It looks so sad.

You can but you have to justify the development and acquisition costs…SAAB is making it for Sweden, that does not need a very large military, so can perhaps put it in the few fighters they have…NATO and the USAF is a large force structure, and as such needs to justify the expense. There has to be capability that is required beyond the L16, to justify a fleet wide USAF upgrade, when the fleet is so large. The Increased LPI is required for VLO aircraft (F-22, F-35, B-2 and future LRS_B), the IFDL and MADL do it, while the B-2 may get something in the future. AESA based communications are already happening with the B-2…

baby steps 🙂

when you have an army the size of the american all small changes are huge.

Regarding the RCS: Like i said, only the developers know the full extent of a technology that they themselves have developed….If You could transform legacy jets into better then the F-35, then you would not have needed the F-35 in the first place. To effectivly evaluate the claim of a potential parity or superiority of the Legacy jets with new RAM to the F-35, you have to know the RCS of the F-35 and that of the legacy jet before and after the treatment. I follow the path of logic, if things like this were possible, you would not have such unanimity as far as having properly designed stealth fighters as opposed to making the best shape for combat fighters and RAM’ing it up with the latest technology.

Shape gives you the head start. This means wear and tear has less effect. The materials i’m talking about arent even existing today. But considering the development I am a firm believer that they will exist.

The thing is that the F35 is already in production, the materials Im talking about MAY exist within a decade. and then they would need a couple of years to enter production. That is about 1/3rd into the expected 30-40 year life cycle of the F35 (that was expected to reach IOC in 2008 i think).

Basically we are talking about a technology gap of 12-17 years. During this time it isnt unlikely that the F35 also gets a ram upgrade, so it will likely still remain king of stealth in the west (as long as user have the moneyz to pay for it).

The same development happened with the Flankers. They went from 10-15sqm in head on RCS to <1 sqm in about the same timeframe (according to official numbers). Thats over 90% reduction of RCS and the shapes are the same, and it’s with already old technology where the engine still is the largest reflector.

If more than 10dbsm can be removed from an ac with exposed engines using a decade old technology, what do you think will be possible 20 years later on aircrafts with S ducts? (where you dont even have to spend years making the engine more stealthy).

I believe that 30-40 dbsm reductions compared to an unpainted ac is a realistic expectation for the future and I believe it is possible before 2025.

Thats not the scope of MADL, unlike SAAB Lockheed has to develop a fighter that has to be interoperable with the rest of the US and NATO fleet, for this they cannot do away with Link 16 commonality so have to have both..and its rather hard to justify a fleet wide replacement of the L16, with a new project..Things will surely change once you have 1000+ plus stealth fleet in operation, but for the next decade or so you cannot justify it.

Agreed (as said in previous post)

Some of the Assumptions:

* Fighters with the new RAM, have already flown, been RCS tested and results verified…If not then its all just a concept and something the maker is claiming, just like some radar operators have been claiming to make stealth obsolete for decades….

I think well will have to ask Knaapo about that. The typical measurement is on a flat plate from the 0 degree angle (the relatively shortest layer) or they go for the average numbers.

The technology itself is similar to that used in the F35 (only a few years more modern) and Taunit, or similar ram, will be used on the Pak FA.

* Assumption that such a Thick RAM coating will provide all aspect RCS reduction and LO throughout the spectrum most of the modern stealth aircraft are designed for

Im not assuming it, I just gave you the results from the testing.

* Assuming that such a stealth coating is actually viable solution for fighter aircraft IN THE FIELD..

Yes, and that’s where I have a big caveat. I dont know if it is practical. 1mm should be doable, especilly if the jets stay subsonic.

* Assuming that the current RCS gap between 4th gen fighters and the F-35 is far less than what the RAM can provide, meaning that with this RAM 4th gen fighters will leapfrog the current F-35 RCS. Without any such data, this claim is ridiculous at best. As i mentioned earlier, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that International defense establishment has come to the same conclusion regarding future fighters…I.e. Stealth shaping , optimized shape, and RAM. No one has done things differently although RCS may vary between makers depending up their budget and capability (some are more experienced with stealth than others)

It’s still not a claim I have done. I’m saying it may very well be possible that materials that are 15 years more modern than those in the fiber mat might be surpsisingly effective (based on current trends). For instance Brazil tested a new RAM that was rated at -15dbsm, the maximum effect (from side angle, don’t remember degrees) was -59dbsm. Head on the compeating ram (on flat place, 0 degree angle) only offered -4,7dbsm on a 4mm thick layer.

This is the status of Taunit: “UNM ‘Taunit’ was officially certified for commercial production on 08/12/11.”

I guess this means it has been tested. http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?118951-Pak-Fa-news-thread-part-21&p=1932491#post1932491 (Asakuras walk through)

Has the thickest layer RAM coating you mentioned ever been put on a fighter and flight tested for RCS? Do you know what advantages it offers as far all aspect Low observability is concerned?

Im saying there is a possibility. The test results support that argument. If its practical or not is for the future to tell. I believe it is and I think we will see some impressive ram treatment upgrades for current jets in the 2020-2025 timeframe.

I believe Dassault, SAAB and/or Sukhoi will be eager to do so.

Only those that have evaluated each system for merits know as to what capability one offers vs the other. Second, it comes down to the cost and interoperability…Why the MADL does not have WAN capability, is probably because it was not required not to mention the cost of the development and acquisition would significantly increase if start to add capability you really do not need, since no one is seriously contemplating funding for a program that replace ( MADL for L16) all USAF/USN/USMC jets with the new system…You can never make WAN comms as secure (LPI) as you can with LAN, for vast amounts of information flying around all over the place is much easier to intercept…As discussed by BS on the other thread, you can build a chain of F-35’s that are MADL enabled and have that chain extend to outside the threat area…The F-35’s outside the threat area have far more flexibility regarding EMCON, and as such can pass on anything and everything to the rest of the fleet using L16 or other less-secure ways. This is how the F-35 would be “CONNECTED” To the AEGIS defense system, with data links at both ends, the USN plans to launch missiles form the aegis blind, to be cued in by the F-35’s Active/Passive sensors….

You can make WAN into LPI using aesa antennas, aka beamed datalinks. I know SAAB are making a broadband aesa antenna för the datalinks that will work for LAN + WAN.

I just thought MADL was covering all ranges.

There is no money to fieid a brand new Data link system that replaces the Link 16 in either of the major forces of NATO. Second, we do not know how each compares head on, vis-a-vis NATO requirements. If the US had the money and the actual need to replace the Link 16 (if its capabilities were not up to the mark for current standard for example), then they would initiate a program to develop a significantly better system to it, but as of now, no Link 16 user is complaining..

Agreed. Link 16 does the job.

Jeez i wonder why every one else is developing Stealth then? Why is russia bothering with a RCS centric approach to the PAKFA? Why not just treat the RCS of the S-35 and be done with it? This theory of yours is based on even more assumption then the Aim-120 range theory..Nor do you know the RCS values, nor how much real world all aspect stealth is acheived with RAM…Unless you have access to hard data which the developers do you cannot really make an objective comparison…The people who design crafts such as the F-35, B-2. and even the F-18E/F have many years of experience with different stealth configurations, including ram. LMA alone was flying stealth 4 decades ago….

Bottom Line: If it were possible, it would have been done..All 5th gen jets are Shape optimized for RCS and on top of that have RAM and other coatings..None are ditching the Pure 5th gen stealth for an upgraded RAM’ified stealth. Future UCAS’s, and 6th gen fighters all elude to better shaping, better materials…RAM is used by all and has been for many many years…Just look at the projects in development or in the Pipeline : T-50, F-35, J-20, J-31, AMCA, FA-XX, LRS-B, PAKDA (Claims of a stealthy flying wing), Chinese and US UCAS developments, EU UCAS projects…Whats the underline theme? All stealth optimized shapes (to a different degree) and all clean sheet designs…You can put PAKFA ‘s future engines on the SU35, Huge room for radar and avionics, if it were possible to get equal RCS, the case for an expensive brand new project would be very very thin. From the US, which has decades of R&D both in the open with operational aircraft and in the dark with secret aircraft, to Russia, China & India…All are deriving to the same conclusion.

Shaping is one part, materials another. If you want to keep great flight characteristics and the ability to use high speeds then you shouldnt have thick coatings.

What I say about the RAM is just linear projections. It’s hardly anything one should build a strategy around. The F35 in a future upgrade (with new RAM) would get even stealthier.

Historically 4-10dbsm in rcs reduction was impressive from ram. (ca 1980-2000)
Nowadays we see 10-15dbsm being the more expected range for real ram (but usually in thick layers of more than 1mm). (2000-2015)
…but with Taunit we are now jumping into the potential ~30dbsm RCS-reduction in a layer just 1mm thick (with 0 reflection from ram). (2010-2020?)

Assuming a similar trend to hold on, it is not unlikely to see ~30-40dbsm in RCS-reduction just from skin treatment in the 2020-2025 time (as part of standard contingency upgrades). So it wont be a reduction from the mentioned 0,1m² of a Rafale but rather a 1-1,5m²/1000. And apart from the ac the future pods will need ram as well.

If we apply this to already good designs, like Rafale or Gripen (who are mainly built by composit modern materials) we may get close to or even get lower RCS than on the F35 (assuming the F35 uses the fiber mat thats in production now). Sure, excessive RAM-treatments may force them to stay below the maximum speeds but the trend is still clear.

So having good shaping always gives a head start, but a head start isnt a guarantee for a victory. It just means it’s easier to win. Currently though the F35 has superior shaping and superior ram compared to… basically every other jet. But unless it keeps getting those upgrades (like the rest gets) it will get old. Just like all ‘once so modern jets’ who don’t get upgraded. And it’s more likely that cheaper jets will get new ram etc.

If boeing could find a way to demonstrate the F-18E/F RCS to be BETTER than the F-35, they’d be winning a HUGE contract.. Nothing of this sort is going to happen, because you can only improve LO to a point..a stealth optimized fighter is always going to have an edge, such is the conclusion found by all major defence industries across the world that are developing pure 5th generation fighters instead of proposing HUGE RAM improvements on existing legacy jets. Boeing itself proposed a brand new clean sheet proposal for the JSF.

My numbers where based on a pretty thick layer of the latest known RAM coating on an untreaded Super Hornet (no RAM from beginning).

Using thick layers will create other problems, for one it is likely that it may force the ac to stay subsonic. It will increase wear and tear effects and so on. Proving the effectiveness of materials that doesnt exist might be tricky. Give Boeing another 5-10 years and we will see, ok?

ISR is the TOP MOST priority in dealing with threats to the carrier both from the air and from the sea. You have multiple missiles, future DEW’s and carrier aircraft..all of which need to get the most comprehensive SA Picture that you can deliver…An SM6 setup with poor ISR with HUGE GAPS over the horizon is worthless, while with proper ISR and intel from multiple assets even an ESSM can do well to protect you. The USN has made ISR its top priority, just look at the BILLIONS being spent on new AESA radars for the ships, Dedicated ISR crafts such as the UCLASS, TRITON, P-8 and Satellite capability. Getting Munition on target is not a big problem for maritime threats…or for Airborne threats…Problem is making sure you have layered ISR in all bands with active and passive sensors….

Fuel is not an issue, the aircraft meets the original X-47 range requirement, it just trades Weapon bay load for Fixed ISR load so payload does not change much, just shifts from bombs to sensors.

Well well, its not my army. Ofc ISR is important, I’m not questioning that. But in step 2, after the enemy air defences have been supressed/destroyed… that’s when cheap bomb deliveries (like F16, A10 offers) will come handy.

That’s basically my only remark. And judging by how wars have panned out lately I think that long term costs are very important and that’s why the ISR-equipment should be optional so they get a cheap, long endurance bomb platform in the same system.

MADL priority is fielding an affordable system for the F-35, then giving it to the VLO fleet, primarily the F-22 and B-2. Then the legacy fleet….We’d probably have something better (vs the Avenger) by the time that effort is done :)….The MADL is a LAN , short range specifically built for aircraft flying together…Its main aim is to add LPI features to data link….Link 16 is WAN and has much greater range…The MADL can never fully replace the Link-16’s capability, that is why the F-35 has BOTH, one system for shorter ranges , more secure and survivable form of communication, L16 for everything else. The Future L16 replacement may bring LPI modes to longer range WAN operations…but the brilliance of L16 lies in the sheer amount of weapon systems hooked up to it….

Oh no. 🙁 I thought it was like TIDLS with LAN and WAN in one package (that is compatible with Link 16).

Why doesnt nato just adopt the TIDLS. SAAB would be thrilled, all new features like beamed streams, real time integration etc would offer a lot. SAAB would be thrilled, the users happy. Everyone would sing Kumbaya.

Btw, can we move away from the F35 debate or whatever it is we are doing? If we keep that part to shaping vs materials it will be more relevant to the thread.

Those are sources for the X-47B. The X-47 program was used by the USN to verify UCAS concept for carrier ops and to mature certain technology. The UCLASS is a completely different program which is not built around the X-47 family. Based on the leaked RFP documents with USNI we have :

The KPPs call for an aircraft that can field a 3,000 pounds worth of payload, including a 1,000 pounds of air-to-surface weapons — including the 500 pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions and Small Diameter Bomb II.

Thats both logical and kills the debate. What the final specs wil be is for the future to tell but I think bays for internal weapons will be present (all new designs have it, it’s “the new black” if you will).

Why would the internal bays be based on the X-47? The UCLASS is a program, that is brand new, while the X-47 was a test bed not designed for the UCLASS. It was a strike optimized UCAS, while the UCLASS trades off on the Strike ability for persistent ISR ability. The USN is quite clear the capability that they value the most for their carrier is that of Persistence ISR and to be able to do it at a low cost and high capability, strike can effectively be compromised because the USN is going to get the entire spectrum of strike aircraft, from the more survivable F-35 to the Bomb truck the F-18E/F, Persistent ISR on the other hand is very tough to do with tactical manned strike fighters.

As they say, the development of military hardware is a game of compromise.

A drone like the avenger, will beat fighters like the F-35 any day when it comes to strike at long distances, especially which require high persistence for ISR and BDA. This is where they excel, however as of now the USAF and USN considers them useful against lightly armed Air defences and does not want the current ones for tough A2AD work. Hence the efforts to develop even more capable drones as pointed out by the publications cited above. The reason why the services do not see them that capable against a credible Moderate-high A2AD threat, is best known to them. I would think the degree of automation, reliance on SATCOM etc may be equally to blame as the RCS.

The choke point is bandwidth via satellites. It is also vulnerable.

This could be fixed by using the datalinks (in the same concept SAAB displayed). With the aircrafts themselves being more autonomous, if SAAB + Sukhoi announce optionally manned flights then I think it’s fair to say it will be possible even for the F35.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]218916[/ATTACH]
This is how I think it will look in the future, possibly even with an optionally manned fighter as the rear node.

Here is another slide on current SAAB projects which will reduce the effectiveness of stealth in a fighter.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]218917[/ATTACH]

So we will see more and more overlapping areas. But as far as the UCLASS goes… you are probably right. These slides and the Avenger are parts of the same roadmap I see as the future.

I think considering the power of the J85s it would be better to leave out the 3 AIM9s and settle for 4+2 ( amraam+aim9 ).

It is a weird thing how everything fits if you just take smaller engines and short inlets for them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5

Wonder if SAAB is interested ?

Top view area is 34.2 m2.

It actually doesnt matter if they are. If the gvt is interested (say in Finland, Sweden or the Baltics) then there is a market. SAAB currently have their hands full with Gripen, FS2020 and their drones, ie stuff that already is either funded or has a market.

So if a gvt is interested, then the manufacturers will line up.

Just think about the money involved. The projects are huge and are always driven by market needs. SAAB are currently meeting most criterias, ie high performance, high flexibility with affordable price. And they are the only ones in that niche.

Your system is more tailored to one role (point defence) and that is a pretty dead market. I also wonder about the efficiency of the radar. The large AESAs in the Super Hornet etc are not enough for modern stealth jets, and considering that the enemy will likely be Russian Su35S and Pak FAs I wonder if the point defence role will be fulfilled with excellency.

I think you would have better commercial success with a UAV/UCAV platform that is designed for growth.

I’ll list it 4 u guys.

List from http://cornucopia.cornubot.se/2013/07/varldens-storsta-militarovningar.html

The Louisiana Maneuvers in 1941 was a series of excercises totally involving around 400’000 soldiers, but this isnt one drill taking place at one time so it doesnt really count. Other than that these are the excercises that are the largest ever by the Soviets, Russians, NATO etc but excluding North Korea.

So the current excercise could be the largest ever.

EDIT: This is from Dnepr 1967 (where it was rumored that many of the tanks simply where decoys to make the forces look greater in numbers).
[ATTACH=CONFIG]218901[/ATTACH]

@Tu22m:
Rii’s original thought in post 1314 was that delaying EODAS would get to IOC sooner. While you might save some time, EODAS is an small player in the overall timeframe of F-35 development so not much time would be saved. He was postulating that the delay would save some money by not having to SLEP 4th gen airframes. However, he did not look at the increased concurrency costs with his plan.

Remember that one of the greatest lessons learned from the F-22 program is that if you do not make sure that all the hardware is part of IOC then odds are you will never get it (F-22 IRST, HMD, Cheek Arrays, etc).

I have nothing more to add than agreeing with you for once 🙂

My concerns are about the whole waterfall approach to the development, ie everything has to be done at once which always ends up the same way. One small delay leads to another that delays testing for a another part and so on. This, among with a lot of other factors, makes the aircrafts so d**n expensive so nobody can afford the concurrency (as with the F22).