How many non-stealthy assets will survive against S-300/400/etc…?
Survivability can’t be dismissed in the equation either.

True thats why its a big equation thats why Bill is highlighting the tradeoffs.

EA-6B, EA-18G, EC-130, etc….along with unmanned assets in the coming years.
I suspect on the first day of war, there’d be a higher than 60 percent availability, if it were of our time and choosing. That number isn’t taking into account the likely purchase of 60 more Raptors, and the numerous F-35s that not only the US military will have, but those of our allies.

Again- there’ll also be F-35s in that mix, EA-18Gs, stand off weapons, cruise missiles, along with hundreds of Super Hornets, and F-15Es. Remember, you don’t have to clear every every target to allow other assets to get through, as long as certain corridors have been sanitized. You can then focus your efforts on the other targets as you expand the campaign.

So your argument really only applies for the USAF as a complete package – all other air forces are unable to afford those necessary assets (as I suspect the US is unable to afford them)

Do you or anyone else here think that stealth is free??

Cheers

add jamming, and your stealth is more effective period.

You forgot to mention that adding stealth reduces your deployable assets by ~70%

Once things start exploding, your enemy is going to know something’s going on. Once this confusion sets in, that’s when jammers could be a force multiplier for the VLO aircraft.

You can’t afford stand off jammers, you just blew your budget on LO.:D.

let me explain –

Bill’s assertion that Stealth has drawbacks is valid, but you have to view the big picture to see those drawbacks.

just one dimension of the arguement:-
First you have limited assets due for example the f-22’s purchase price, then you have the F-22 maintenance requirements, only 60% availability, then you have the f-22’s production balls up when LRIP are started before testing is complete due to cost blowouts and that’s around 60 Raptors that are not combat coded..

So that works out as the notional 183 Raptors minus 60 non combat coded aircraft = 123 of which 60% are available leaving only 73 to play with.
and that’s not during ops tempo so expect that 60% to drop markedly.

So how many do you think you could spare to penetrate defences?? consider you will be mounting counter air and all the defensive type trimmings. you could literally count them on one hand.

Now compare that to what you’d get if you’d invested your money in Typhoons. conservatively ~350 of them plus a couple of hundred cruise missiles, so no need to overfly sam sites and over 300 of them available too.

What would provide the biggest punch on the first day?, and what is the result after a few days of ops tempo.

Bills piece is asking you to consider what trade offs you want to make…;)

cheers

Because if your jamming doesn’t work, you’re still visible.

and if your not transparent enough your still visible

Additionally, if you’re emitting, you’ve lost the element of surprise(and weapons that have HOJ may be able to target you).If you combine VLO and stand off jamming, it makes the VLO aircraft even harder to detect, without allowing a foe to know of it’s presence.

and standoff jamming removes the element of surprise.. and HOJ is just what a towed decoy loves..

Both methods will stop the kill chain, one is cheaper and more flexible than the other.

also remember cost has killed the f-22 effectiveness, if not the entire program.

Cheers

The most crucial point has been missed.. Is he right?, so far all we have had is personal attacks…

Is the basic concept he proposes correct? that there are three main sorts of stealth, and that LO & VLO stealth has some drawbacks.

I think what he has written has merit, I have always found Mr Sweetman to be very insightful and very good at crafting technical subjects in easy and humourous manner. (perhaps he needs more smilies in his piece for the benefit of others here:D).

Why is it that stealth is perceived by some as more effective than jamming?

Its the difference between looking for something transparent vs having sand thrown in your eyes, either way you can’t see the target.

I don’t think Mr Sweetman is biased against the F-35 but he does show his experience in the industry when he takes what LM or the USAF say with a large pinch of salt due to the string of broken promises that have come before.

That’s not bias that’s experience. so there’s never any need to compare Mr Sweetman or anyone to Carlo Kopp… not even Carlo…:diablo:

Cheers

yeah just look at the debarkle of those small battles…! nothing like the War on Terror which now has Iran and Iraq as havens of peace and tranquillity..

talk about narrow vision..:rolleyes:

The western Military looks decidedly top heavy (think # of RN admirals etc)

LOl this thread is amazing… you simply cannot say the US f$%Ked up in anything, either in policy, morality, finance, or militarily without the crazy’s flocking in (you know who you are.)

If Obama cannot reverse what G W Bush has done, then the US should hand itself back to the Indians..

OK “crazy’s” On your marks get set….GO.

Cheers

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

and defeat any conventional competitors,

LOL what do they mean??

I would have thought a fast jet was the least able to get visual identification without exposing itself to unnecessary danger, the speed at which it flies is a real disadvantage, the A-10 is a good example of what a visual ident plane should be like.

Exposing one of HM Typhoons to manpads and ground fire to get a good eyeball on the target would I assume be very very rare, and a visual aid such as an IRST or Recce pod would be used to keep the jet out of range of the ground fire, stream this and the need to be there is not that important, as one of the niche roles of UAV’s now seems to be loiter and drop a weapon on targets of opportunity.

With that said I think we are agreed on many major points, i.e. that UAV’s won’t take over all roles, But I now think a fair few roles are now realistically up for grabs, where I wasn’t so sure 5 years ago.

Cheers