Some unrelated recent military procurment storiess since I am getting bored of Ukraine

[Morifea]

Yeah, fear us germans :-)

The Problem with a passive Radar is, that you can`t lock a missile on it, its just not precise enough... You see something is there in the Sky, but you don`t know what and where exactly.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Yes, at the moment not precise enough to guide a missile to the target, but the article say further: "though it could be used to send infrared-homing weapons close to a target".

The stealth technology lost its only advantage in comparison to its high costs and low bomb carriage, if it is losing its invulnerability.

Its only a matter of time till a technology to guide missiles to them is invented.

Perhaps via a combination of Wireless Transmission near the object, where the infrared sensor is than activated.

Look at the wireless bombs of WW II:

Henschel Hs 293

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_293

Or Fritz X.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X

The race of arms and countermeasures will never end.

So reliance on one weapon teachnology like stealth is always wrong.

[conon394]

I guess, its only a matter of time, when other nations (Russia, China..) will detect a F 35 on a combat mission.

Looks a like like a stunt. The F-35s were leaving a known location with transponders on and modifications to make them visible in a not war situation. Stealth was never and is not invulnerability it was in investment in reducing odds for a price. Also how well does the system work if a electronic warfare plane is hanging about and flooding everything with noise.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

If you flood the air with noise, you produce even more radio waves, which will be reflected by the F 35.

However, truth be told, the two F-35s, which piloted Pilot Olson and his colleague, were equipped with special radar reflectors. These should ensure that the two jets are definitely visible on a peaceful mission in airspace surveillance. This is a common practice in such situations.

Is that perhaps the simple explanation that the Hensoldt system was able to see the machines? Two of the SPIEGEL contacted radar experts doubt this independently. They consider the "Twinvis" success message quite plausible and point out that the radar reflectors essentially bring more visibility only with active radar systems. The Passivradar would have indeed unmasked the flagship so far a bit.

Translation from: https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/...a-1289333.html

The electromagnetic waves will be reflect from the whole silhuette, not only the little transponders.

I'm happy my government won't invest in such a overpriced plane. Technology to detect them is a much better investment and i reject a weapon system, which main purpose is to start a war with a first strike.

[Love Mountain]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what stealth is. The S-400's main missile, 48N6 has a range of 250 KM against a target that has an RCS of 4 meters squared. An F-35 has an RCS of 0.0001, doing a rough calculation for detection inverse to RCS, that'll give you a reliable engagement range under 20 kilometers. So certainly, once the F-35 gets close enough, you will see it. Moreover, F-35s RCS of 0.0001 is only directly from the front, its RCS will be marginally higher from the sides or other off-angles. However, the point here is that an F-35 can either sneak or severely reduce effectiveness of air defense platforms simply through its stealthy design. Nevermind its EW capabilities or the support assets it will likely have in a confrontation with enemy air defenses.

However, none of this matters because air defense and suppression of air defenses isn't a game of angry circles on the map, and platforms being stealthy enough to snipe them. The actual scenario looks a lot more like cat and mouse. Enemy platforms are camouflaged, they're dormant, and they're waiting for cues or pings from others systems before coming online. Moreover, air defenses are not really there to deny air space indefinitely. There is a reason why Russian air defense is mostly mobile, and incorporates their own air force. Russia is a ground army. They don't need air superiority to operate like United States does. Their indirect fire comes from masses of artillery, rockets, and a new generation of precision weapons. Russian A2/AD strategy (which it isn't really), is mostly about making airspace contested for the "enemy" (Western air blitzkrieg), while ground forces do the actual work.

I know it's a popular trope to either A. Hype up the Russian threat and how it will overrun Europe, and/or B. Disparage everything positive about Russia as their propaganda. There is certainly truth to both notions, but not to the extent that it's been exaggerated. However, Russia is full of very smart people and history has shown that Russians are generally aware of their limitations, their capabilities, and they've waged successful wars despite that. I'm pretty sure that the Russian general staff is well aware that contesting the airspace is simply a matter of buying time to see who breaks first from material and political attrition. To that end, Russians have been aware of stealth for three decades now, and they were one of the first countries to recognize and outline what a "radar cross section" is. If Stealth was so overhyped, neither Russia nor China would spend billions of dollars developing counter measures, and trying to kickstart their own domestic stealth programs.

The image below is from the biggest naysayers of stealth... Hmm, why is the next generation Russian bomber trying to be stealthy?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[conon394]

If you flood the air with noise, you produce even more radio waves, which will be reflected by the F 35.

And the receptors...

Is that perhaps the simple explanation that the Hensoldt system was able to see the machines? Two of the SPIEGEL contacted radar experts doubt this independently. They consider the "Twinvis" success message quite plausible and point out that the radar reflectors essentially bring more visibility only with active radar systems. The Passivradar would have indeed unmasked the flagship so far a bit.

There is a logical flaw in that. Because the system is not passive or is only to the extent it depends on other active signals that is captures the reflection of. A f-35 festooned with devices to make it show up on radar would also be reflecting everything else.

But in any case its still a stunt. They knew when and where the F-35s were, they knew they active transponders on, they knew F-35s were flying a peace time flight where the primary objective was to not kill civilians and not break stuff and not get in the way of normal or emergency air traffic. The operators were not tired or stressed or under any particular pressure...

I'm happy my government won't invest in such a overpriced plane. Technology to detect them is a much better investment and i reject a weapon system, which main purpose is to start a war with a first strike.

Every weapon of any kind is potentially offensive it depends how and why and when it used.

Overpriced compared to what alternatives doing what when.

[Love Mountain]

I'm also curious as to where and what price figures you're quoting. Calculating total program costs is notoriously difficult for military aircraft (or any kind of military hardware really). There are also significant cost differences for different countries. Overall program cost for an American F-35 would probably be wildly different from a Japanese one, or an Israeli one, or a British one, or a Norwegian one...

[conon394]

Me? I generally follow the total life time cost numbers for the F-35. Which was a fantastically poor ideal to generate since nothing its compared to has the same data at hand, but makes for an easy - most expensive plane ever etc line for lazy reporting.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Ok, after reading actual stuff a little bit more, it seems that the costs pro plane have now decreased to 80 million dollars, not 120 or more anymore. So not overpriced, but i'm still no friend of this plane, for example one jet instead of two jets like Eurofighter Typhon or the less sight behind in the F 35 cockpit. So i'm happy, that we haven't bought this plane. A modified Eurofighter Typhon is a adaequat replacement for the old Panavia Tornado.

[95thrifleman]

Ok, after reading actual stuff a little bit more, it seems that the costs pro plane have now decreased to 80 million dollars, not 120 or more anymore. So not overpriced, but i'm still no friend of this plane, for example one jet instead of two jets like Eurofighter Typhon or the less sight behind in the F 35 cockpit. So i'm happy, that we haven't bought this plane. A modified Eurofighter Typhon is a adaequat replacement for the old Panavia Tornado.

Definitely.

I still mourn my stupid government's decision not to fit cats on the carriers and navalise Typhoon.

[conon394]

Posted this on Exarch's latest china love thread but for those avoiding it...

The J-20 looks to have no gun

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...have-gun-40402

So China seems to walking eyes wide shut into the same mistake the US made with the F-4.

The F-35's tiny gun load at 150-180 rounds can perhaps be excused because it supposed to operate with more F-22s at 480 rounds. Personally I find even 480 rounds a mistake and think the ~600-900 load of the F-14 and 15 was a better plan. No matter however the J-20 is as I understand supposed to be comparable to the F-22 in its role - no gun seems foolish.

[B. W.]

Well, here's something. Looks like something is finally being done about the back blast from these shoulder launched rockets. 50 years ago,when I was a grunt, we had the LAW. The back blast from that thing was horrific and you had to be extremely careful to make sure no one or anything else was behind you when you fired it. Anyone standing within 20 feet behind you would be killed and if you fired it without making sure the area behind was clear you could kill yourself from the back blast.

https://www.military.com/daily-news/...box=1572558503

[conon394]

Good for the always useful and inexpensive Carl-Gustaf. The real question is why the US military started the endless war on global terror without it.

[Cyclops]

...

So China seems to walking eyes wide shut into the same mistake the US made with the F-4...

What was the problem with the F4? I'm pretty ignorant about combat aircraft, was that the phantom?

[Morifea]

@Cyclops: No Cannons on that Bird, only rockets. Those didn`t hit as good as expected and the MIG`s over Vietnam had therefore an edge ofer the F-4 for a long time.

[conon394]

What was the problem with the F4? I'm pretty ignorant about combat aircraft, was that the phantom?

Morifea was more a or less concise. For a discussion:

https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-BVR-AAM.html

Note the Russians assume 2-3 (even 4) missiles to get a a long range BVR kill

BVR - myth vs reality

http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/06.pdf

See page 7ff specifically "BVR in practice"

Probability of kill for BVR missiles at actual beyond visual range 6-7%. If you toss in 'tests' then most countries can elevate their supposed kill probability to maybe 50% (but tests well I don't believe them much). This is a problem for stealthy aircraft. The whole point is to not be dog fighting and rather doing BVR shooting. Problem is the stealthy part reduces your payload. Thus the F-35 it can only carry internally 4 AIM-120 missiles (or the various potential replacements) and I think that leaves 2 sidewinder type missiles as well. So you see optimistically being stealthy and assuming just 2 missiles for a long range kill... In fact that chain of logic is probably why the Pentagon belatedly decided to buy the F-15X because they realized the ability to carry 22 air to air missiles would be a good thing in a peer war (theoretically it will be able to get data from an F-22 or F-35)

[Cyclops]

Thx fellas that makes sense and I see the relevance now.

As I say my knowledge of how to put together a combat aircraft is poor, I'd say I have more idea of how to build a star ship from Master of Orion. You'd run into problems in that game as well if you tried to pack all the toys into one small frame, but logistically and from the C&C POV having too many variants flying was a nightmare. For fun I built a "Klingon Bird of Prey" from those silly movies and it was slow AF and had minimal firepower.

[Morifea]

Masters of Orion? Great game.

@Conon394: The second Paper is from 2005, are there no new shiny toys in the area of IFF?
Do the Russians assume those kill ratios for an All-out shooting war, or with civilian Planes still around? Or maybe they don`t care, looking at you, MH17

[Love Mountain]

As a side note, even if you do or do not believe in BVR, stealth is clearly very beneficial regardless. Israel has had first-hand experience operating the F-35 in combat, and they clearly want more of them. That's a pretty strong endorsement of the F-35.

[conon394]

As a side note, even if you do or do not believe in BVR, stealth is clearly very beneficial regardless. Israel has had first-hand experience operating the F-35 in combat, and they clearly want more of them. That's a pretty strong endorsement of the F-35.

Probably is. But you can be snide and point out since Israel gets a huge part of its defense budget from the US I am rather sure thay really cannot buy anything but USA with massive consequences. Personally I'm glad to see the new F-15 get traction.

Its not BVR in concept I have issues with its doing effectively outside of an exclusion zone and with the limited missile load stealth demands. Which is my really problem with the F-35 not its a bad plane per say but rather that I think it was a mistake to end the F-22, and to only produce the F-35 as a limited fighter A/C types (as an upgrade to the F-117). Certainty the B is mistake with a solid 4.5 gen ground up design likely better and cheaper for a jump jet. But the B is a must buy now because it is the only option in class.