First Three F-35A Lighting II Fighter Jets Arrive At Norway's Ørland Air Base

[Nefarious]

Delays and cost overruns aside I would still take my chance in an F-35 anyday. This goes for airforces around the world who would also jump at the chance at inducting the F-35.

 

[ArcaniusXI]

Stealth aircraft, aesthetically, look much more intimidating than most 4th gen fighters imo.

 

[Gomig-21]

Absolutely. The US builds the WORST fighters in the world.

Until you made that post, no one said anything of the sorts. Everyone knows the US makes the best fighters and aviation tech and have been ahead of everyone else for a long time. That wasn't the point of anything said in the previous posts combined.

As a USAF veteran of the F-111 and F-16 during the Cold War, I want US to be considered third tier by everyone.

Since you always tote that line for some reason, as if you constantly need to remind people, you should also present your pedigree in a clearer manner, as in you were a veteran crewman and technician for the F-111 and F-16 so that people understand your exact role and not think you are something else since you kinda put it in a bit of an ambiguous manner, where one can think you were something else than what you were.

To counter stealth, there is a need for a sensor "fence", which is dense enough to
detect any stealth fighter passing by, and can relay information to the defense network.
It also need redundancy to allow a number of sensors to be destroyed.
The sensors should be cheap enough to be expendable.
Weather balloons come to mind, but they are hard to control.
Some kind of stealth UAV which can stay in the air for days or weeks would be ideal.
Gripen fighters will then be able to kill off the stealth fighter, using target
information coming through the datalink.

Are you suggesting that is what the Swedes would do in an exercise with the Norwegians and Finns? Or something similar?

BTW, my guess is it will be a while before either of those two learn to use the F-35 to its full potential.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Until you made that post, no one said anything of the sorts. Everyone knows the US makes the best fighters and aviation tech and have been ahead of everyone else for a long time. That wasn't the point of anything said in the previous posts combined.



Since you always tote that line for some reason, as if you constantly need to remind people, you should also present your pedigree in a clearer manner, as in you were a veteran crewman and technician for the F-111 and F-16 so that people understand your exact role and not think you are something else since you kinda put it in a bit of an ambiguous manner, where one can think you were something else than what you were.



Are you suggesting that is what the Swedes would do in an exercise with the Norwegians and Finns? Or something similar?

BTW, my guess is it will be a while before either of those two learn to use the F-35 to its full potential.

I think that is what needs to be done.
SAAB has announced that they are working on drones which will work as remote sensors
for Gripen, but I do not see any products.

Finns are still flying their F-18 Hornets. Looking for a replacement,
but they will not make a decision for some time.

 

[Gomig-21]

I think that is what needs to be done.
SAAB has announced that they are working on drones which will work as remote sensors
for Gripen, but I do not see any products.

How would the sensors in the drones detect the F-35 in the first place so to be able to relay the info to a group of trailing Gripens? Are you saying that you send out enough, cheap sensors so that a group of incoming F-35s see them, destroy them and in the process of destroying them, the surviving ones relay information back to the trailing Gripens as to the location of the F-35s and then the Gripens can then take them out?

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

How would the sensors in the drones detect the F-35 in the first place so to be able to relay the info to a group of trailing Gripens? Are you saying that you send out enough, cheap sensors so that a group of incoming F-35s see them, destroy them and in the process of destroying them, the surviving ones relay information back to the trailing Gripens as to the location of the F-35s and then the Gripens can then take them out?

Not quite. The drones needs to be stealthy, preferably using passive sensors,
so that they are difficult to detect.
The F-35s will detect a few, and if they are destroyed, the absense of communication will
be detected, and resources can then focus on that area.

Not all will be detected/destroyed and they will be able to transmit information
about the penetration to the network.
The sensors only needs to give a general position, if the weapon fired
is smart enough to lock on after they get close based on the general location.
It does have to discriminate between a real threat and a drone employed to fool the defender.

 

[VCheng]

How would the sensors in the drones detect the F-35 in the first place so to be able to relay the info to a group of trailing Gripens? Are you saying that you send out enough, cheap sensors so that a group of incoming F-35s see them, destroy them and in the process of destroying them, the surviving ones relay information back to the trailing Gripens as to the location of the F-35s and then the Gripens can then take them out?

Assuming the F-35s are not controlling drones of their own, of course.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Assuming the F-35s are not controlling drones of their own, of course.

The drones may detect each other but the defender would be in a better position to do anything about it, since he will have closer to resources.
The defender may keep his fighters on the ground until the F-35 shows up on the drones sensors,
and will only take off for a pot shot, or the sensors will guide SAMs.

 

[Gomig-21]

Not quite. The drones needs to be stealthy, preferably using passive sensors,
so that they are difficult to detect.
The F-35s will detect a few, and if they are destroyed, the absense of communication will
be detected, and resources can then focus on that area.

Not all will be detected/destroyed and they will be able to transmit information
about the penetration to the network.
The sensors only needs to give a general position, if the weapon fired
is smart enough to lock on after they get close based on the general location.
It does have to discriminate between a real threat and a drone employed to fool the defender.

It's a good idea but I'm sure you realize what the problem is. How or when do you deploy these drones with passive sensors? You're talking about a technology that needs unprecedented loiter time. In that case, why not invest in a high resolution satellite or surveillance radar that detects and transmits information in real time. This would take care of the loiter issue because the only time those drones would be useful is if you knew of an impending attack so you can launch them ahead of time. Otherwise what do you do, have them fly months and months and months in advance? That's why the balloons was a good idea to take care of the loiter and cost problem, but how do you control them remotely?

A LO platform at standoff distances with potent offensive capabilities is very difficult to defend, but on the other hand, each F-35 has only 4 weapons and those are even limited in size. So they'll need to come in as a larger package if they want to be a viable threat. That also creates another defending dilemma, a larger threat count. Plus you have to consider their AEWAC support and escort which adds to their lethality, making it much more difficult. Then there's the problem with EW and jamming if they're using Growlers as electronic warfare support with their NGJ pods.

It seems a stealth radar or surveillance system is almost the only way to go. Then use probing drones as the next step to take care of that loiter issue and now you're not worried about having that fence you talked about up there on a constant basis using up all that energy and fuel and money when nothing is happening.

If early, stealth detection can be achieved, then a combination of a drone and missile with its own IRST and seeker and LOAL capabilities can be deployed. Launch that out once your satellite or surveillance warns you, then it can travel to the area and perform/confirm IFF (which you also mentioned is a problem) and with its ability to lock on after launch, it can engage while at the same time transmit to the Gripens (or whomever) for interception. Then you still have to deal with the F-35 seeing you before you see it, even though that problem is somewhat solved, you still have the issue of taking them down before they do you. I suppose this is where the Meteor has the advantage. It's not an easy problem to solve, but a powerful surveillance system might be the best way to start instead of drones.

Assuming the F-35s are not controlling drones of their own, of course.

There is a reason why most who can procure it are choosing it. But that list I posted of the pros/cons of the F-35 vs Gripen highlights a lot of other important things to consider.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

It's a good idea but I'm sure you realize what the problem is. How or when do you deploy these drones with passive sensors? You're talking about a technology that needs unprecedented loiter time. In that case, why not invest in a high resolution satellite or surveillance radar that detects and transmits information in real time. This would take care of the loiter issue because the only time those drones would be useful is if you knew of an impending attack so you can launch them ahead of time. Otherwise what do you do, have them fly months and months and months in advance? That's why the balloons was a good idea to take care of the loiter and cost problem, but how do you control them remotely?

A LO platform at standoff distances with potent offensive capabilities is very difficult to defend, but on the other hand, each F-35 has only 4 weapons and those are even limited in size. So they'll need to come in as a larger package if they want to be a viable threat. That also creates another defending dilemma, a larger threat count. Plus you have to consider their AEWAC support and escort which adds to their lethality, making it much more difficult. Then there's the problem with EW and jamming if they're using Growlers as electronic warfare support with their NGJ pods.

It seems a stealth radar or surveillance system is almost the only way to go. Then use probing drones as the next step to take care of that loiter issue and now you're not worried about having that fence you talked about up there on a constant basis using up all that energy and fuel and money when nothing is happening.

If early, stealth detection can be achieved, then a combination of a drone and missile with its own IRST and seeker and LOAL capabilities can be deployed. Launch that out once your satellite or surveillance warns you, then it can travel to the area and perform/confirm IFF (which you also mentioned is a problem) and with its ability to lock on after launch, it can engage while at the same time transmit to the Gripens (or whomever) for interception. Then you still have to deal with the F-35 seeing you before you see it, even though that problem is somewhat solved, you still have the issue of taking them down before they do you. I suppose this is where the Meteor has the advantage. It's not an easy problem to solve, but a powerful surveillance system might be the best way to start instead of drones.



There is a reason why most who can procure it are choosing it. But that list I posted of the pros/cons of the F-35 vs Gripen highlights a lot of other important things to consider.

Question is what height a sensor needs to be?

If a Balloon could be on a long wire at 3-4000 meters, the loiter time is pretty long.
A new one can be easily deployed, and is low cost.

Solar cells to provide power to the electronics.

Sensors would be IR, Cameras. Digital Signal Processing is cheap.
If the camera detects a fast object, abd the ground based radar does not, we have a hit...

I do not know what advances in radar technology will bring.
They are putting radars in cars nowadays (my car has one).
If that technology can be used, maybe after a camera makes the initial detection,
it will be pretty cheap.
A network of radars will also be more efficient since stealth scatter incoming waves,
and if the scattered waves can be captured by another sensor, the task is done.

Finally, I am thinking if it is possible for a group of networked radar stations which are located
close, but still not adjacent, in let's say a triangle, can emit waves that looks like
it is emitted from a single point in the middle ground inbetween the radars.
A HARM, fired at "the radar" will hit the middle ground, and will not damage anything useful.
If that is possible, the stealth fighter will be in a much more difficult situation.

Such a radar would only be turned on, after the sensor network detects
the stealth fighter, and a missile has been fired and is closing in.
It would guide the final homing, and turn off.