via Aviation Week.
Much of the U.S. defense community “has lost sight of reality” as to what stealth means, a Raytheon executive told the Defense IQ International Fighter Conference here this month. Michael Garcia, the company's senior business development manager for active, electronically scanned (AESA) radars, suggested that longer-range sensors and weapons and electronic attack should be considered part of stealth, rather than placing complete reliance on RCS.Read the whole thing here.
Comparing detection and weapon ranges, as well as RCS, Garcia argued that the “essence of stealth is that the Blue circles [for detection and weapon range] impact Red before Red can detect,” and that jamming, sensors and weapons affect that calculation.
“The level of RCS has not been improving,” Garcia said, and it cannot be greatly improved through an aircraft's life. “It is time-stamped with whatever date it came out of the factory. There has been a revolution in detection” of low-RCS targets, meanwhile, he added, citing the Russian development of an operational, mobile VHF AESA radar (AW&ST Sept. 2, p. 28) and resurgent interest in infrared search-and-track systems. “Conventional stealth is vulnerable to low-band detection,” Garcia said. “And the 'fifth-generation' scenario has become outdated over the past five years.” He mentioned contrails and visible vortices as signatures that are not affected by RCS reduction. Other analysts have noted the dense wingtip vortex trails visible in many inflight photos of F-35s.
Raytheon is a major supplier to the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet program and has a small stake in the F-35. However, this is the first time that any U.S. contractor has gone on the record with a direct critique of the JSF's prime rationale.
But its now obvious. The final piece fell into place. We see the Navy's thinking.
They can accomplish stealth like benefits without an expensive airframe but with advanced avionics, weapon systems etc....
They're betting that they can do it cheaper and better than an expensive fighter.
I think they're right.
And not just low-band detection; those vortex trails can be picked up well by modern weather radar. If the X-47B concept can do carrier ops without killing a bunch of people on the ship, it combined with things like the Super and various stand-off weapons from various sources--including the Tomahawk Block 4 from other platforms--you will have aircraft that are also useful for non-anti-access work; unlike the Just So Failed.
ReplyDeleteAvWeek:
ReplyDeleteMichael Garcia, the company's senior business development manager for active, electronically scanned (AESA) radars, suggested that longer-range sensors and weapons and electronic attack should be considered part of stealth, rather than placing complete reliance on RCS.
That's what Admiral Greenert has been saying:
--Greenert suggests the way to keep U.S. aircraft safe is to make smarter choices in equipping them. Instead of investing massive amounts of money in airplanes that can defeat every new threat, he advocates purchasing weapons that existing aircraft can fire from longer ranges, safely away from radar. He also suggests adopting UAVs and missiles that can jam enemy radar before manned aircraft even arrive. "We need more numerous electronic warfare and cyber payloads to thwart detection and targeting," he wrote. "U.S. forces can... employ long-range sensor, weapon, and unmanned vehicle payloads instead of using only stealth platforms to reach targets."
“All the stealth in the world ain’t gonna penetrate everything,” he told the audience at the 50th annual conference of the Association of Old Crows, a group named after a slang term for electronic warfare operators.
The Navy looking away from F-35 has been an eye opener and a reminder of how they penetrated enemy airspace before stealth came along. As far as I can see, you only really need stealth for two things: #1 surprise first strikes and #2 allowing a single stealthy plane to do what would otherwise take bombers, fighters and EW. Ignoring #1, at what point does the cost of a stealthy aircraft outweight the savings in extra aircraft and EW systems that it replaces? That is an argument I'd like to see people making against F-35, not just the fact that it's expensive and doesn't work very well.
ReplyDeleteROFL!! Boeing and Raytheon poo-pooing stealth. I'm shocked. SHOCKED I tell you.
ReplyDeleteOh look. South Korea just announced they want to buy 40 F-35s.
Yeah, pretty amazing. Did all that without having a final, working example of a product to look at. Fraud and corruption are not new to S.Korea.
DeleteYeah, 40 F-35s instead of the 60 F-15SEs or 60 Eurofighter Typhoons. Just like The Netherlands who has to drop its order down to 37.
DeleteIt's becoming very clear that F-35 buyers will have to do one of two things: Pay more or get less.
Wanting to buy and buying are two different exercises. I want to buy a Mercedes.
Delete"S. Korea decides to buy 40 Lockheed F-35s"
DeleteThe previous decision by the ROK Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) to purchase F-18 was unpopular with the JCS so DAPA was removed from the process and the JCS has made this announcement.
There will be no immediate purchase. JCS doesn't have that authority nor the funds. The next step is negotiations next year for the purchase of forty F-35A, reduced from the requirement for sixty aircraft due to high cost of F-35.
Actually the cost is unknown, and must be negotiated. ROK has little leverage on price under FMS. The price must be below what the US is paying. Nobody really knows what that is either, except for budget figures. The GAO in its recent audit didn't know.
Other facts will also be revealed in negotiations. For example, the yonhap press release said: "The software configuration is expected to reach the initial operating capability around 2016, according to the U.S. Air Force." Of course we know that Block 3F software, with capabilities that are key to the F-35’s core mission‚ is running behind schedule and may not even be delivered until after 2017.
So it's a long way to tipperary.
What's going to be interesting to see with South Korea/Japan is that they need some quantity because of the threats they are facing and it will be interesting to see how they manage. In the case of SK, they now have pretty decent numbers of F15/F16s and the T50 version but they are only going to have 40 F35s which compared to the rest of the fleet is going to be pretty small.
DeleteWill be interesting to see if SK/Japan go for a in house (with likely foreign assistance) fighter jet or later buy of F35s because there won't be much else on the market....
@ Nico
DeleteYou will definitely see both the KFX and the F-3 hitting the market in the next decade for one simple reason; there is a cold war style arms race going on in East Asia and those countries that fall behind stand to lose territories.
Oh, Boeing's still going for the KFX project even after what happened. Not sure if Boeing would stick to the old terms of this joint venture, where Boeing would get the worldwide marketing rights to the KFX outside of Korea and Indonesia in exchange for a large workshare.on those Boeing branded KFX units. This would probably be the only way for Boeing to stay in the fighter jet business with a 5th gen jet until the F/A-XX project begins. Lockheed would gladly unload this burden if they could.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131122/DEFREG03/311220004/S-Korea-Buy-40-F-35s-20-More-Jets-Still-Open
"Eurofighter has been the most active in the KF-X program. It offered a direct investment of $2 billion in the KF-X bid.
Boeing has also shown strong interest in the KF-X partnership.
“The KF-X is a huge business opportunity, maybe a bigger one than the F-X,” a Boeing official said. “We’ll continue to find ways of working together with the Korean government and industry.”"
Guy hit the nail on the head ,stealth advantage is rapidly diminishing and like the guy said its the game of circles and domes(SAM) and the size of domes and circles in the east has steadily been growing ,so jo can expect much greater overlaping coverage than in the past + planes are mainly stealth in frontal aspect and pariculary one band of radar.
ReplyDeleteI know I put this videos before, but some of the commentes from the Raytheon executives in the past give me the inspiration to create them. It seems that the USNavy is the only force with a great sense of responsability and reality. I remember the executive mentioned once that the Super Hornet has 90% of the capacity of a 5th Generation fighter at hjalf of the price. With the Growlers and the combination of multiple sensors and UCLAS and UAVs I think they will have more than double of capacity of the F-35. (2 engines, double crew, 2 airplanes for the same price, (double amount of bombs and missiles), and yes, as the article explanis, active Stealth combining all the sensors and Electronic Warfare capacity.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQUdbw__g_Q
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYGM-aB1Luc
What the US won't do is to demonstrate stealth. It's classified, don't you know.
ReplyDeleteIt's like chastity, a concept.
Also the Swedish have a similar idea as the USNavy
ReplyDeletehttp://www.saabgroup.com/en/Markets/Saab-Korea/About-Saab-Korea/Defence-Systems-for-Korea/Your-Partner-In-Aeronautics-/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivC8YgUGDV8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLE-v-ldaHM
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/9982/efvr.png
ReplyDeletehttp://img17.imageshack.us/img17/4163/j31n.png
RCS is one part of the package, but it is a big part of that package.
ReplyDeleteRadar, in all its forms, Infra Red, Radar Intercept, Comms Intercept, RCS, Jamming, all play a part.
All other things being equal, the plane with the best RCS wins.
All other things being equal, the plan with the best Jamming wins
Ect.
There are low band radar that can "detect" "stealth" aircraft, but they cant "locate" them, or "target" them.
And they arent free either.
An integrated air defence net is expensive.
I cant imagine its cheap to add 4 more types of radar to that, and integrating civillian weather gear will likely do more harm than good, its probably not going to stand up to a growler telling it lies.
It also gives options.
If I run a mixed bag of 12 hornets, and 12 f35s, what does ground control see?
Can it distinguish between one and ten F35s?
I only ask because I quite like the idea of mixing bomber/strike packages up with single fingle fighter with BVRs.
Is it a single fighter that will fire at you from max range and run, or is it six fighters out for a scrap?
I see you do not know how stealth works, a long range radar that detects fighter planes at let say 200miles will without problems track and use missles to kill low rcs F35 at 50miles head on from all other aspects detection range could be 100miles+ F35 stealth from all aspects has greatly been compromised as the plane is full of bumps and bulges that were not there in JSF
DeleteLow RCS means reduced detection range not some magical invisibility ,detection ranges are extending with low band and more powerfull AESA radars + IR that is even harder to fool since you have a huge engine . And like the guy sugested RCS is sort of designed into the plane but 30years on RCS can only be improved marginaly while radars and other sensors make a lot of progress it could well happen that low RCS losses its edge completely in that time and what then with the plane that put all its eggs in to the stealth basket.
"I see you do not know how stealth works,"
DeleteWrong
"a long range radar that detects fighter planes at let say 200miles will without problems track and use missles to kill low rcs F35 at 50miles head on from all other aspects detection range could be 100miles+ F35 stealth from all aspects has greatly been compromised as the plane is full of bumps and bulges that were not there in JSF"
Which means two identical aircraft, but one "stealth", the stealth will detect at 200miles, target at 150miles and fire. The none stealth will detect at 100miles and explode at 90 miles.
"Low RCS means reduced detection range not some magical invisibility"
I never said it was.
"detection ranges are extending with low band and more powerfull AESA radars + IR that is even harder to fool since you have a huge engine"
Are stealth jets hotter than none stealth?
Are they unable to carry AESA radar?
So whats your point?
"And like the guy sugested RCS is sort of designed into the plane but 30years on RCS can only be improved marginaly while radars and other sensors make a lot of progress"
But advances in Radar technology hurt stealth and none stealth aircraft.
"it could well happen that low RCS losses its edge completely in that time"
Stealth is not some magical invisibility field.
An aircraft with a smaller RCS will be harder to see at distance than one with a larger RCS
"and what then with the plane that put all its eggs in to the stealth basket."
Does the F35 put all its eggs in stealth?
My understanding was its Electronic Warfare Suite was a step up from the growler? Its Radar is a step up from everything currently flying?
I get it being expensive an the being a problem.
I get it maybe not meeting specs and that being a problem.
I dont get specs not being up to it
F35 put it all on stealth ,as the plane is quite slow and just sort of maneuverable once stealth is less relevant it can not fight and much less run on equal terms with 4th gen airsuperiority fighters ,relatively small front bulkhead limits radar size ,wing loading and crossection mean that even with posible engine upgrade not much could be gained in terms of preformance. Stealth costs both in terms of design limitations , maintenance and production cost.
DeletePreformance specs were quite low to start with
F35 is probably not a bad plane but far more of a bomber than a fighter .
"The 55Zh6ME radar complex addresses many of the limitations of the old VHF radars. Although you see three radars—stepping down from VHF (metric) to L-band (decametric) and S-band (centimetric)—the Russians call them modules of an integrated radar system. Each unit is fitted with the Orientir satellite-navigation system, which provides a very accurate location and north reference. That should make it possible to provide sensor fusion—ensuring that when two or more of the radar units detect a target, it will show up as one in the control center.
DeleteThe VHF part of the system (see photo) has a P-14-sized, 30-meter-wide antenna, but it folds onto an 8 x 8 truck. The antenna has an active, electronically scanned array, so if it gets a hit on a faint target, the array can dwell on it as the antenna rotates (or swings back and forth for a sector search). At the same time, it will cue its L-band and S-band sisters to focus on the target area like searchlight beams."
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_09_13_2013_p0-616430.xml
Add in different wavelength bands and passive detection like IR, Acoustics, visual detection of vortices, contrails, there is no invisibility cloak.
Low RCS is just that....low, not non-existent. Complex system can detect AND track AND target.
We haven't even broached the subject of decentralized passive arrays trying to sense disturbances in background radiation, acoustics, etc.
Back to the future. The primary benefit to stealth was the elimination of having to penetrate with a airwing. Jammers, Weasels, AA cap, and then finally your strike package. Every defended target took layers of aircraft. Stealth and guided weapons change that to were you could hit a target with just a few strike craft and maybe even multiple targets.
ReplyDeleteEither way I don't think this changes the Navy assessment of the F-35 it just states simple fact that the offense/defense scale on the higher end is getting more balanced and so we will need more than just stealth but also a return of the strike package above.
Bottom line I read is Stealth will still be a very important factor but not the beat all it has been for the last two decades. Without stealth to shrink those circles the package will have to be to big and to unwieldy.
Not all the countries are so blind
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXCP0-r0-m8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX1div6XDqE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbp6JlBpDjs
Mr T
ReplyDelete"F35 put it all on stealth ,as the plane is quite slow and just sort of maneuverable once stealth is less relevant it can not fight and much less run on equal terms with 4th gen airsuperiority fighters"
I could be wrong, but I'm under the assumption that the F35 is roughly on par with the F16 in that regard.
Its going to lose a cannon fight with a Typhoon, but so would lots of things.
Paralus
So, we've forced the enemy to replace one radar, with an array of three radar fused in to a sensor suite.
How much does that cost?
Both in Capital, and maintenance? Will there be as many of these units? How many can the other guy afford to lose the SEAD/DEAD
Its easy to say that one radar will detect and cue the other two, which will locate and track. But that takes time, a less stealthy aircraft will still be located first.
Is that time difference long enough for the stealthier aircraft to attack the radar site?
"We haven't even broached the subject of decentralized passive arrays trying to sense disturbances in background radiation, acoustics, etc."
False positives sound like a serious problem in that sort of system.