Stealth or Electronics? better use of money spent on aircraft ?

[Signalian]

A professor argues that since 100% stealth is not achievable, the amount of money spent on making an aircraft stealthy should rather be spent on electronics such Counter measures for survivability and ease of mission capability etc. According to him, the evolution in radars will always compete with stealth, never letting stealth get an upper hand every time.

In the military environment, survivability is defined as the ability to remain mission capable after a single engagement.

Your thoughts?

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Both are important. Consider Su-30 / 34 / 35. They use radio absorbing paint in conjunction with Khibiny jamming system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khibiny_(electronic_countermeasures_system)

 

[Kamil_baku]

Electronics are also important.. lets say, without AESA radar you cannot have LPI capability and stay really silent..
Or without network enabled warfare, you will need to power on your own radar which will show your own location too..

 

[Ultima Thule]

Electronics are also important.. lets say, without AESA radar you cannot have LPI capability and stay really silent..
Or without network enabled warfare, you will need to power on your own radar which will show your own location too..

Both are important. Consider Su-30 / 34 / 35. They use radio absorbing paint in conjunction with Khibiny jamming system.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khibiny_(electronic_countermeasures_system)

A professor argues that since 100% stealth is not achievable, the amount of money spent on making an aircraft stealthy should rather be spent on electronics such Counter measures for survivability and ease of mission capability etc. According to him, the evolution in radars will always compete with stealth, never letting stealth get an upper hand every time.

In the military environment, survivability is defined as the ability to remain mission capable after a single engagement.

Your thoughts?

Both are compliment to each other

 

[CriticalThought]

@Signalian this is a very broad question. It depends who is your enemy and what are his capabilities. As an extreme example, let us say China creates the ultimate stealth detecting radar. Should Pakistan worry about it in the context of India/Pakistan warfare? Probably not. The question of whether Pakistan should invest in stealth goes back to who are Pakistan's enemies and what are their capabilities.

 

[gambit]

A professor argues that since 100% stealth is not achievable, the amount of money spent on making an aircraft stealthy should rather be spent on electronics such Counter measures for survivability and ease of mission capability etc. According to him, the evolution in radars will always compete with stealth, never letting stealth get an upper hand every time.

In the military environment, survivability is defined as the ability to remain mission capable after a single engagement.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts is that this professor does not know what he is talking about.

First...If his words were '100% stealth' then it is definite that he does not know what he is talking about. The correct phrase is 'low radar observable', meaning if a properly SHAPED body is inside a radar beam, its radar cross section (RCS) value is smaller than a comparable body that is not equally SHAPED. There is no such thing as '100% stealth'. Radar sees everything. It is only the distance that matters and low radar observable bodies have that detection distance shorter.

Second...Being low radar observable or 'stealthy' is mostly a warfare related feature. If a jet flies below the radar horizon, then it is being 'stealthy', so combat tactics already can give the upper hand over the radar at certain situations. Being low radar observable or 'stealthy' does not give license to being careless with the seeking radar, rather, being low radar observable allows the jet to remain difficult to detect when avoidance of the seeking radar is not possible.

 

[Kamil_baku]

My thoughts is that this professor does not know what he is talking about.

First...If his words were '100% stealth' then it is definite that he does not know what he is talking about. The correct phrase is 'low radar observable', meaning if a properly SHAPED body is inside a radar beam, its radar cross section (RCS) value is smaller than a comparable body that is not equally SHAPED. There is no such thing as '100% stealth'. Radar sees everything. It is only the distance that matters and low radar observable bodies have that detection distance shorter.

Second...Being low radar observable or 'stealthy' is mostly a warfare related feature. If a jet flies below the radar horizon, then it is being 'stealthy', so combat tactics already can give the upper hand over the radar at certain situations. Being low radar observable or 'stealthy' does not give license to being careless with the seeking radar, rather, being low radar observable allows the jet to remain difficult to detect when avoidance of the seeking radar is not possible.

What if the other side has Awacs? Below radar horizon will not work there...

 

[gambit]

What if the other side has Awacs? Below radar horizon will not work there...

The physics are still the same: difficult to have a consistent track of a low radar observable body.

 

[Hassan Guy]

a big a$$ engine

 

[Kamil_baku]

The physics are still the same: difficult to have a consistent track of a low radar observable body.

its true that it will eventually see it.. but if i see you twice the distance that you will see me, i can actually shoot you down.. thats the problem..

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

BVR is extremely unreliable at long range. True, most modern BVR have range more than 100 km, but just like anything else, reliability decreases with increased distance. Most pilots won't fire BVR until about 50 or even 30 km from the target. Would you shoot an RPG-7 at 500 meters? What's the point? The probability of a hit is near 0. RPG-7 is shot at a distance of no more than 100 meters in more than 90% of the case. BVR is not the magical solution. Modern air combat still heavily focuses on WVR or near BVR.

 

[Ultima Thule]

BVR is extremely unreliable at long range. True, most modern BVR have range more than 100 km, but just like anything else, reliability decreases with increased distance. Most pilots won't fire BVR until about 50 or even 30 km from the target. Would you shoot an RPG-7 at 500 meters? What's the point? The probability of a hit is near 0. RPG-7 is shot at a distance of no more than 100 meters in more than 90% of the case. BVR is not the magical solution. Modern air combat still heavily focuses on WVR or near BVR.

yes in the past they are extremely unreliable at long ranges but they are getting better & better with time, for example in Vietnam war BVR hit rate was less than 5% but in first gulf war, Yugoslav war BVR increases it hit % to 60- 70 % at long ranges @undertakerwwefan

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

yes in the past they are extremely unreliable at long ranges but they are getting better & better with time, for example in Vietnam war BVR hit rate was less than 5% but in first gulf war, Yugoslav war BVR increases it hit % to 60- 70 % at long ranges @undertakerwwefan

True. America isn't short of BVR missiles. American pilots shy away from WVR like they shy away from the plague. Out of 100 BVR missiles American pilots shoot, probably less than 10% hit home. They shoot 1000 BVR missiles they can down every single Iraqi and Serbian fighter jet which lack BVR missiles.

 

[Ultima Thule]

True. America isn't short of BVR missiles. American pilots shy away from WVR like they shy away from the plague. Out of 100 BVR missiles American pilots shoot, probably less than 10% hit home. They shoot 1000 BVR missiles they can down every single Iraqi and Serbian fighter jet which lack BVR missiles.

Future air to air battle will be fight in BVR arena close in fight will become secondary considration @undertakerwwefan

 

[Yongpeng Sun-Tastaufen]

Future air to air battle will be fight in BVR arena close in fight will become secondary considration @undertakerwwefan

You keep talking about a scenario that has less probability of happening than a giant meteor hitting Earth and killing all life as we know it. You are paranoid. You need serious psych treatment. Like I said, get over it.