Stealth fighter effectiveness in SEAD , DEAD

By: Hotshot - 24th August 2014 at 07:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

i disagree with this , you really dont need a big warhead to destroy radar , in fact if you get close enough a RPG could destroy a radar too , it will mess up the electric and everything , SPEAR 3 warhead is about the same as Brimstone , more than enough to destroy any radar ( except the SBX may be )

Right, but those radars are high value targets, you want to make sure they are completely destroyed. If the SPEAR 3 misses probably the antenna would be destroyed, but maybe not the vehicle. They can change the antenna. But I agree it would already be good.

A mini cruise missile like an SDB missile woud have the ability to be launched at long range and to loiter to find its target. I like that capability also to search and destroy aircraft in the open. To attack an airbase, send SDB1 missiles against the aircraft shelters and SDB2 missiles against aircraft in the open.

A fleet of 50 F-35s could launch 200 SDB missiles per strike, or 600 in one day with 3 sorties per day. Enough to make a lot of damage to a near peer opponent.

the reason why i like the SPEAR III is also the amount of weapon that f-35 can carry , 8 internal , and if you decide to use Nap of the earth tactic you can carry 24 , that very high potential to by pass enemy defense , even more if we can make them stealth

Sending planes in non stealth mode on the initial strikes doesn't seem to be a good idea to me. For later part of an air war ok. You can send one or 2 F-35s in stealth mode at altitude to find targets for other F-35s or non stealth planes coming at low altitute with SPEAR IIIs. But the SPEAR III costs more than the SDB2, probably twice as much or something, you have to take that into account.

Apart from that, would the SDB2, whose primary role is to attack tactical targets, have needed a 100lb class payload? They could have done a much smaller weapon, about half the length, it would have been enough to kill any most targets including tanks with a direct hit, and the F-35 would have been capable of carrying 16 inside. Basically a gliding LOCAAS type weapon.

By: lukos - 24th August 2014 at 18:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

I thought the F-35 was nearer 0.001m^2.

Captor-E claims detection at 59km:
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/10/205_97236.html

So I'm pretty sure ship radar will reach out a lot further. The initial post also doesn't allow for the affect of VHF frequencies and the like.

By: lukos - 24th August 2014 at 18:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

Since when did the 9x become a SEAD weapon?

It allegedly does have A2G capability in the AIM-9X-2.

CAMM/FLAADS (M/L/A) is also due to have a surface attack capability.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/files/docs/flaads_june2010_press_information.pdf

FLAADS(M) provides a true 360° air defence capability for naval forces out to ranges
greater than 25km against the future air threat. Requiring no dedicated
tracker/illuminator radars, CAMM can be cued by ship target indication data to provide
high levels of protection in open ocean and littoral environments. It can also be used
against surface targets.

Rough rule of thumb says that when you move a SAM to A2A role, you multiply max. range by about 4. What that means for A2G I don't know.

By: lukos - 24th August 2014 at 18:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

F-35 are first declared to have frontal RCS of a golf ball , about 0.0015 m2 , F-22 are declared to have frontal RCS of a marble , about 0.0001 m2
and that what the Captor-E claims detection based on
However
interview recently with gen Mike Hostage show that

so it really likely that F-35 RCS is closer or even lower than 0.0001 m2 ( better than F-22 ) probably due to improvement in material

also detection range of fighter radar here probably based on a low volume cued search

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?

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.

By: lukos - 24th August 2014 at 22:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

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

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.

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. The F-35 does use active cancellation AFAIK.

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. 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.

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

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.

By: lukos - 24th August 2014 at 22:08 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

RIM-66A range= 32 km the air to ground version of it: AGM-78 Range= 90 km so from GtA to AtG the range increase by about 3 times

MICA VL - 20km. MICA IR/EM - 80km. SLAMRAAM - 33km (AIM-120C-7???). AIM-120C-7 - 120km.

You have to be careful you're comparing apples to apples:

RIM-66 is a different length (warhead may be lighter too if same as RIM-67):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-78_Standard_ARM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-66_Standard

By: Hotshot - 25th August 2014 at 07:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

so i think Aim-9X block III again ground target probably have range increase by 3.3 times

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.

By: Hotshot - 25th August 2014 at 08:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

AESA , PESA radar have almost every thing inside the antenna so if you destroy it it pretty much over
solid state Pulse-Doppler radar often have low performer so no needd to worry about

I admit you have a point here if the antenna contains all the electronics.

f-35 detection and targeting range again ground target is pretty much limited to about 80-100 km what why i dont really like long range missile ( unless you try to attack a ship )

The missile would attack fixed targets whose coordinated are known from other sources ( satellites etc... ). The SDB1 missile would be good to attack fixed targets. Against radars, the F-35s can triangulate from 300km to have the approximate location of the target. These radars are very powerful so the F-35's ESM would have no trouble datecting them at long range. The SDB2 missile with its tri-mode seeker would be sent in the killing zone and would find the target by itself.

Both the SDB1 and SDB2 missiles would be able to attack ships. They have much larger warheads than the spear 3.

Another advantage of the missile is that the F-35 would be able to launch from much further, so it would have more fuel reserves. That extra fuel could be used by the F-35 to attack in supercruise at mach 1.2, which would be usefull for initial strikes.

Nap of the earth is more for anti ship mission , because ship often have really strong radar EX spy-1D , Smart-L , they also have very strong defense , not to mention modern ship even have stealth so harder to detect them from long range
SPEAR have so many different sensor making jamming them almost impossible , engine mean they are lest affected by altitude droping , one f-35 can carry 24 of them
24 stealth SPEAR will have better chance to penetrate the defense due to number alone , they will not sink the ship obviously , but if they managed to damage the Radar then it pretty much a mission kill , make the ship useless

Nap of the Earth could be used against ground targets too, armored convoys etc in depth... If the F-35 carries spears externally its RCS would not allow an attack from altitude if the target is deep in enemy airspace.

Against ships it depends whether the F-35 are attacking a carrier group or not. In that case the enemy fighters would detect the F-35s if they have external weapons at low altitude.

I wonder what the SDB2 range would be if launched from very low altitude with a loft trajectory. Perhaps 20km. That may be enough to attack say a convoy. Some F-35s at high altitude in stealth mode would be needed to guide the weapons.

what i think idea is SPEAR with stealth airframe but a different warhead , instead of a single warhead like now , it can have warhead that contain many flechette that it will release when going close to the target kind of like Hydra 70 or 35mm AHEAD shell , that would be impossible for CIWS to intercept , although that not sink the ship it will damage all the radar , optic equipment , destroy the skin make the ship no longer stealth , and then when the ship is defenseless a GBU-12 can sink it

That could be a good idea, but for the Hydra or AHEAD shell, the speed is much higher than for the subsonic spear 3, so the kinetic energy of the flechette would be much lower. They wouldn't have much penetration capability, would they even be able of going through the radar cover? Maybe, I don't know.

Also, at what range does the hydra or AHEAD shell release its flechettes. I would say probably at close range in order to avoid too much dispersion. Would a spear release its flechettes beyond the range of a CIWS?

By: lukos - 25th August 2014 at 11:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

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

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.

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 )

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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 )

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.

By: lukos - 25th August 2014 at 11:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

actually SLAMRAAM-ER have range about 40 km but it a different missiles , the orign SLAMRAAM have range of only 17 km
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/raytheon-goes-for-grand-slam-214940/

anyway
the reason why SAM have longer range when they are adopted to be use as AAM is due to the extra speed of aircraft when launching and the altitude ( thinner air )
however the Aim-9X range already have all these advantage , so the increase range will only due to the fact that ground target are very slow , or doesnt move at all , so missile probably dont need to maneuver
a better example probably the AIM-9B/C to AIM-122
AIM-9B/C have range about 4.8 km
AIM-122 have range about 16.5 km
so i think Aim-9X block III again ground target probably have range increase by 3.3 times

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

By: lukos - 25th August 2014 at 21:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00

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

CAMM is due to be deployed on land, sea and air eventually. Here it mentions potential for use against surface targets:

http://www.mbda-systems.com/files/docs/flaads_june2010_press_information.pdf

It can also be used against surface targets.

Ultimately I think the way to go is an ARM version of Meteor, or maybe a JDRADM version.