Too much faith in stealth technology?

[evangilder]

I would venture to guess that the A-10's ultimate replacement will be unmanned. That kind of duty needs to be performed by something well armored and highly agile. It's not duty for a multi-role fighter. At one point, the F-16 was to replace the A-10. It is currently slated to serve with the USAF until at least 2028. By then UAVs will most likely take over that role.

 

[gjs238]

You're kidding, right?

Well, which is the best of the three, the Su-34?
How does that compare to the F-111?

 

[wuzak]

Well, which is the best of the three, the Su-34?
How does that compare to the F-111?

Less range, less speed, less load.

 

[nuuumannn]

Hi gjs38,

Less range, less speed, less load.

Yep, sure does. The F-111 was in a league of its own; it could carry a heavier load across a greater distance at a higher speed than all of those you listed. It was optimised for low level strike at sustained supersonic speeds. According to one source of info, the F-111C had an unrefuelled range on internal fuel of over 2,500 nm. It's max take-off weight was around 110,000 lbs. it was years ahead of its time when it first appeared and to date, nothing in service has the same capability.

I have to admit I'm not very knowledgeable on current designs, but from what reading I've doen recently, the Su-34 is indeed a formidable warplane. I found this on the net:

"In comparing the basic Su-32/34 airframe against Western types, the design with 12.1 tonnes (26.7 klb) of internal fuel sits in between the Boeing F-15E and F-111 in combat radius and weapon payload capabilities. It will provide at lower gross weights lower agility than the F-15E, but higher agility than the F-111. Its top end supersonic performance is inferior to both US types. Like both US types, the aircraft is intended to perform low altitude penetration using terrain following radar (TFR) functions. Unlike the F-15E with a podded LANTIRN TFR and the F-111 with a dedicated redundant APQ-171 TFR, the Su-32/34 uses a phased array which interleaves TFR and other modes, a concept used previously only the in B-1B's APQ-164 phased array."

 

[vanir]

In 6 years? I doubt it. The counter to stealth has been known for a very long time - it's called bi-static radar where the transmitter and receiver are located far enough apart that signals reflected by a stealthy aircraft are still able to be collected (basically using the stealth design against itself). The challenge is making such a system work viably in an operational setting, and then to use such a system to get a weapon onto the target. Oh, and it has to be survivable too so fixed facilities are a no-no. The cost and technical complexity of such systems pretty much puts them out of reach for most of the world, and the rest are too busy making money or staying alive to care about such esoteric pieces of military hardware. In short, I think Oz will do very well with the F-35 - it may not be a "Pig" but I think it will do the job it's designed to do.

According to Mikoyan this was the specific reason for the datalinked fire control system built into the Foxhound back when the HaveBlue Project was still news. The US move into stealth was entirely predictable, for this reason Kelly Johnson warns against it and suggests it was an error of judgement by the DoD. He says an updated F-15 replacement, essentially a Flanker-like aircraft would've been longer term thinking and more appropriate to common requirements. Instead of trying to one up the Eagle, just enjoy the fact it is now cheaper to match its performance, and even exceed it without service trialling whimsical new technologies during peacetime, upon massive scale. Actually he even thought the transonic emphasis by the Air Force was a mistake and thought the continued high performance emphasis of Russian aircraft design would draw ahead in the future in service models, he was all for translating SR71 technology developments (in a demonstrator capacity) into new front line fighters.

Mikoyan states that a single Foxhound or Su-30 (PVO version as opposed to VVS Su-30M multirole) controller aircraft can, with a flight of any MiG 9-13 or Su-27 intercept radar signals along a concave front some 270km in diameter, reliably exposing deflection type stealth measures.
The primary stealth feature of current US warplanes then is the special coating on the surfaces to absorb radar/sensors. It is extremely expensive and wears very poorly, iirc you get three sorties before a recoat. I wouldn't know a realistic figure myself and that could be just media hype.

The reason stated why the Raptor would not be involved in the Middle East is cost/sortie rate. Same problem with B2, same problem with F35. And anyway as F16 and A10 designer states in interview, cost recovery is about two things: mundane utilitarian use and export value. The entire cost recovery philosophy for the whole bunch is export value, and they're well blown out economically compared to other types that are perfectly capable of the getting the job done at a third the price.

And for Australia, hate to go along with that extremist blogger doing the rounds everyone's heard of, Air Power Australia or some rot, but the truth is being an island nation with a great big coral sea to police, we'd never get to use F35 stealth anyway because it has to be packed with stores just to be useful, and even then only at coastal ranges. It's designed for god knows what, useless plane if you ask me, but we can't use it either way in any capacity any better than a Viper. We just plain have higher airframe requirements than avionics requirements, it's circumstantial but goes with the territory, the US is concerned with a more electronics warfare environment. Who will we fight, Indonesia, India, China, North Korea, avionics isn't exactly going to have prestigé of old fashioned basics like combat range and performance under heavy load bearing and rough field operation.
SuperHornets are pretty good, expensive but fantastic supersonic cruise range because like all Hornets they can do it at 75% and supercruise just not as fast as a Raptor in that, 1.02M vs 1.4M or somesuch, but it doesn't burn much fuel doing it. Has a great subsonic range. Great stores. Existing pilot familiarity. Increased capability over the Pigs.

 

[buffnut453]

Vanir,

Mikoyan's claim, according to your post, is that they can intercept reflected radar signals from a stealth aircraft using multiple aircraft flying over a wide area. That's entirely believable. Are they also claiming to be able to get a firing solution based on those signals? Also, Mikoyan is hardly a disinterested bystander - they're going toe-to-toe against the F-35 for the export market but they don't have anything comparable to offer, so it's hardly surprising that they're going to infer weaknesses in their competitors' capability. Bottom line, though, is that a non-stealth aircraft doesn't prompt the unusual widespread, multi-aircraft tactics that Mikoyan is hinting at, ergo the stealth capability has already forced the opposition to put more aircraft in the air over a much broader area to attempt an intercept...and with no promise that it will actually be successful.

You state, "Who will we fight, Indonesia, India, China, North Korea, avionics isn't exactly going to have prestigé of old fashioned basics like combat range and performance under heavy load bearing and rough field operation." Well, you aren't going to fight China or North Korea without the USA. I don't see you going to war with Indonesia or India either, unless you count the non-conventional GWOT issues with the former. Indeed, where has Australia gone to war recently - Iraq and Afghanistan, not the Pacific rim. So bottom line is you're really worried about patrolling a large patch of sea in a non-warfare role so why the gripe about carrying external stores?

Finally, do not dismiss the issue of avionics. It's bluddy hard finding spares for ancient microchips used in older generations of aircraft, and retro-fitting isn't easy - look at what it took to get the Tornado GR1 upgraded to GR4 (ok, perhaps not the greatest example). Buying current technology that's already been in-service for a long time isn't the best way to keep your fighting forces combat ready. Indeed, that's one reason why the Pig was retired. It was just impossibly expensive to keep it flying when nobody else was operating the type and the obtaining of spares became increasingly difficult. As Wg Cdr Gray puts it in this article, the Pig was "easy to fly but difficult to operate".

F-111 flies into history | Australian Aviation Magazine

The same issues would be encountered with the Superbugs once they are replaced by F-35s in USN and USMC service. Having a brand new, front-line jet that's also a key asset in the USAF, USN and USMC arsenals is a strong argument because operating costs and technical risk are both reduced.

 

[tomo pauk]

When one looks at Australia's defence needs from half a globe away, seems people down under would need more a 21th century Mosquito, than a 21th century Spitfire?

 

[evangilder]

There are a number of factual inaccuracies in your post, vanir. The B-2 has in fact been used in the Middle East. It was used in the the Kosovo War, Afghanistan, Iraq and even in the early days of the Libya conflict. While there are a few shortcomings in the radar absorbent paint, repainting after three sorties is a fantasy. Paint is not the only thing keeping these aircraft in the low observability range.

And while I am a fan of the F-111, it's combat record was far from impressive. It had impressive stats and range and payload were good on paper. But long range strikes, even when things are working right, are difficult to accomplish. After a long flight, then flying through air defenses, fatigue and adrenaline can effect concentration. Lets look at the Libya raid in 1986 done by 18 F-111Fs out of Lakenheath.

Target 1: Bab al-Azizia barracks. 9 F-111Fs, each armed with 4 GBU-10 2,000 lb Laser guided bombs.
Score: 3 bombed, 1 miss, 4 aborts, 1 lost
13 hits out of 36 weapons
Effectiveness 36%
Target 2: Murat Sidi Bilal camp. 3 F-111Fs, each armed with 4 GBU-10 2,000 lb Laser guided bombs.
Score: 3 hits
12 hits out of 12 weapons
Effectiveness: 100%
Target 3: Tripoli airfield. 6 F-111Fs, each armed with 12 Mk 82 500 lb bombs.
Score: 5 bombed 1 abort.
70 hits out of 84 weapons
Effectiveness: 83%

While it was an overall success, the effectiveness of the F-111 against a difficult target after a long flight is not a resounding success.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Going full circle here (a bit) the F-117A during the Gulf War had an 80% accuracy rate according to the USAF. The -117A was designed to not only give a better accuracy rate when compared to other fighter bombers at the time, but to be able to penetrate hardened bunkers

 

[pbfoot]

The F111 was probably a very tired work intensive bird and thats why shes gone , I'm curious as to how many man hours maintainence for every flight hour on the F111 at the end of her career

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The F111 was probably a very tired work intensive bird and thats why shes gone , I'm curious as to how many man hours maintainence for every flight hour on the F111 at the end of her career

Actually it's not. I had friends who worked on the mod line at Palmdale in the late 90s and better surface prep processes and materials enabled surface maintenance to be no more difficult than any other composite aircraft. The 117A was "semi-retired" because of budgetary considerations and making room for the F-35. A fleet of -117s are in storage at Tonopah NV and can be placed back in service at any time.

 

[nuuumannn]

I think pbfoot's refering to the F-111, Joe. I used to know a former RAAF F-111 engineer who got real sick from the sealant used in the fuel tanks; he said that from a maintenance standpoint the F-111 lived up to its Aussie nickname; "Never wrestle with a Pig, you end up dirty and the Pig likes it..."

 

[FLYBOYJ]

You're right, my bad! Saw 3 numbers and my brain went into "stealth mode!" Sorry Pb!

 

[nuuumannn]

Have to say, Joe, I was a little surprised when they announced the 'retirement' of the F-117A. I thought an asset like that would have been highly prized, especially since the F-35 isn't in service yet.

 

[fubar57]

Canada is replacing it's CF-18 fleet with the F-35. A single engine jet has no place in the high arctic where the CF-18 patrols. As for it's stealth capabilities...against what? Caribou!!! I'm not against upgrading the air force but surely the cheaper newest Hornet would be better suited for Canada's purpose.

Geo

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Have to say, Joe, I was a little surprised when they announced the 'retirement' of the F-117A. I thought an asset like that would have been highly prized, especially since the F-35 isn't in service yet.

Probably why they are in storage

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Canada is replacing it's CF-18 fleet with the F-35. A single engine jet has no place in the high arctic where the CF-18 patrols. As for it's stealth capabilities...against what? Caribou!!! I'm not against upgrading the air force but surely the cheaper newest Hornet would be better suited for Canada's purpose.

Geo

I somewhat have to agree but on the other end Canada will probably have a large offset stake in their purchase

 

[Glider]

I can see why they are going with the F35. The Hornet must now be at or be lcose to its peak in development potential. The F35 is clearly only beginning. In 20 years time I doubt that the F18 will be able to hold its own against the best whereas the F35 has every chance of doing so and its that long term situation that would been an important consideration.

The decision of Canada to go for the F35 must have had an impact on the chances of other nations who are looking at purchasing new combat aircraft. Canada is well respected and people will be asking why they went for the F35 instead of the F18 which of course they already operate.

Back to original question of there being too much faith in Stealth, who knows. I attended a debate at the RUSI last year and one idea that was mentioned was the increase in computer power is the biggest threat to Stealth. In brief the arguement was that stealth doesn't stop the aircraft giving a reflection, it make is much smaller say to the size of a bird, so it becomes invisible. However, once the computers can identify a bird flying at 600mph from those going 20mph then the game is up. Its an interesting theory

 

[michaelmaltby]

" .... A single engine jet has no place in the high arctic where the CF-18 patrols. As for it's stealth capabilities...against what? ..."

" ... I somewhat have to agree but on the other end Canada will probably have a large offset stake in their purchase".

That's the idea .... keep the aerospace industry moving with the times.

I think the F-35 will be used in all sorts of situations that we haven't imagined ourselves in yet.

When Canada bought the F-18's they were the first multi-role AC Canada had bought new that hadn't been a license-build from CANADAIR (now Bombardier). This was all hugely political .... but without going there .... the same government that fed Bombardier, joined the F-35 project at the ininitial "offering". That government is no longer the government and doesn't seem to like its own legacy.

In today's (technology) environment, I think the single-engine over the arctic issue is just much about very little. If Lockheed U-2's were/are able to fly deep penetrations into hostile airspace with a single engine - I think the fine girls and boys of our RCAF can manage with the single-engined F-35.

For Canada - cruise and 'stealth' make for surprise. When you don't have Divisions to deploy, surprise is cost-effective at any price, in any situation. (Like the little black dress, Ladies )

MM

 

[FLYBOYJ]

"but on the other end Canada will probably have a large offset stake in their purchase".

That's the idea .... keep the aerospace industry moving with the times.

The CP-140 program was 100% offset by several Canadian aircraft contractors - Canadair (Bombardier) Bristol, Enheat, IMP, and Fleet Industries. There were a few smaller ones. From 1978 until 1990 about 40% of the CP-140 and P-3 were manufactured in Canada.