Mildave@ Mildave ,
With all due respect , some of what you write doesn ‘t hold water .
Most of what you say on stealth is , well … wrong . Things like :
False .
There is no point in having a L.O airframe if you’re going to be using your radar all day long even with LPI. Unless you can match exactly the background noise, you’ll be detected even though you might not be tracked or indentified. A active F-22 will be picked up by hostile ESM long before a non active F-15 will show on radar screens.
False . A flying wing has no fuselage , no tail , so no “angles” to speak off to avoid radar spikes . This has nothing to do with what radar bands the enemy is using .
What I said is that the B-2 will have to rely less on its RAM due to the inherent properties of its airframe and as a result be more stealthy than a F-22 or F-35. The Northrop YB-49 was already evading radars at long rages when RAM wasn’t even a dream.
Hiding from 2 or 3 carefuly chosen bands is the RAM ‘s job , mostly . You can design your RAM to “absorb” whatever band you want (more or less).
RAM isn’t magic. It’s limitation to what and how much it can absorb (turn into heat). A supersonic aircraft already generating heat with RAM on that will increase that heat further especially since it’ll absorb a variety of waves even though it has been optimized for a specific range will not only make your aircraft more visible to optic sensor, but will also reduce your RAM ability to “absorb” more energy. Why do you think the F-22 is so damned expensive to maintain. Also you can look on the net for testimonies of pilots or mechanics that talks about fumes that might give then diziness when the aircraft land (though to be at one point the reason of the crashes too).
So , the sentence […] is also wrong.
Nope since RAM is only part of the equation of L.O. Look at how most current L.O concept for UAV or bombers place the engine intake on the top of the aircraft for exemple? First of all the F-35 doesn’t have the same design seeing on the B-2 or F-22 for its engine that not only reduce IR signature but also breaks EM signature too. Its size and lack of wing loading reduce its airframe ability to redirect EM waves (i.e flying wing or flat surfaces concept seen in the B2, F-117 and even the F-22 + most current concept for future L.O aircraft including UCAV).
The F-35 is said to be using a new gen of RAM, but I guess only time will tell if its RCS is as low as the B-2 or F-22. Personally I doubt very much.
But this is correct : 🙂
At what range a clean F-35 is detectable by a good AESA radar ?
(Huge and hot debate :D)
Let ‘s say 30km (?) , ok ? (maybe it ‘s more , maybe it ‘s less)
At what range a clean J-20 is detectable by a good AESA radar ?
(same hot debate)
Let ‘s say 30km (?), ok ?
Do you see where I ‘m going ? 😉
WVR combat
If we can fool electromagnetic waves , human eyeballs MkI will dictate the fight as they always did . Surely , IR systems will also have their word to say .Cheers .
I’m not talking necessarily about L.O vs L.O, but about how detectable L.O is against a modern airforce deploying a number of assets including fighter aircraft with modern radars, ESM etc. whether or not they’re L.O.
The F-35 was never meant to operate on its own to acquire air superiority as well as strike. Because LM started claiming it could do as well as the F-22 once the prospect of selling more of that aircraft vanished doesn’t mean it’s true.
MildaveAssuming the EODAS system is operational, then it’ll have to be coupled with the helmet, and the EW suite at the very least which means the processors controlling the system can’t be all placed within each units. Let’s say a missile is inbound at a angle where two units’s FoV overlap, will each units tell the pilot that a missile is coming toward the aircraft? Probably not, so there must be a central processing unit somewhere.
As far as detection and automatic ID’ing of target, I think what the PRs are trying to say and what is might be slightly different. It all depend on the context. If you detect tracked vehicules but you know prior to the mission that the enemy is only using wheeled vehicules then you can assume the vehicules you’re looking at aren’t hostile.
Any software today should be able to ID specific forms and make a distinction between a tank and a troop carrier or between a BMP and a striker due to their distinct forms. However I would be more concerned about making a positive ID between a striker and a VBCI for exemple.
It might or not being done depending on the resolution available, distances etc. Software have gone a long way in that area and given the number of applications already available in the public or paramilitary sectors, I doubt it would be very hard to develop for the F-35 or any other aircraft.
However it would be quite hard or next to impossible for a optical system to make a distinction between a real object and a decoy unless using multi-spectral sensors and even then… optical sensors can’t know the difference between a real object and a picture for exemple unless able to make a 3D model.
I don’t know much about the SAR imagery though.
Also a software doesn’t work like the human brain, for a proper coded software there are no such thing like being overwhelmed at least not in the traditional way. If the software has been designed to track 14 most dangerous object then that’s what it’s going to do no matter what’s the aircraft doing. As long as it can detect them, it will automaticly order them in the 14 most dangerous. Now if there are 15 and not 14… well it will simply not process that 15th object, but I doubt any aircraft will ever face 15 missiles all at once…
MildaveA new run of A-37 is probably the best bet. But if you were going to improve on the basics, move the engines off the wing root and into pods on the fuselage. Get rid of the small caliber machine-guns and go to a centerline gun. Also move to a baseline single seat design with plenty of room for screens to enhance pilot S-A. Orient around a combination of low cost precision and area dispersal packages. Its not an anti-armor platform, so don’t build it like one. I’m not so sure you couldn’t semi automate counter fire with a turreted cannon to respond to manpads, zu’s, and other typical AA in the guerilla world.
The real problem isn’t so much what kind of aircraft you build, but who’s building it. Western companies will pretty much always end up with a more costly aircraft even if all they build is a turbo prop.
MildaveWestern Air Forces aren’t exactly embracing UCAV’s either on any grand scale.
UCAVs are in all reality unproven in a proper combat situation.
UCAV are still in development, drones like the reaper can hardly be called UCAV, they’re MALE surveillance UAV whose capabilities have been extended to carry bombs. They lack the automation and self awareness necessary for a true UCAV.
Given the current develoment in the US, Russia, India, Europe etc. it seems like strike missions will be increasingly taken over by UAV/UCAV currently in development. Manned aircraft will probably remain for the AtA missions though.
The assassination missions and CAS flown in Afghanistan are very pedestrian missions in completely uncontested airspace. They are not much different from doing bombing runs on a test range.
Lol CAS/strike missions tend to happen once air superiority has been won. I don’t see a tucano, A-10 etc. flying around with Su-30s nearby still posing a danger.
Throw in a contest with an enemy with an IADS as well as EW capability and drones might be unviable.
Current drones maybe but UCAV in development are very different beast capable to carry on their mission in almost full autonomy like reusable cruise missiles.
Insurgents have shown to be able to hack into drone feeds. Iran might have downed one with electronic warfare equipment.
100% invulnerability doesn’t exist in real life, and most of hacks that happened in Afghanistan were because the US underestimated its enemy and didn’t implement proper security and cryptographic measures.
This is a good point until UAV’s have been in combat with a real air war to fight and where they can’t just wonder around looking for targets manned jet will be needed and that is why I feel a low cost jet maid of parts already around is still a good idea at this time western counties are using 60-90 million pound jets to do the job a low cost GR jet could do better
Of course manned aircraft will be needed for the forseable future, but you need to make a distinction between piloted aircraft, remotely piloted aircraft and fully or near fully autonomous aircraft.
Right now most UAV like global hawk, reaper etc. are simple remotely piloted/manned aircraft, so human interaction are still very much present. And given how most CAS mission are now conducted at 3k feet+ to avoid AA, MANPAD etc. the F-16 pilot will be looking as much in a screen as the drone operator… well at least for AtG missions.
MildaveSpudman :
Absolutely .
Dassault decided that DDM-NG + IR Micas (front sector) was good enough , so no IRST for now .Cheers .
I doubt that it was Dassault who decided such a thing, more likely it was due to lack of available money from the French gouvernment. In any case the FSO being a modular and plug-and-play system, any Rafale on operation can be fitted with the IRST already delivered.
MildaveThe Super Hornet Would Out Perform The F-35 In Any Canadian Arctic Operation, Says CF-18 Pilot
Looks like a few pilots have decided to talk against LM’s marketings claims.
MildaveRafale deal, trade to dominate Hollande’s India trip
“Things are moving very fast and we hope that a contract will be finalised as soon as possible but it will not take place during this visit,” a French diplomatic source said.
India’s air chief NAK Browne said he hoped the deal would be signed by June. “We want it to happen as early as possible for induction soon,” he added.
Dassault chief executive Eric Trappier has confirmed that Indian negotiators had detailed their needs for an additional 63 planes over the initial order for 126 aircraft
MildaveThats exactly the aim of Sethi2 pods presently tested at ONERA : it combines SAR (X, Land UHF bands), visible and multispectral camera images, even allowing underground (slightly of course) detection.
http://www.onera.fr/actualites/2012-0316-sethi-couplage-imagerie-radar-optique.php
There’s an RSS, but in french 🙁
http://www.onera.fr/actualites/presse/20130115-CP-RAMSES-NG-SALON.pdfshort google translate :
An english version exist for your first link.
MildaveBalanced budget poses challenge to UK armed services
With several major new acquisitions to be considered as part of the next SDSR process during 2015, parts of each equipment area include planned, but as-yet uncommitted, segments of core budget.
For the air domain, this includes planned new spending on the Eurofighter Typhoon. “Further investment to develop and enhance the aircraft’s multirole and intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance capabilities are priorities for use of unallocated headroom in the plan budget,” the MoD says. Another priority when funds allow “will be to expand our investment in simulated pilot training”, it adds.
The RAF is due to retire its last Panavia Tornado GR4s in 2019, and the Eurofighter is not yet cleared to use either the MBDA Brimstone air-to-surface missile or Raytheon Systems Paveway IV precision-guided bomb – the service’s weapons of choice in Afghanistan and Libya – or *MBDA’s Storm Shadow cruise missile, used in Iraq and Libya.
Funding has yet to be guaranteed to produce a new Captor-E active electronically scanned array radar for Typhoon partners Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK, or to fully integrate MBDA’s Meteor beyond visual-range air-to-air missile. Money for such work will have to be made available later this decade as spending on the F-35 also begins to ramp up with increased production.
It is uncertain whether the UK will proceed with its previously planned final Tranche 3B purchase of Eurofighters for the RAF. In January, the service received its 100th Typhoon, against an original 232-aircraft commitment, later revised to 208.
MildaveMildaveTo be fair, the Rafale was introduced in early-to-mid 2001 with a first flight of mid 1986 compared to the mid 2003 introduction date for Typhoon with a first flight of early 1994. The Rafale has had a much smoother run and a better managed programme than Typhoon’s with much less bickering thus smoother integrations and upgrades & what have you which should be well recieved. However, it must be realised that the requirements for their operators were quite different. Tranche 1 Typhoons aren’t mean’t to have A/G-Multi-Role capabilities. Its sole purpose was mean’t to be A/A because the RAF had the Harrier GR7/9, Jaguar GR3, has Tornado GR4 for A/G and Recce.
2001 Rafale were early production models produced for the Navy as a stop gap measure. They were originally not meant to be as Rafale was always supposed to enter service as the F2 standard.
I agree that the Rafale program was overall better managed with Dassault having seemingly a stronger lobbying force on French gouvernement that EFT has been able to have on the 4 partner nations (especially Germany, Spain and Italy).
While the Typhoon was supposed to have AtG capabilities from its conception, I cannot shake the feeling that such a promise is similar to the one made by BAE system about how easily it would be to fit a catapult for the QEC carriers…
Anyway, I guess the waiting won’t be long now to see precisely what capabilities will be given to the aircraft, especially with the RAF and the RSAF pushing for them.
MildaveThe problem of specialisation can be solve by keeping specialized squaddrons… Nobody said that each pilots should be train in every specialities available.
IMO the greatest problem with current program is how they’re being managed by politics and industrials, not really about their complexity…
MildaveI’ve never said that the F-35 will have a permanent monopoly on these types of systems, only it’s to be the first.
btw, DDM-NG is not true 360 (the plane’s body blocks the lower FOV) and only has two sensors to the F-35’s six.
That will depend on when it will be declared operational as well as the number of export clients other aircraft like the Rafale will be able to make in the meantime and what their requirements will be and the amount of money they could agree to spend to help make them happen.
2 or 6 sensors, as long as it does the job with satisfactory results… BTW LM managed to solve the latency issue on the F-35 helmet yet?
Sign In
