That’s not a very very long range. It’s the range of multi-function search/targeting land-based & shipborne radars such as Smart-S. AAW ships might have such a radar, plus a long range radar such as the Smart-L reaching out to almost 500 km.

And land-based early warning radars can do much, much better than that.

I was talking about the range of P-18 Van radar
max range 350 km, range vs f-117 about 60 km
obviously modern radar today do better

The alleged existence of VHF AESA radar and SAMs with very wide area target acquisition capabilities have led to speculation that larger ground-based low frequency radars can be used for targeting, or at least used in conjunction with other targeting radars to improve their range.

the problem with VHF radar is often with their enormous size and inaccuracy rather than their range , they often have really really long range

Depends on whether the radar has Advanced LPI modes or not. I doubt russians radars are comparable to US radars in that regard.

probably not now , but in future they may

I was talking about a missile, not the SDBII itself. ( an 12′ long missile with SDBII hardware, 7-8″ in diameter (AMRAAM size ) so that 2 can be carried side by side in each bay) The missile would be have roughly the speed of the SPEARIII.

then you carry less missiles i think

The SDB has a small diameter, I don’t think it would have much draq. They would be launched in a loft trajectory. It may be less than 20km however, maybe 10 or something.

still it doesnt have rocket like AASM , i think the range likely to be very small , without engine and at low altitude may be it will just fall down like MK-80 series bomb
also low weight mean less moment tum thus go shorter range

The idea of using some F-35s with 24 SPEAR3s coming flying Nap of the Earth and a couple F-35s in stealth mode at high alt to guide the missiles has merits if the cost difference between an SDBII and a SPEAR III is not too much, which I doubt.

the benefit mainly is when you try to attack destroyer with very good anti air capability Ex : Type-52c , and can detect F-35 from long range , then it still have the option to fly low and then when come close launch a bunch of missiles at the destroyer

That kind of idea with flechettes or fragment could be good, but they if they are ejected at 3-4 km I very much doubt they would get anywhere close to the target, let alone be able to hit the sensors.

but not only 1 missiles , we have 24 SPEAR per F-35 , each SPEAR have 60 warhead => each F-35 thow total 1440 warheads over target area , even with hit rate of only 2 percent then 28 warhead will hit target

Debatable. A salesman trying to maximise the appeal of his product could easily claim it as such.

really doubt that , that would be the same as claim Kinematic is stealth

The only secret part is the stealth though. The F-15, which for its time was the kinematic equivalent of the F-22 was sold at will from the late ’70s onwards. I don’t think necessarily the Russians are much better at kinematics, they’ve just had more liberty with aerodynamic design on the Su-35 because it didn’t have to be stealth.

i dont really think stealth is secret , many other country other than US have stealth UAV or stealth cruise missiles , also Western have nothing equal to Mig-31 or KH-31 so i would have to say kinematic Russian is much better ( by contrast US seem to be better at Stealth and electronic warfare )

AIR International described the EW suite as acting to maintain stealth as much as possible until active deception jamming was required.

may be they was talking about the LPI feature on APG-81

.

Also, low level clutter rejection and detection range aren’t the same thing.

clutter rejection = reduce gain = harder to detect low RCS target

It’s also common for military datasheets to understate performance and for stealth to be exaggerated.

i dont think effect of stealth is exaggerated , in fact , it not a coincident that all great power try to make stealth fighter and stealth missile

True but the language here seems openly evasive. It would be very easy to simple say, “we’ve found that the F-35 has a lower radar cross-section than an F-22,” and perhaps even quote a loose percentage.

they did say f-35 beat F-22 in stealth and it was designed to neutralize S-400 system , really nothing evasive in that

RAM doesn’t work well at VHF.

agree

A larger shape simply increases size to wavelength ratio, which moves you back into the optical region. In the resonant region, RCS can be either higher or lower than the optical region formula suggests. The Rayleigh region is the place to be. Either way a larger aircraft isn’t particularly beneficial, it either moves you from Rayleigh to Resonant, or Resonant to Optical. Neither transition is a definite advantage and the difference between optical RCS and resonant peaks/troughs is only of the order of about 4/0.25. The only way of achieving what you want is a completely different kind of RAM, which begs the question, “why only on the B-2 and not F-22,”… or by using ionised gas.

http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Rayleigh-%20versus%20Mie-Scattering.en.html

“It is the physics of longer wavelength and resonance that enables VHF and UHF radar to detect stealth aircraft,” Westra wrote in his article titled Radar vs. Stealth.

UHF-band radars operate at frequencies between 300MHz and 1GHz, which results in wavelengths that are between 10 centimeters and one meter long.

Typically, due to the physical characteristics of fighter-sized stealth aircraft, they must be optimized to defeat higher frequencies in the Ka, Ku, X, C and parts of the S-bands.

There is a resonance effect that occurs when a feature on an aircraft—such as a tail-fin tip— is less than eight times the size of a particular frequency wavelength. That omni-directional resonance effect produces a “step change” in an aircraft’s radar cross-section.

Effectively what that means is that small stealth aircraft that do not have the size or weight allowances for two feet or more of radar absorbent material coatings on every surface are forced to make trades as to which frequency bands they are optimized for.

That would include aircraft like the Chengdu J-20, Shenyang J-31, Sukhoi PAK-FA and indeed the United States’ own Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and tri-service F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Only very large stealth aircraft without protruding empennage surfaces — like the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit or the forthcoming Long Range Strike-Bomber — can meet the requirement for geometrical optics regime scattering.

http://news.usni.org/2014/06/09/u-s-navys-secret-counter-stealth-weapon-hiding-plain-sight

All part of the same thing. SA allows you to plan routes away from hot-spots, and gives you a better heads-up of enemies and allows quicker targeting, all of which reduce chances of your detection until it’s too late.

but it not stealth , totally not the same , they may compliment the other but that doesnt make them the same thing

Actually stealth is the only hard part. Most western nations and many others are already well versed in propulsion and aerodynamics.

i mean stealth + good kinematic is very hard to make , it possible but may be super extra expensive , and if you dont know how to it may cost lot more F-22
also , i have to say Russian are much better in kinematic , they have so many working long range air to ground or anti ship supersonic missile

AIR International’s F-35 special made a clear distinction between that and active deception jamming, when the above is no longer possible.

i dont quite understand what you mean here

No one said it could. I’m merely quoting an EADS radar expert. I suspect the above ranges are underestimates and take no account frequency. It’s well known that a Type 42 destroyer could track F-117s (RCS of 0.0025m^2) out to 150km, that would imply tracking 0.001m^2 targets at 120km with ’90s ship radar. I suspect stuff like TRS-4D and Artisan will be streets ahead of that, Russian stuff too I imagine.

can you give the link for that , cause if that was true that would mean F-117 was super useless ( it only carry bomb with range about 12 km ) , there wasnt anything special with Type 42’s radar compared to SAM radar of that time , in fact it’t can even track the Mirage and exocet missiles due to sea clutter
also the figure i take for SMART-L was from a book ( so very reliable source )
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4S3h8j_NEmkC&pg=PA263&lpg=PA263&dq=smart-L+stealth+missile+km&source=bl&ots=hJRyOS_ZfZ&sig=RqlhsrbEaJmGJ5A4JLFwoLFL8DA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ejn2U7nkLujZ0QXXo4Bw&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=smart-L%20stealth%20missile%20km&f=false
and they only claim to detect target with RCS = 0.001 m2 from about 60 km , i really doubt that Type 42 ( or even EF-2000 ) can do better

Well the F-35 team failed to meet every other design parameter, so when they come along at the eleventh hour with vague statements in an attempt to mislead people into believing one was exceeded by an entire order of magnitude, naturally I question it. The language used is evasive. E.g. if I say, “the F-5 has a smaller cross-section than an F-35,” given my exact choice of words, am I lying? Not technically, but if the conversation was about stealth, then I’ve certainly mislead people. Stealth could also be assumed to be about EO/IR, so if I have a smaller, less powerful aircraft, maybe it’s harder to see in these regions, so I could say that it does stealth better and not be lying and say that it has a smaller cross section and not be lying.

language could be mislead , but then again that can be said about any claim of any producer

Aircraft carriers and destroyers don’t have boundary layers or shapes that can exploit it. Some detail was released about charged wing trailing edges on the B-2, it was quickly withdrawn, followed by standard ink poisoning tactics. E.g. rumours were disseminated saying it was about disguising the vortices and other rumours about electrogravitics. The last one was just a supertroll of the dumb really. Extra size would only help if the VHF problems experienced by stealth fighters were down to resonant effects. They aren’t, it’s just that the RAM doesn’t work that well outside that 3-20GHz band, nor does the ground wave effect.

actually , if iam remember correctly , stealth is due to Shape + material ( RAM ) at VHF then RAM doesnt work well , but also Shape doesnt work due to resonant effect that why the bigger size of B-2 make it better at VHF
btw : there are many stealth destroyer

There is also the issue that AAMs NEZs are probably calculated with a significant amount of maneuvering. In an a/g attack there is no need for maneuvering except a little bit in the terminal phase, so the range maybe more than just a basic calculation taking account the altitude.

However, the AIM-9X would still slow down after its 50km a/a range, due to drag. It will end slow at the time of the attack on the radar, maybe it will be hardly supersonic at 3.3 times the a/a range.

it true

Based on the MICA VL –> MICA IR range difference, I think CAMM should be capable of about 100km A2A and maybe more A2G.

i dont really understand if this have anything to do with what i said , CAMM dont have A2G mode

It could very much be argued that SA is part of stealth. A better knowledge of what’s going on around you allows you to remain stealthy, remember the F-117 and SA-3. Decent stealth + poor SA = No stealth.

SA help stealth aircraft fight their enemy more effectively that true
but SA and Stealth is not the same , an AWACS like E-3 for example can be said to have very good SA , An Aegis destroyer can be said to have very good SA , but no one going to say there 2 are stealth , by contrast AGM-129 is stealth missiles but no one going to claim the missiles it self have good SA
SA and Stealth is very deadly together but they are not the same

With allegedly superior stealth technology another nation could easily use the F-35 to build a fighter that’s as kinematically good as the F-22. F-22 kinematics are good but not ‘special’ good, like its stealth is. The kinematics are far more easy to duplicate.

probably built a stealth fighter with bad kinematic ( F-35 ) or built a fighter with good kinematic but bad stealth ( mig-31 ) is alot easier to built sth that have both ( f-22 )

The F-35 does use active cancellation AFAIK.

no it doesnt , it may be able to use APG-81 as a jammer , but never read any where that the fighter itself have active cancellation

An S-400 depends on what radar you put with it. VHF AESA has been alleged to exist and that presents problems in that it offers targeting as well as detection.

The not so tiny Captor-E is actually very good.

Captor-E is about smae size as APG-81 , probably 10 – 15 percent bigger , which still far smaller than IRBIS-E or Zaslon-M
and no way it can match the S-300/400’s common radar : 64N6E Big Bird

or SMART-L which better in both size and power and only claim to detect stealth missiles with RCS = 0.001 m2 from 64 km

You will note that Mike Hostage never specifically said, “the F-35 has a smaller radar cross section.” He can’t because then he’d be lying, which is harder than simply misleading. Until he says, ‘smaller radar cross section,’ it’s just more headlining.

he did say F-35 is more stealth and designed to beat S-400 system which is really something

B-2, as a larger aircraft, has more electrical power and is widely believed to use plasma stealth. That’s basically the only way you can hide something that large. Think about it. It came out in 1992. If it was effectively much better than the F-22 relative to size, why didn’t the F-22 use the same technology? Answer – it can’t because it’s too small and doesn’t have enough power to run it.

as far as i know only Russian ever claim to experiment with plasma stealth and the result doesnt end well that why they designed the PAK-FA now
if plasma stealth was working dont you think all aircraft carrier and Destroyer will have it , they are bigger and have more power than any fighter or bomber but no even the Zumwalt class you old method to achieve low RCS
if iam not wrong i did read somewhere that B-2 relative big size make it less vulnerable to VHF band ( dont remember why may be thicker RAM )

That’s always been a dubious statement. What does it include as ‘stealth’? E.g. Active cancellation, passive detection, better SA? Yes it has a smaller ‘cross-section’ but it doesn’t specifically say ‘radar cross section’. It’s someone being far too clever with words for their own good IMO. If it were truly more stealthy, why is the F-22 not for export?

f-35 have stealth + SA but F-22 have stealth+SA + kinematic , and F-22 probably a much better interceptor due to it’s speed , and USAF dont want that ?
passive detection is part of SA , and it not the same as Stealth, Active cancellation , plasma stealth are not going to happened , not in near future
anyway he also said
“F-35 is the first US aircraft designed to the requirement that it be highly effective at neutralizing S-400 systems and their cousins“
so i dont really think EF-2000 tiny radar going to do much again it’s RCS
probably have sth to do with clutter rejection threshold

EDIT: It is interesting in that he mentions cross section without the radar pre-fix in relation to low frequency radar, because it may be that the smaller physical cross section does make it better against VHF, when the usual RAM effect breaks down.

not necessary B-2 is better again VHF , low frequency and it bigger than both