Only and idiot would claim ANYTHING is invulnerable.
Gee, politicians worried about a projected (incorrectly) 30-year cost of $1 trillion…. Where the hell were they when the Big O spent a trillion in ONE year for “stimulus”?
“Stealth” is better termed as “signature management”.
That signature, for the past history of A2A combat”, has been defined as RCS due to radar being the primary A2A sensor. For this reason RCS reduction techniques have been at the forefront of signature management work over the past few decades.
Now, radars of longer wavelengths (ie L-band, UHF, etc) are being deployed to counter RCS shaping efforts. To counter this, manufactures have turned to RAM that is specifically designed with these wavelengths in mind (see LM’s RAM US patents).
For the most part, the fight against detection has been a passive one, ie shaping and RAM. This may change as computing power catches up with the idea of active cancellation.
On the other end of the spectrum, optical sensors are touted as a solution to the RCS issue. The problem with these is that they are very limited in range and are heavily weather limited.
There is just so many different aspects of this issue, ie “signature management”, that it is impossible to cover them all here. What can be said, however, is that the airborne game of hide & seek will constantly swing back and forth as A hides from B then B gets a better sensor then A finds a way to blind the sensor, etc, etc.
The quest for better “signature management” will never go away, it will just take newer, more complex forms.
The longstanding F-15 zero loss record only applies to A2A losses, not SAM & AAA damage.
You asked for what has been made public, so I gave it to you. Obviously most of the details are still classified (or just have not been made public).
Here is a vid of the APG-81 doing a scan 5 years ago. No details are given about target sizes, only known variables are time, vectors, and range scale of the scope (80nm).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRkpFsXz9yk
Yes, i’s that pic of the Stratosphere I am talking about. Given the size of a fighter compared to the Stratosphere it should be a piece of cake to ID at that range (weather permitting).
http://i619.photobucket.com/albums/tt271/SpudmanWP/24491da5.jpg
I said “basic ID”, ie what type of target. See this video of EODAS detecting, IDing (as a ballistic missile), and tracking a Falcon 9 rocket (up to 800 miles away as the second stage burns out). It also demonstrated the virtually seamless transition from one sensor to another and the predictive tracking of a target (track coasting) whose track was lost for a short time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DN-A6PWRFno
But there are almost no data which has been leaked to the public, so any assertion that these sensors outperform those of other aircraft are pure speculation. It might be that they do and I wouldn’t be surprised to be honest, but it’s pre-mature to declare that to be fact.
This is what we have seen as far as the sensors go (publicly released data and videos).
APG-81:
Can function in modern jamming environment from multiple sources (BAC 111 at Northern Edge)
Can detect & jam F-22 & F-15 radars (last year but no details given)
Can complete a sweep of the sky within a couple of seconds (video on Youtube)
Can provide SAR imagery with vehicle-type IDs (ie tank, truck, etc) (various program documents and Youtube vids)
EOTS:
Can ID a fighter easily at 36nm (67km)
Can provide very detailed FLIR imagery (various LM vids and photos)
EODAS:
Can see anywhere around the F-35 (Youtube)
Can automatically track & do a basic ID of airborne targets (Youtube video of the Florida rocket launch)
Mission Computers & display:
Can fuse mission data from various systems and present the data in a single display (Youtube of simulators)
I’m sure I missed a few, but you get the idea.
@Erkokite:
Check any of the program schedules and you will see that IOT&E is when IOC is. The “O” in IOT&E means “Operational” which is what the “O” in IOC means.
Like nobody was thinking it 😉
If you claim that the SPECTRA can help with analyzing it’s own radar reflections, then you would have to say the same about the EF’s DASS and the F-35’s RwR, or any other fighter that has a RwR.
In either case, it’s moot because there is not evidence of this ability.
Size has a lot to do with received signal too. All things being equal a radar half the size of X will only receive 1/4th the return that X will.
Any source on Spectra being able to supplement the radar’s ability to analyze it’s own returning radar signals?
@Bluewings: T-50 sold to friendly nations???
Every nation flying MIGs today is a potential T-50 (Pak-Fa) user and are certainly NOT friendly.
Also, the lifespan of newly built Rafs & F-35s will be 30+ years. A lot can happen in 30 years. Heck, France came close to selling the Raf to Lybia. Current F-35 users could also “go bad”, Turkey for instance. 30 Years to too far to say that the Raf will not likely see the F-35 in combat.
@TM1: The use of fighter generations is not a term created by LM. It has been used by defense officials worldwide for decades. If you’re referring to what makes a 5th gen fighter, that term was coined by the US DoD, not LM.
I just noticed… that J-20, ostensibly in combat config, still has it’s Flight-Test Air-Data-Probe instead of a radar 🙂
Unguided rockets on a stealth bomber??? Cluster bombs would be more effective.
That DSI bump seeps a bit high. It should be in the middle of the intake.