doesn't provide an incredibly large cone. In fact it's only 10 times bigger than the opposing Gen 4.5 cone in terms of area of coverage at detectable ranges. Not mentioning issues about angular resolution and picking out one fighter from another at larger ranges, or actual missile radar abilities (probably a half that of the aircraft radar or less). Suddenly you have the fact that the missile radar can't self-lock until within 20-30km (i.e. IRST range) and 10 fighters at 20km can cover the same area as 1 Raptor at 63km (and better at closer ranges). With IRST, 1 fighter can cover the same area as several raptors at 30km.

Not many capable fighters outnumber the F-22 10:1 and nothing is cheap enough to be built in those numbers for the same price (which is what the guy with powerpoint seems to think). The missile range limited to 20 km isn't a huge deal that's about 2/3 of what the AMRAAM's seeker range is on a normal target, and the launching plane can be long gone before the missile goes active as long as it's not flying alone. Actually, not a single 5th gen fighter needs to put itself at risk if friendly 4 or 4.5 fighters are acting as spotters. But of course these themselves are more prone to being lost and may not always be available.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What if it only has narrow angle missiles or nothing to cue them with and they're outnumbered 6:1 (based on cost).

You can outnumber the costly planes 6:1, but that doesn't mean you outnumber the entire enemy force 6:1. 6:1 in terms of unit cost for the F-22 would be about $25 milion (2/3 of a MQ-9). Going with the $65 billion dev costs and throwing in a bit more for F-22 upgrades you get a unit cost of about $70 million.

 

Narrow angle missiles are fine if you're already looking at the target or if it has no idea that you're there, but it's also a significant advantage for the opposing side, yes.

 

 

 

It does if you're a taxpayer. It's like using Iron Dome to shoot down Katyusha rockets. It's a short-cut to bankruptcy.

Well, I kind of like SDB's so I don't mind paying for a few.

 

But in all seriousness the SDB's were built with low cost in mind. That was one of the selling points of JDAM. It's more expensive than the GAU-8, but that's probably more expensive than having Grumman F2F's drop boxes of grenades instead. The SDB's aren't a garunteed road to bankruptcy. And it's less alarming than losing your aircraft and then losing the war.

 

 

 

Because there are dedicated air superiority fighters for it.

Yes, but there are sometimes dedicated fighters on the other side and they may overwhelm yours. And then there are mobile SAM's on top of that.

 

 

Obviously not no. In fact I don't think there's ever been an operational kill from that range, nor even quarter that range AFAIK. It will get close and personally and having better manoeuvrability, IRST, HMCS and low drag ASRAAMs with body-lift technology, it's clear where the advantage will be close in.

Positioning is one of those huge advantages too though. MRM's might not turn as well as SRM's, but they'll go faster. And the alternative to combat at 100 miles isn't a dogfight, there is a whole spectrum inbetween, and the fighter that is good at WVR needs to survive that to make it to a point where it's likely to get a kill.

[marcos]

Well no individual radar is going to have every direction covered, and if you can slew the radar, time may be as much a factor as coverage.

 

I also agree that you need to look at this in terms of large scale (or greater than 1v1) engagements, but stealth would effective shrink the coverage of each radar and may provide blind spots to allow aircraft to slip through.

Irrelevant because full coverage IRST will see it by then. Furthermore even from outside normal aircraft-IRST detection range, in a real encounter where a missile is actually launched, the huge thermal spike will be detected and an optical system slaved to the IRST can then detect the offended aircraft and track it. A Meteor can then be launched with INS updates up to the point where it can lock itself.

 

Also, if the stealth aircraft can get into an advantageous firing position first, they might be able to take out some portion of the fighter wall, removing links in the chain completely.

They won't though. Your idea of slipping past IRST and round the back is a crock of crap.

 

100 isn't 360. And 360 can be up or down. As far as I know nose mounted IRST like the OLS-35 and PIRATE have blind spots below the aircraft. They also won't really being scanning at long range with the entire FoV at once.

100deg is the actual offset at which the missile can lock. 100 deg either side is 200 in total. That's more than an entire hemisphere. With LOAL, strap down inertial and HMCS, you can also fire it at targets outside that scope and cue them with the helmet after they've turned to face the target.

 

I'll say again, there is no sneaking up on an aircraft with IRST, ASRAAMs, LOAL and HMCS. You have more chance of sneaking up on a tiger.

 

But that still puts the stealth aircraft at an advantage. I'm well aware that 4.5 gen can imply low RCS, but we both know RCS isn't a number. Are the 4.5 gens as stealthy away from the frontal aspect? And are their RCS figures including weapons, and if so which?

They have a small advantage yes but given the time deltas involved, kill probability, unfavourable odds and the thermal spike of a missile launch, it's not a sealed deal. And once WVR or within IRST ranges, the F-22 is stuck with bore-sight HUD cueing, crappy AAMs, a heavier aircraft, a lower TWR, a higher wing loading and worse roll response.

 

Good? Yes. Invincible? No. 2:1? Yes. 6:1? No.

 

Factor in data linking and the plane that picks up the opposing flight doesn't need to be the one that engages. Or he has the option of handing off tracking of the target to a plane further back (how far back is limited of course) and flying a course that minimizing the risk of being detected by radar or IR.

 

Now of course it's even possible that the 4.5 gens are the ones that get the jump on the gen 5's. As you said, the F-22 would have a pretty small cone to find the EF's if the radar is only good to ~30 miles, but that's still 3 times the EF's radar range. Throw SAM's into the mix (depending on who is going offensive) and the 4.5 gen side needs them to be packed 3 times as densely. The EF's will constantly be scanning in IR as it can't give them away but without knowing how its actual detection range against something like the F-22 (which may or may not have IR signature suppression besides supercruise and the nozzles) it's hard to judge who will see who first. Assuming equal detection range, EF can't shoot first unless it remains completely undetected though. This wouldn't be true with longer range IR missiles however.

The F-22 probably does have an advantage against SAMs but with SPEAR Cap 3, SAMs are covered. Future plans also include developing the Meteor into an ARM:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_Meteor

 

MBDA is also looking to exploit its ongoing investment in the high-speed Meteor airframe and platform integration with derivatives for other roles, including air-to-surface use against targets such as self-propelled Surface-to-air missile systems, self-propelled air-defence radars, mobile command posts, and ballistic-missile transporter/erector/launchers. Studies have shown that the time from detection to engagement of this class of target needs to be less than 10 minutes.

 

The F-22 will still likely see the Typhoon first (best guesses for IRST on stealth are 40-50km max. head-on) but it can be detected as soon as a large rocket plume hits the air from well beyond that. The problem is that the F-22 will have to enter IRST range to update the missiles even if it isn't detected at launch. Weapons like MICA IR, which could easily be incorporated onto the Typhoon platform have a range of 80km and also have INS strap-down.

 

Not many capable fighters outnumber the F-22 10:1 and nothing is cheap enough to be built in those numbers for the same price (which is what the guy with powerpoint seems to think).

There will probably be 1000 Typhoons and Rafales globally before long. Then you have China and their liberal use of copy and paste with mass manufacturing.

 

The missile range limited to 20 km isn't a huge deal that's about 2/3 of what the AMRAAM's seeker range is on a normal target,

Well that was actually a guess based on AESA range divided by 3. If it can only detect a normal 1-10m^2 cross section at 30km, then on a 0.033-0.05m^2 RCS you're looking at 7-14km.

 

and the launching plane can be long gone before the missile goes active as long as it's not flying alone. Actually, not a single 5th gen fighter needs to put itself at risk if friendly 4 or 4.5 fighters are acting as spotters. But of course these themselves are more prone to being lost and may not always be available.

It could well have a Meteor flying after it at ~Mach 5 whilst it's going though, after the AMRAAM rocket plume is detected and a slaved optical system automatically detects and tracks the offending aircraft and nearby aircraft. Of course you've also got the actual radar signal itself to detect too.

 

Until you have a non-rocket boosted AAM with supercruise. You'll never truly have a stealth fighter.

 

You can outnumber the costly planes 6:1, but that doesn't mean you outnumber the entire enemy force 6:1. 6:1 in terms of unit cost for the F-22 would be about $25 milion (2/3 of a MQ-9). Going with the $65 billion dev costs and throwing in a bit more for F-22 upgrades you get a unit cost of about $70 million.

And maintenance costs? It won't need to be 6:1 anyway. 4:1 will do.

 

Narrow angle missiles are fine if you're already looking at the target or if it has no idea that you're there, but it's also a significant advantage for the opposing side, yes.

But you won't be able to sneak up on it.

 

Well, I kind of like SDB's so I don't mind paying for a few.

I think too many people have said that in the past.

 

But in all seriousness the SDB's were built with low cost in mind. That was one of the selling points of JDAM. It's more expensive than the GAU-8, but that's probably more expensive than having Grumman F2F's drop boxes of grenades instead. The SDB's aren't a garunteed road to bankruptcy. And it's less alarming than losing your aircraft and then losing the war.

Meh, SPEAR Cap 3 will be better, especially against moving targets. Faster, lighter, longer range, less chance of interception and will still kill an MBT as well as a Hellfire/Brimstone. It will essentially be a Brimstone with a turbojet engine.

 

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/spear_datasheet-1359561363.pdf

 

 

Yes, but there are sometimes dedicated fighters on the other side and they may overwhelm yours. And then there are mobile SAM's on top of that.

And if you've got fighter trying to establish air-superiority, evade SAMs and provide CAS at the same time, how do you think that will go?

 

Positioning is one of those huge advantages too though. MRM's might not turn as well as SRM's, but they'll go faster. And the alternative to combat at 100 miles isn't a dogfight, there is a whole spectrum inbetween, and the fighter that is good at WVR needs to survive that to make it to a point where it's likely to get a kill.

And given how kill probability diminishes with range, there's a fair chance that things will progress to optical range, even if not visual range.

[Exorcet]

Irrelevant because full coverage IRST will see it by then. Furthermore even from outside normal aircraft-IRST detection range, in a real encounter where a missile is actually launched, the huge thermal spike will be detected and an optical system slaved to the IRST can then detect the offended aircraft and track it. A Meteor can then be launched with INS updates up to the point where it can lock itself.

If the stealth's missile is going to have trouble against the 4.5 gen, then the 4.5 gen's missile is going to have even more trouble with the stealth. With its own MAWS, the stealth will know when to turn around and let its friends guide the missile. And the target still needs to react to the launch. The attack probably is going to be directly behind the missile lead cue.

 

 

They won't though. Your idea of slipping past IRST and round the back is a crock of crap.

It's not at all and I was not even referring to sneaking past the opposing flight. There is no reason why a 5th gen couldn't take out a 4.5 from beyond the range of IRST. At the same time it's not guaranteed that it will always happen.

 

100deg is the actual offset at which the missile can lock. 100 deg either side is 200 in total. That's more than an entire hemisphere. With LOAL, strap down inertial and HMCS, you can also fire it at targets outside that scope and cue them with the helmet after they've turned to face the target.

Yes, although that's going to cost the missile some range. In WVR it might not be a huge problem, but as range goes up the reduced speed from having to pull hard at launch will become a bigger factor.

 

I'll say again, there is no sneaking up on an aircraft with IRST, ASRAAMs, LOAL and HMCS. You have more chance of sneaking up on a tiger.

ASRAAM, LOAL, and HMCS have nothing to do with sneaking up and more about retailing once you've been caught. IRST is good, but for most aircraft, it has a blind spot and its range is limited. You can either come from behind (or where ever the IRST can't see) out range it, or both.

 

 

They have a small advantage yes but given the time deltas involved, kill probability, unfavourable odds and the thermal spike of a missile launch, it's not a sealed deal.

I agree that it's not sealed, but the side with the advantage is going to do better more of the time.

 

And if the 4.5 gen RCS reduction is very limited in terms of aspect, that's not a small disadvantage in airspace that is full of radars.

 

Kill probability for a given missile should be better for a plane that can launch undetected and even better if it can launch with extremely favorable conditions while remaining undetected. In the hypothetical F-22 vs EF-2000 case the IRST could dissuade the F-22 from supercruising unless it knew the EF's position in advance, but there is a very real chance that the EF won't react until there is a missile launched on it. In the ideal case the EF won't react until the missile goes active, but how often you'll see that is another matter.

And once WVR or within IRST ranges, the F-22 is stuck with bore-sight HUD cueing, crappy AAMs, a heavier aircraft, a lower TWR, a higher wing loading and worse roll response.

 

Given first sight, it could also be going much faster, possibly fast enough to disengage and avoid WVR completely, although such a move would probably increase its IR signature relative to the EF. I don't know what you mean by crappy AAM's though. Until the merge, the AIM-120 should work fine in WVR. I don't think HOBS will bring you above parity until you've got into a turning fight or you have a good idea of who is attacking and from where.

 

 

 

 

The F-22 probably does have an advantage against SAMs but with SPEAR Cap 3, SAMs are covered. Future plans also include developing the Meteor into an ARM:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_Meteor

I'd call it stretch to say that SEAD weapons negate SAM's completely.

 

 

 

The F-22 will still likely see the Typhoon first (best guesses for IRST on stealth are 40-50km max. head-on) but it can be detected as soon as a large rocket plume hits the air from well beyond that. The problem is that the F-22 will have to enter IRST range to update the missiles even if it isn't detected at launch. Weapons like MICA IR, which could easily be incorporated onto the Typhoon platform have a range of 80km and also have INS strap-down.

Why does the F-22 need to entire IRST range to update the missile? I'll admit we're not giving them much room to maneuver if we use the detection ranges mentioned before but I don't see why multiple F-22's or similar couldn't just launch and leave tracking to a trailing aircraft.

 

 

There will probably be 1000 Typhoons and Rafales globally before long. Then you have China and their liberal use of copy and paste with mass manufacturing.

That still wouldn't give any one country enough EF's to overwhelm F-22's, and the 22's numbers were not purely price limited but politics limited in that the number produced was lower than what could have been, especially if exporting is considered. Then you need to consider that there would be supporting 4.5 gen fighters to deal with and in the case of the US the F-35 as well.

 

 

Well that was actually a guess based on AESA range divided by 3. If it can only detect a normal 1-10m^2 cross section at 30km, then on a 0.033-0.05m^2 RCS you're looking at 7-14km.

Though there is no need for the launching aircraft to guide it that far if it isn't alone.

 

 

It could well have a Meteor flying after it at ~Mach 5 whilst it's going though, after the AMRAAM rocket plume is detected and a slaved optical system automatically detects and tracks the offending aircraft and nearby aircraft. Of course you've also got the actual radar signal itself to detect too.

The Meteor is going to struggle to lock on using the figure we're assuming, and it's not going to reach the shooter any faster than AMRAAM would at short ranges. At longer ranges that certainly changes, but that's where it would be harder to take the shot anyway.

 

Until you have a non-rocket boosted AAM with supercruise. You'll never truly have a stealth fighter.

Complete invisibility would be great, but then again so far it hasn't been needed to achieve victories.

 

 

And maintenance costs? It won't need to be 6:1 anyway. 4:1 will do.

4:1 for the F-22 would still undercut EF prices and it wouldn't deal with non 5th gen support aircraft. The 5th gen aircraft will probably be more maintenance intensive, though by how much is not clear. If it's taking out superior numbers of enemy fighters it's paying for itself though.

 

 

And if you've got fighter trying to establish air-superiority, evade SAMs and provide CAS at the same time, how do you think that will go?

You wouldn't. You'd have a CAS plane that is capable of defending itself against air or ground threats or running away if fighting isn't an option. It would beat losing the plane and telling the ground forces no CAS this week.

 

 

And given how kill probability diminishes with range, there's a fair chance that things will progress to optical range, even if not visual range.

Depends on when you hit the critical value in Pk. Is it 200 miles? 20 miles? Or cannon range?

[marcos]

If the stealth's missile is going to have trouble against the 4.5 gen, then the 4.5 gen's missile is going to have even more trouble with the stealth. With its own MAWS, the stealth will know when to turn around and let its friends guide the missile. And the target still needs to react to the launch. The attack probably is going to be directly behind the missile lead cue.

You can't escape from a Meteor inside 100km. So long as the missile receives the INS update it can continue tracking.

 

It's not at all and I was not even referring to sneaking past the opposing flight. There is no reason why a 5th gen couldn't take out a 4.5 from beyond the range of IRST. At the same time it's not guaranteed that it will always happen.

It's far from guaranteed and almost certain to result in a many missiles coming the other way from several data-linked fighters, possibly even targeting the rest of his group if they close by.

 

Yes, although that's going to cost the missile some range. In WVR it might not be a huge problem, but as range goes up the reduced speed from having to pull hard at launch will become a bigger factor.

The ASRAAM has very little drag, as you can tell by looking at it. It generates the bulk of its manoeuvrability through body lifting technology not aero surface.

 

The AIM-132 ASRAAM is a high speed, highly manoeuvrable, heat-seeking, air-to-air missile. Built by MBDA UK Ltd, the missile is designed as a ‘fire-and-forget’ weapon, able to counter intermittent target obscuration in cloud as well as sophisticated infrared (IR) countermeasures. Although ASRAAM is predominantly intended for use in the within-visual-range (WVR) arena, it also has capabilities that permit its use in the beyond-visual-range arena.

 

The missile uses a new Raytheon Imaging IR seeker head and it is the world's first IR missile to enter service using a sapphire-domed staring array detector, which detects the whole target scene. When combined with digital signal-processing and imaging software, ASRAAM is able to see individual areas of its target, such as engines, cockpit or wings. The picture is very similar to a monochrome TV picture, and gives the missile excellent long-range target acquisition, even against employed countermeasures such as flares or similar pyrotechnics. In addition to its ability to image targets, the seeker also allows the missile to be fired at very high off-boresight angles, in either lock-before or lock-after-launch modes. Because the missile has a fire-and-forget capability, the pilot can engage multiple targets with several missiles simultaneously. To increase its speed and its operating range, the missile has a low-drag design; only tail fins are provided for control purposes; and a new, low-signature, dual-burn, high-impulse solid rocket motor provides the power. Compared to other similar missiles, this new motor improves both the missile’s instantaneous acceleration and its maximum cruise velocity.

 

ASRAAM, LOAL, and HMCS have nothing to do with sneaking up and more about retailing once you've been caught. IRST is good, but for most aircraft, it has a blind spot and its range is limited. You can either come from behind (or where ever the IRST can't see) out range it, or both.

The point is that the F-22 is screwed inside IRST range anyway. It'll be seen and pretty much regardless of where it is at that time, it can be hit. The F-22 by comparison has to be staring right at their target.

 

I agree that it's not sealed, but the side with the advantage is going to do better more of the time.

Against even number yes. But not against poor odds.

 

And if the 4.5 gen RCS reduction is very limited in terms of aspect, that's not a small disadvantage in airspace that is full of radars.

Well we don't know about other aspects and when closing, there's only one predominant aspect.

 

Kill probability for a given missile should be better for a plane that can launch undetected and even better if it can launch with extremely favorable conditions while remaining undetected. In the hypothetical F-22 vs EF-2000 case the IRST could dissuade the F-22 from supercruising unless it knew the EF's position in advance, but there is a very real chance that the EF won't react until there is a missile launched on it. In the ideal case the EF won't react until the missile goes active, but how often you'll see that is another matter.

Can't launched undetected though. Not with a giant thermal spike from the rocket motor. Which missile arrives first could depend on the speed of the missile and the system being used to cue it. Radar is straight ahead only, optical has far great coverage (maybe why the PAK-FA has EO sensors on its side).

 

Given first sight, it could also be going much faster, possibly fast enough to disengage and avoid WVR completely, although such a move would probably increase its IR signature relative to the EF. I don't know what you mean by crappy AAM's though. Until the merge, the AIM-120 should work fine in WVR. I don't think HOBS will bring you above parity until you've got into a turning fight or you have a good idea of who is attacking and from where.

Well you hit the nail on the head. It's on thing covering up indirect thermal radiation, but turn your nozzles at IRST and it'll have a field day. And by turning away and leaving another plane to guide the missile, your losing your ability to make the most of your numbers, since only one plane is attacking, which bodes badly for a closing encounter.

 

I'd call it stretch to say that SEAD weapons negate SAM's completely.

True but I can spin that around and say it's the same for the F-22. Multi-co-ordinated sources in air, space and on the surface change the game completely, which is why I wasn't considering it.

 

Why does the F-22 need to entire IRST range to update the missile? I'll admit we're not giving them much room to maneuver if we use the detection ranges mentioned before but I don't see why multiple F-22's or similar couldn't just launch and leave tracking to a trailing aircraft.

Because they're short on numbers and as soon as they turn, and show their nozzles you can bet several missiles will be on them, even assuming that they weren't sent at missile launch.

 

That still wouldn't give any one country enough EF's to overwhelm F-22's, and the 22's numbers were not purely price limited but politics limited in that the number produced was lower than what could have been, especially if exporting is considered. Then you need to consider that there would be supporting 4.5 gen fighters to deal with and in the case of the US the F-35 as well.

Well I don't suppose a single country (or a country with a Typhoon would try), but the problem is there on a cost vs performance basis. Even more so with an F-35, which isn't anywhere near as stealthy and has poor supersonic manoeuvrability and not very good manoeuvrability in general either.

 

Though there is no need for the launching aircraft to guide it that far if it isn't alone.

If it gets locked after launch it doesn't matter. When it turns it will get locked. Doesn't make good use of the numbers.

 

The Meteor is going to struggle to lock on using the figure we're assuming, and it's not going to reach the shooter any faster than AMRAAM would at short ranges. At longer ranges that certainly changes, but that's where it would be harder to take the shot anyway.

It'll be faster at all ranges but especially long ranges. The AMRAAM is an old Sparrow airframe at its core and it doesn't communicate with the launching aircraft to tell it when it has gained a lock or it the intercept was successful. The Meteor tells the Typhoon when it is locked and signals just before intercept. It can be INS guided all the way to the last km if necessary.

 

Complete invisibility would be great, but then again so far it hasn't been needed to achieve victories.

 

4:1 for the F-22 would still undercut EF prices and it wouldn't deal with non 5th gen support aircraft. The 5th gen aircraft will probably be more maintenance intensive, though by how much is not clear. If it's taking out superior numbers of enemy fighters it's paying for itself though.

If it can manage 4:1. I certainly wouldn't bet on the stealth trainer jet (F-35) making more than 2:1. And I'd bet 2:1 against the F-35 inside 40km.

 

You wouldn't. You'd have a CAS plane that is capable of defending itself against air or ground threats or running away if fighting isn't an option. It would beat losing the plane and telling the ground forces no CAS this week.

You're still using one aircraft to do both. One aircraft with a very poor range and loiter time and very poor low speed lift. Seriously, what can an F-35 run away from? An Su-25?

 

Depends on when you hit the critical value in Pk. Is it 200 miles? 20 miles? Or cannon range?

You can be sure it's greater for a newer missile design. And you can be sure that Pk goes up with higher missile quantities fired from more aircraft.:)