The aircraft cannot suddenly become significantly more expensive or cheaper just like that.. You can only change its price by choosing which costs you directly attribute to the airplane. If you remember, Canadian unit cost has jumped from C$75M to C$138M by simply adding exactly the same spares, weapons and infrastructure costs which are normally included in US costs.

Price can rise up sharply if somebody mess up, but to reduce it by half simply by restructuring suppliers in such a short time? hum… is it christmas yet?

The last O’Bryan’s quotes indicate that LM has chosen to go back to the roots and pursue the strategy of aggressive marketing by deception – they quote you a cheap flyaway and then strip you down on spares and auxilliary items. The overall cost stays the same – funny is that even today noone really knows how much is it exactly – my bet is close to $150mil a pop.

Given the aircraft complexity, the period of maturation of all its systems, which have to work with each other etc. Given the reductions, delays or possible cancellations of firm orders, nobody knows how much is the aircraft to cost. If you try to compare it using numbers of current fighter aircraft program… it’ll blow your mind… Fortunately for LM when you’re planning on selling about 3k of them, you can afford to be unaffordable lol.

It’s an attribute, specifically designed into the aircraft. And it covers the range of microwave frequencies that present a direct threat to that aircraft.

Modern stealth is first of all a tactic that consist of “controlling” the electromagnetic emissions from an aircraft from its radar to its electronics (particularly communication suite) as well as reducing its overall signature RCS, IR etc.
An F-22 radiating will be far less “stealthy” than an F-15 that doesn’t.The US chose to go beyond managing the active electromagnetic radiation of an aircraft to great financial cost, it doesn’t cover all frequencies. Some can be redirected away from the emitter (potentially being capted by other sensors), while others will be absorbed and converted into energy (heat), while the rest will find their way back to the emitter although with far less strenght than would be the case without these radar reduction techniques.

When programmes such as Have Blue and the F-117 were started, the US goal was not just to defeat the radars of the day, but those likely in the foreseeable future. Given that Patriot (originally known as ‘SAM-70’) and Aegis were already under development, and used phased-array radars, it would have been remiss of the two ‘Red Teams’ tasked in 1981 with studying possible Soviet anti-stealth measures not to have looked at possible Russian equivalents, and the prospect of AESA-based threats.

And they could only have reached the conclusion than “stealth” had its limit, which is why they aren’t in a panic over the multitude of stealth projects around the world.

No – as I said earlier, it was designed to cope with the range of microwave frequencies that present a direct threat to that aircraft.

That can be said of the B-2 due to the inherent proprieties of the flying wing, it can be said in a far lesser extent to the F-22… when it comes to the F-35, it should be taken with a bucket of salt.

Ah! Those much talked about anti-stealth measures. But much of that talk is by amateurs rather than professional radar engineers and air-defence specialists.

Although most of these are secrets and as such we can’t discuss them with any amount of certainty, laws of physics tend to remain unchanched by LM’s propaganda, and there are a few documents available about China’s A2/AD strategies and technologies as well as about the Russian S-300P SAM system.

Over the horizon radars, low frequencies radars, “saturating” radars (TV, Radio etc.), even radiations from the stars could be used to detect stealth objects.

“Just putting a few bombs into a bay inside a composite aircraft” was never enough. A good book on RCS reduction might prove informative.

Sarcasm anyone?

I’m not sure I would use the term ‘very high degree of precision’ . For the Russian Nebo-SVU surveillance radar, I’ve seen quoted accuracy figures of 1.5 degrees in elevation, 0.5 degrees in azimuth, and 400 m in range.
Given that the beamwidth of an antenna is proportional to frequency and antenna size, the beamwidth from a VHF radar is going to be fairly wide compared with that from a microwave radar. Sidelobes will also be fairly large. A wide beamwidth + large sidelobes = a good target for hostile EW.

Precision will depend on what you need it for. The first step to defeat stealth is to detect it. Once that is done you’ve accomplished the hard part. What’s left is to kill an aircraft which depending on the mission, support available etc. might or might not be easy.

But getting a VHF radar track is not the same as closing the kill chain. Weapons that pose a direct threat to a stealth aircraft flying above the effective ceiling of MANPADS and AAA threats are likely to use microwave sensors. The TV and FLIR systems so beloved by the anti-stealth brigade have a limited range.

Same will be true with non stealth aircraft. In order to improve NEZ of its missiles the stealth aircraft will have to launch much closer than its “first look, first shot” should allow it to do, meaning both aircraft will be able to use their ESM/ECM to their fullest, shortening even further the distances at which Pk will be significant, at which point training, reliability, luck etc. will decide the outcome.

AESA is not a ‘magic solution’. It does not change the limits set by the basic radar equation that defines radar range capability. It cannot reduce the beamwidth available from an antenna to any value lower than that defined by the antenna area and operating wavelength.

Nope which is why I stressed “coupled with digital processing” which means that once you’ve got a general idea of where an stealth aircraft is trying to hide, you can use a number of techniques to focus your processing power and radar signals to a smaller area, lowering the sensibility of your sensor below what you would normally judge acceptable. It doesn’t mean you’ll get a track at 200km, but given the effective range of current AtA weapons, you can bet that using the number advantage the 4.5 gen aircraft will remain on the battlefield long after the stealth aircraft would have to either cancel its mission or suffer unacceptable attrition rates.

What is can do is to allow the radar beam to concentrate on directions of interest at the expense of lingering for less time in other directions. It gives the radar’s receiver the best-possible chance of locating elusive echoes, but the performance limits set by the radar equation still hold good.

AESA is this case can do a lot of things which are only limited by funding and development in terms of jamming a specific area, EA, frequency hopping etc.
Because the radar and its computer doesn’t have to deal with a wide search domain it can use all its processing power in a very limited area, coupled with information from other sensors, I can’t see any stealth aircraft still hiding.

The evidence for these claim being? Facts, not beliefs please.

It’s evidenced by the various projects of the US to develop various penetrating aids for its fleet of stealth aircraft ranging from jamming platform (F-18F) to swarms of micro UAV, to anti satellite weapons etc.

Elint mapping of enemy radar coverage in order to devise penetration routes does not require “AESA radars coupled with digitalized processing”. It was being done successfully more than half a century ago.

I never said that AESEA are required to do such a thing, I said AESA radars will make such a thing even more useful, and that the fact that ELINT/SIGINT aircraft, satellites and other means are so important and used before each conflict prove that 5th gen or not you’ll try to know where the radars are to avoid them as much as possible and create a corridor for your aircraft.

At the end of the day, to repeat myself I’m not saying that stealth is useless, I’m saying that from the F-117 to the F-35, the USA seems to have had an hard time making a affordable, reliable aircraft, and that it is in my opinion a mistake to base your entire fleet on such aircraft at this point.

It doesn’t really matter if you can build an death start, it will be useless to you if you can’t afford it. And the problem of affordability isn’t just because the US is building the F-35, I believe the same would have happened with a 4.5 gen as well as it has happened with pretty much every programs run by the DoD to date including tankers.

Stealth is about improving survivability, just like every other form of camouflage.

We agree. But “stealth” is more a tactic than a attribute to start with. The use of RAM, bay door etc. only work against a short set of frequencies.

For comparaison it would be like a red coat refusing to wear a red hat, but leaving its read coat on. Might save the head, but he’ll still be pretty visible.

When used properly, stealth can break the enemy’s kill chain by inhibiting his ability to target you.

“Steath” as any conter-measures seek to increase the survivability of an aircraft. It’s ability to work will depend on the effectiveness of the enemy’s counter counter-measures.

Many tactics are being used today to break an enemy’s kill chain at BVR ranges, L.O being only one of them.

Stealth does not require 100% invisibility 100% of the time.

“Stealth” may have worked well 20 or 30 years ago when few people would have expected it, but that’s no longer the case. Just putting a few bombs into a bay inside a composite aircraft isn’t enough anymore. Else the B-2/F-22/F-35 would be the cheapest aircraft in history.

Yes, a VHF/UHF radar can detect stealthy aircraft. But VHF/UHF is not a fire control radar with sufficient precision to guide a missile within lethal radius.

Modern VHF/UHF radars can detect with a very high degree of precision small objects very far away in space, in the air and on the ground/sea.
They can detect small spy satellites or debris, weather, balistic missiles, cruise missiles, drones, AtA or AtG bombs/missiles, roquets.

AESA technology will allow to focus all the power of the radar on a very precise point in space if need be to track an small object at greater distances than the aircraft could hope to hide. Unless using cruise missiles or SF to create a corridor, no aircraft be it 5th or 4th gen will get past a modern air defence system including ground and air segments. Period.

Even if VHF/UHF cues other systems, the other systems’ RF-dependent kill chain is broken by stealth.

We’re talking about AESA radars operating in 2013, not of what existed in the 80s, 90s.
Pretty much everything flying today has a reduced RCS thanks to composites compare to what was flying back then.
L.O tries to hide an object to legacy radars, because their technology didn’t allow them persistence and tracking beyond a search domain, reducing the echos collected, the frequencies used etc.

L.O if we’re only talking about shaping here cannot avoid or brake a radar lock. It might make the job a bit easier for the ESM system, but that’s it.

IMO ,anyone who bases their survival on the bet that their ECM programmers are smarter than the enemy’s ECCM programmers will live a short, exciting life.

The F-35 concept is a very bad one because it tries to use the all around technical “success” of the F-22 in order to let us believe that L.O is an operational success which it isn’t.
Worse, because the F-35 lacks terribly the performances of the F-22 it won’t be able to dictate the fight, escape, catch up or whatever. And because L.O is used with the assumption that it will be possible to get closer to the enemy undetected (something done by current 4.5 gen aircraft already) it put the F-35 in really great danger when using its internal capacity of 2 guided bombs. There is no way the F-35 will get close enough on “stealth” alone to a modern radar network to use its bombs, and when discovered, its ability to disengage will be really low.

Stealth exploits the physics of how RF receivers work when installed in a weapon system. Stealth reduces the RF return below the threshold where the enemy’s receivers can discriminate between signal and background noise.

We’re talking about a combat system that include a number of platforms where the fighter aircraft is only the tip.

We’re also talking about AESA radars coupled with digitalized processing. Why do you think ELINT/SIGINT aircraft/satellites are used extansively before each conflict to “map” an area where friendly aircraft could fly in?

Current “stealth” is optmized to disrupt a precise set of frequencies, so in effect “stealth=invisibility” doesn’t even exist mate whatever the range. “Stealth” is nothing but a form of passive jamming.

1-no i mean the range of the laser on the FSO , not the detection range
( actually it is 30 km rather than 50 km )
2- even AWACs can only see f-22 , f-35 at quite short range:cool:

1. MICA EM/IR won’t necessarily need the laser range finder to engage a target. As BW already said, the laser isn’t a passive targeting sensor…

2. What does that mean in reality?! Do you have any idea at which ranges AWACs/AEW&Cs system can detect an L.O aircraft? Is it 100km, 200km ?
The fact that many nations (even those with limited budgets) are investing in them should tell you something.

Neither the F-22/F-35 or Rafale/Typhoon/Su-30s would be flying without AWACs support if we’re talking about modern airforces, nor would they be flying without ELINT/SIGINT aircraft capable to detect transmissions quite far away, so the advantage of L.O here is no longer strategic but only tactical which mean it can be countered with the right counter tactics…

Bottom line, since missiles are supposed to do most of the killing these days, you get by 2020-2030 a battlefield where L.O aircraft are still being detected far beyong the range of any weapons, allowing plenty of time for both parties to manoeuver and try to get the best position for shooting. Conclusion the aircraft with best electronics/manoeuvrability/weapons/support/training get to win.

Aircraft like Rafale/Typhoon/F-35/F-22 have advantages in training thanks to the use of simulators which are more limited on previous generations.
However lower maintenance costs, lower flying costs, is definitely in favour of Rafale/Typhoon.
As far as weapons/electronics are concerned, these aircraft are more or less on par with each others, the same is true for hyper-manoeuvrability with the exception of the F-35.

Conclusion, each airforces will learn about their strenghts and weaknesses, as well as those of their enemies and will do their best to work it to their advantage.

i take the range of FSO as 50 km due limit from laser finder range

I believe that only the TV channel of the FSO is limited to about 50km

Then trying to compare a engagement like Rafale/Typhoon against F-35 is most likely useless since any countries with enough money to buy these aircraft will also likely spend on AWACs or AEW&Cs making any advantage from a fighter aircraft’s radar rather moot. If you add all the other assets a modern army will deploy like ELINT/SINGINT aircraft, satellites, etc. you get a picture where if L.O does increase survivability indeed, it isn’t enough for you to hide very long.

If however that capability is so costly that you have to reduce other programs, reduce aircraft availability and reliability, then you end up with a very bad deal as it will in the end reduce your pilots survivability.

Funny, the experts don’t seem to agree with your conclusions. As nobody has backed out of the program and interests in the type only grows. Which, in large measure explains the luck luster sales in the fighter market for the last 10 years. As most are waiting for the F-35.;)

Well so far most countries buying it have slashed their orders considerably, while other still haven’t decided yet what will be the final amount to be ordered beside the 1 or 2 for testing. So I would be more careful with my bets if I were you. To quote the US, many countries are going for a “relationship” with the US rather than necessarily going for performances or affordability. Beside last time I checked, most countries still within the program have a lot of industrial stake in the project with little to no alternatives.

The F-35 pays a great deal of attention, time, money, resources, etc to the function of ID’ing a target.

Not the only one, Rafale, Typhoon, Su-35 all have development path to get there or are already pretty much there already. The difference is that these developments happen over time instead of trying to get everything at once, and of course with a far smaller defence budget.

Besides the obvious IRST, the F-35 will use a myriad of radar & ESM modes & functions to ID a target.

Again by the time the F-35 is declared fully operational, its bugs fixed, and redy to be deployed, many other aircraft would have had IRST, AESA etc. for quite a long time. And in war a tested and proven system is often better than a brand new untested one.

This little gem popped up in last year’s Australian testimony.

[U]If we are able to do as we plan[/U] with the F35, and that is to have good access to the software and to be able to program it appropriately with mission data, it will have the ability to identify hostile aircraft at quite a considerable distance.

Now given the technical difficulties encountered by the program I should add If the F-35 is all that the PRs say it should be…

Before anyone says it, I’m sure the “4th Gen” reference is to baseline 4th gen, not the latest Rafales, Eurofighter, etc.

Tell me when was the last time an AESA equiped “4.5++” gen aircraft flew against a “5th” gen? What were the results?

F-35 not only jet that meets stealth needs, top general says

“There are countries around the world flying the [other aircraft with stealth capabilities] to great success these days,” Lawson told MPs on Thursday.

Lawson, himself a former fighter pilot, downplayed the importance of Canada buying a so-called “fifth generation” aircraft. The marketing classification “fifth generation” is used in the United States to signify aircraft with the latest technology as of 2012, including advanced stealth capabilities.

“Fourth and fifth generation is not a very helpful way of looking at that aircraft,” Lawson told reporters in a scrum after his testimony

To stay safe from attack, the carrier strike group has to get lost in the big deep blue ocean. This requires a significant standoff distance from the enemy coast or the prying eyes of MPAs. When you are that far out at sea, your short-legged strike aircraft have difficulty reaching shore.

In a modern battlefield you don’t want your manned aircraft to fly anywhere near the shore when you have such systems operating nearby, and China/Russia are pretty active in that field.

Think of what it means to operate no further west than the second island chain and tell me how effective your short-legged jets will be. They are bingo fuel before they see land.

4.5 Gen aircraft like the SH or Rafale are more than able to fly long distances strike missions (Lybia) while being able to provide fuel for each other (one strike mission over Lybia with cruise missile included one Rafale in a “nounou” configuration to refuel the strike group) and ultimately whatever aircraft you’re flying, the future is for stand off weapons to be used. So no aircraft meaning business will ever have to see land.

L.O techniques and technologies have always existed, they’ll likely progress over the next 10 years and might even take completely different forms.

As the current concept pioneered by the F-117 become more mature and more affordable, I believe any aircraft built in the future will adopt more or less that technology, although I believe the next big step will see an increase importance on EW and energy-based applications.

I believe the focus is already switching from impunity to survivability, which is IMO a more balanced approach.

It was part of the bid, but it was no shortlisted, because India is unsatisfied with Russian support/spare parts on their current jets.

I think you’re talking here about the Mig-35