Fifth Generation Plane Era! Is it really going to be so?

[gambit]

The B-2 and F-22 have been flown around the world, even for public displays, but they flew with radar enhancers for two reasons: To make themselves available to air traffic controllers and to mask their true RCS figures. This fact is not unknown. In combat, those enhancers will be removed, leaving anyone who used the false RCS figures as baseline measurements equally ignorant as before.

 

[pmukherjee]

Do you have any idea how easily this was dismissed by those of us who do have relevant knowledge and experience in avionics? NATO flew about 21,000 sorties over Yugoslavia, out of those were about 4,500 low altitude low speed SEAD sorties. We have TWO losses, an F-16 and an F-117. If whatever modifications were made supposed to work so well, then at least why not more ''non-stealth' aircrafts shot down? After all, if it worked against 'stealth' it should work even better against 'non-stealth', correct? What happened was the typical 'spray and pray' tactic, nothing more.

Come on Gambit, you know it that these birds are so frightfully expensive and complex that even if a couple get knocked off and the pilots forced to eject over hostile territory, it is going to create a huge ruckus. Last time it happened in Bosnia, it led to a review by the Pentagon of the American aims and tactics in the war, it led to an unsavory confrontation with the NATO which contributed to the early termination of the air war in Bosnia AND it led to a movie being made on the episode.
I am in no way denigrating the excellence of the Raptor. It is the best aircraft flying today and is likely to remain so for the next couple of decades, till the Russians catch up, which I have no doubts they eventually will. All I am saying is that effective counter measures will be found before that to inhibit the use of the Raptors with impunity.

 

[gambit]

Come on Gambit, you know it that these birds are so frightfully expensive and complex that even if a couple get knocked off and the pilots forced to eject over hostile territory, it is going to create a huge ruckus. Last time it happened in Bosnia, it led to a review by the Pentagon of the American aims and tactics in the war, it led to an unsavory confrontation with the NATO which contributed to the early termination of the air war in Bosnia AND it led to a movie being made on the episode.
I am in no way denigrating the excellence of the Raptor. It is the best aircraft flying today and is likely to remain so for the next couple of decades, till the Russians catch up, which I have no doubts they eventually will. All I am saying is that effective counter measures will be found before that to inhibit the use of the Raptors with impunity.

You are evading the issue, which is that IF it is possible to detect a US 'stealth' aircraft. You brought on what happened in Yugoslavia as example of that 'if'. There is a saying 'You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.' So once the facts came out, supported by logical thinking, your opinion crumbled. So what if the 'stealth' aircraft program is well nigh prohibitive? Losing a war is far worse. How the air war was conducted over Yugoslavia should not be an example of how we actually COULD wage such a war. The air campaign of Desert Storm should be more instructive to those who are willing to exercise critical thinking skills. That air campaign was practically unrestrained and the air generals were left to theirs and their staffs' creativity. The result was an unprecedented coordination between the sub air forces of many countries and of many branches of services that have their own air wings. The operative word here is 'could' and we did. Learn from it.

 

[Thomas]

Come on Gambit, you know it that these birds are so frightfully expensive and complex that even if a couple get knocked off and the pilots forced to eject over hostile territory, it is going to create a huge ruckus. Last time it happened in Bosnia, it led to a review by the Pentagon of the American aims and tactics in the war, it led to an unsavory confrontation with the NATO which contributed to the early termination of the air war in Bosnia AND it led to a movie being made on the episode.
I am in no way denigrating the excellence of the Raptor. It is the best aircraft flying today and is likely to remain so for the next couple of decades, till the Russians catch up, which I have no doubts they eventually will. All I am saying is that effective counter measures will be found before that to inhibit the use of the Raptors with impunity.

you forget how easy it is to take out radar systems once they are located. aircraft have a higher survival rate then radars. The U.S. has almost 50 years experience at taking out advanced radars. and in the last 5 years that technology has increased. With more advancements in the works. look for small stealth drones that go in and take out air defense sites. Israel used this tactic with amazing effect against Syria in 1982. They sent in drones to destroy the SAM sites. Then sent their fighters in and downed approximately 80 MIGs with 1 loss.

anyone wan't to guess the RCS of these?

 

[SBD-3]

you forget how easy it is to take out radar systems once they are located. aircraft have a higher survival rate then radars. The U.S. has almost 50 years experience at taking out advanced radars. and in the last 5 years that technology has increased. With more advancements in the works. look for small stealth drones that go in and take out air defense sites. Israel used this tactic with amazing effect against Syria in 1982. They sent in drones to destroy the SAM sites. Then sent their fighters in and downed approximately 80 MIGs with 1 loss.

anyone wan't to guess the RCS of these?

in the vicinity of B-2 due to shape resemblance

 

[gambit]

anyone wan't to guess the RCS of these?

I pointed out elsewhere here that when a radar system is 'spec-ed' out for development and purchase, the specs would be something in the line of: 'The system must be able to detect a 5m2 target at 200km.' Or something to that effect.

For the body above, I would guess that it would be something like: 'The target will be 5m2 when it is in-your-face.'

 

[SBD-3]

I pointed out elsewhere here that when a radar system is 'spec-ed' out for development and purchase, the specs would be something in the line of: 'The system must be able to detect a 5m2 target at 200km.' Or something to that effect.

For the body above, I would guess that it would be something like: 'The target will be 5m2 when it is in-your-face.'

complete stealth han?

 

[gambit]

complete stealth han?

I have no problem repeating this: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "COMPLETE STEALTH".

What we have are degrees of observability. For any radar system, there is somethiing called 'maximum effective detection range' and the criteria is IF the system is able to detect a target %50 of the time at a so-and-so distance. So if I were to spec-ed out a radar system for purchase, when I say to the manufacturer: 'The system must be able to detect a 5m2 target at 200km.' What I really really really mean is that the system SHOULD be able to guess that at 200km distance, there is a target that is five meters square large and that guess is correct half the time.

Any target can be five meters square large to a radar but the problem for a moving target is DISTANCE and therefore WHEN will that body become five meters square large. So if the manufacturer managed to comply with my specs and I encounter an enemy who become five meters square large at 20km it is not his fault. The enemy just happened to be electronically smaller than what my radar is capable of 'guessing' at any distance beyond 20km. So for rhetorics sake you can call it 'complete stealth' since 20km is pretty much weapons release point for lobbing bombs that can also glide some more distance, but technically speaking, nothing is 'invisible'.

As a side note, that maximum effective detection range is factored in with clutter and constant false alarm rate (CFAR) processing...

Constant false alarm rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Constant false alarm rate (CFAR) detection refers to a common form of adaptive algorithm used in radar systems to detect target returns against a background of noise, clutter and interference. Other detection algorithms are not adaptive. Non-adaptive detectors are sometimes referred to as clairvoyant detectors

There are dedicated CFAR engineers who retired, to very nice boathouses in the Florida Keys, without touching anything else in their careers. This is a can of worms that is beyond the scope of this discussion. American 'stealth' aircrafts are designed to be in the clutter region and to create CFAR ambiguities in radar systems.

 

[SBD-3]

I have no problem repeating this: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "COMPLETE STEALTH".

What we have are degrees of observability. For any radar system, there is somethiing called 'maximum effective detection range' and the criteria is IF the system is able to detect a target %50 of the time at a so-and-so distance. So if I were to spec-ed out a radar system for purchase, when I say to the manufacturer: 'The system must be able to detect a 5m2 target at 200km.' What I really really really mean is that the system SHOULD be able to guess that at 200km distance, there is a target that is five meters square large and that guess is correct half the time.

Any target can be five meters square large to a radar but the problem for a moving target is DISTANCE and therefore WHEN will that body become five meters square large. So if the manufacturer managed to comply with my specs and I encounter an enemy who become five meters square large at 20km it is not his fault. The enemy just happened to be electronically smaller than what my radar is capable of 'guessing' at any distance beyond 20km. So for rhetorics sake you can call it 'complete stealth' since 20km is pretty much weapons release point for lobbing bombs that can also glide some more distance, but technically speaking, nothing is 'invisible'.

As a side note, that maximum effective detection range is factored in with clutter and constant false alarm rate (CFAR) processing...

Constant false alarm rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are dedicated CFAR engineers who retired, to very nice boathouses in the Florida Keys, without touching anything else in their careers. This is a can of worms that is beyond the scope of this discussion. American 'stealth' aircrafts are designed to be in the clutter region and to create CFAR ambiguities in radar systems.

Interesting and very knowledgeable. I can make you my mentor

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

Fifth Generation Plane Era is hit hard by world recession

 

[Thomas]

Fifth Generation Plane Era is hit hard by world recession

That still wont keep the U.S. from building at least 2000 F-35's on top of the 177 F-22's

 

[gambit]

I am going to explain the basics in plain language on what is clutter and what is constant false alarm rate (CFAR) processing and it will be clear on why these two items are directly related to the topic.

Suppose I look out at a fraction of a skyline of a large city. I am seeing everything from zero altitude, meaning structures that is one-story high, to buildings with dozens of floors. Suppose I am informed that %40 of the structures are 1-10 floors high, %30 are 10-15 floors high, %20 are 15-30 floors high and the remainder %10 are 30+ floors high.

If I filter out any structures that are 10 floors or below, that is 'clutter', essentially 'clutter' is anything I do not want to see, therefore, 'clutter' is one man's treasure while being another man's trash. For a weather radar, anything man-made is 'clutter'. For an air traffic controller radar, clouds can be 'clutter'. This leave me with over %50 of structures that I have to deal with except this time their profiles created huge gaps in my new view of the skyline.

Suppose I am looking for a helo and the only criteria is altitude, or height, that this object is able to attained. Now there is a serious problem because the helo can be at zero altitude or as high as the tallest buildiing in the city. I have already blocked from my view approximately ten-floors worth of height, or altitude, and call any object within this range as 'trash'. Any structures that are still within my view are now 'false alarms' because they just happened to be the same height, or altitude, as the helo, which may or may not be at those altitudes.

Keep in mind that I do not have the complete skyline view of the city and am scanning. Also keep in mind that for simplistic sakes, the height or altitude of an object is the only criteria here.

So if this mysterious helo just happened to rise above ten-floors worth of altitude, I have to respond to every object that is within my view and examine that object and categorize each as 'false alarm' before moving on to the next object. If I raise my 'clutter' filter to remove the %30 of structures that are 10-15 floors high, meaning raising higher the blinders in front of my eyes, then my odds of finding the helo dramatically decreases. That helo could be within the 'clutter' region that I am not seeing, or it could be among the remaining structures that are higher than 15 floors. There would be less 'false alarms' but the odds of finding the helo are not good because my 'clutter' filter is set so high.

This is the essence of 'clutter' and 'false alarm' in very simple terms so the readers can easily imagine the basic concepts. Now throw in weather, terrain, birds, civil aviation and perhaps even UFOs and it is clear that this is a complex topic and why these 'stealth' aircrafts are so expensive to design and manufacture and why it is so difficult to find them.

 

[Gin ka Pakistan]

That still wont keep the U.S. from building at least 2000 F-35's on top of the 177 F-22's

More deficit and borrowing

 

[Thomas]

More deficit and borrowing

I prefere to look at it more as China financing them for us.

 

[gambit]

I prefere to look at it more as China financing them for us.

And if we default on the loan, let the PRC come and try to repossess them.