Baron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 9 Posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 10274 times:
Russia and Western European nations are fielding some advanced fighter airframes (Typhoon, SU35), advanced missiles (Meteor), advanced EASA radars, etc.
However, all of that put together, still places those planes and airforces at a significant disadvantage vs US planes like the F22 and upcoming F35 series. The primary reason being their aparent inability to field stealth technology.
Since the US has flown at least 4 airframes over the last 20 years (F117, B2, F22, F35), the Stealth concepts are well understood, computational power is plenty, why the lack of any stealth designs from other nations other than the US?
I know that the Typhoon and (to a lesser extent) the SU-35 have taken radar signature into a cound and have smaller RCS than previous fighters. But if you are investing $100B to develop a plane like the Typhoon, why note make it really stealthy like the F22 or at least the F35?
I am puzzled.
Is the technology beyond the reach of Europe/Russia? I don't believe so.
Does anyone have any insight as to why there are no current planes even on the drawing boards of EU countries or Russia that can approach or match the F22/F35 in stealth?
Moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3613 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10277 times:
Quoting Baron95 (Thread starter): The primary reason being their aparent inability to field stealth technology.
We don't need it. Its that simple.
We can do it - BAE developed a fully stealthed airframe called the Replica in order to demonstrate to the US that the UK as major JSF partner nation would not be gaining any manufacturing capability we did not already have. BAE have also been flying several stealth UCAVs (Raven for example) for the past few years.
However, we have not been losing conventional aircraft at such rates that stealth is a must - the attrition rate is perfectly acceptable as a trade off to lower costs.
Baron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10237 times:
Quoting Moo (Reply 1): We don't need it. Its that simple.
However, we have not been losing conventional aircraft at such rates that stealth is a must - the attrition rate is perfectly acceptable as a trade off to lower costs.
Well the costs of designing and producing a stealth fighter in the F35 class are not that significant compared to the total program cost. The fly-away price of the F35 will not be that different from similar non stealth planes (like a BL60 F16C). I'll grant you that the next step up in stealth (F22-class) is a significant cost.
But I am puzzled by the "We don't need it comment". If France and the UK and Russia feel the need to spend $100B on equiping their air forces with new fighters, it is because they feel they may face serious threats. If they need a top of the line 4.5 generation fighter and Meteor-class missiles, they clearly feel the potential threats are significant. And stealth (like Sonar, Radar, Jet engines, self-guiding missiles) is a game changing technology. I am sure you would not field a piston-engine powered fighter or a fighter without radar or a fighter without self-guiding missiles. Why do you feel it is OK to field a new fighter without stealth in the 21st century?
I am trully puzzled.
Here is the only link I could find for a somewhat serious European Stealth fighter effort;
ArniePie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10237 times:
While you might not realize it but Germany had already a stealthplane in development in the late 70's which looks remarkable a lot like the F117, when they decided to go get a partner country involved they went to the UK defense industry.
They told the Germans that the US was already working on a similar technology and therefore the Germans decided not to go ahead with it.
Also studies showed that stealth technology only gives a limited edge for a short period of time (5-10 yrs max) and doesn't support the extra expenses coming with the concept.
Baron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 9 Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 10216 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 3): The EU's weapons systems were designed to keep the Warsaw Pact out, not to go deep into WP territory. As such, stealth was not a design requirement/factor.
I always thought that all NATO war scenarios in central Europe were always predicated on achieving early uncontested air supremacy, so then the A10s and Helos could go after the Warsaw Pack tanks/mech metal coming in. Be that as it may, even the F22 is not designed to go more than 600nm into contested airspace - 600nm is how far it can operate from the tankers, and you don't typically expose your tankers in contested airspace, unless you are going after a very high value target and dedicate assets to protect the tanker.
Still that leaves Russia. Do they really intend to send non-stealth fighters against the F22 indefinetely? If not, what are their stealth fighter plans? And if they have one and field a stealth fighter in 2015, how is europe going to respond?
TristarAtLCA From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 573 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 9964 times:
With weaponry being so progressive, new developments in detection equipment will eventually erode the advantage of stealth. And when that occurs, improved stealth will be developed. Measure - Countermeasure.
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
Baron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 9 Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 9880 times:
Quoting Moo (Reply 9): Its only game changing if the other side has it - and in Europes case, unless the bad will between France and the US *really* escalates, the other side doesn't have stealth capability.
Ipso facto, its not worth us spending the extra money.
I've never heard this as a military strategy: We could field a technology that would make our weapon systems much more effective, but we'll field inferior technology instead because the other side doesn't have it either. So for example, the US should not have developed nuclear subs or nuclear CVs because the other side doesn't (didn't) have them.
If you have stealth and the other side doesn't, then by definition, you completely changed the game.
And as to saving money, if it is true that 2 F22s can take on a squadron of F15s and win easily. Isn't a $150M F22 in fact much more cost effective than 3 $50M F15s?
It doesn't seem like the reason is cost or lack of need. That is what is so puzzling.
Moo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3613 posts, RR: 4 Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 9861 times:
Quoting Baron95 (Reply 12): It doesn't seem like the reason is cost or lack of need. That is what is so puzzling.
Quite a few nations on this earth do not have a seemingly bottomless military budget - some figures for you as an example:
The US budgeted defence spending for 2008 is projected to be $623Billion USD.
Thats more than twice that of the entire EU in 2007 ($304Billion USD)
Nearly ten times more than the UKs 2008 spending ($67Billion USD)
Nearly nine times more than Frances 2008 spending ($73Billion USD)
The cost is a real factor, not matter how hard you try and ignore it - that 'small increase' to a project isn't quite so small to us. We don't need to spend the money either, because all of our projected foes are either massively outnumbering us (Russia), or have inferior equipment and training as is (Middle east, Africa, South America) - we can win wars with what we have got.
We don't need it because we already have an edge over those we would be fighting - when they get stealth, then so shall we.
XT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3150 posts, RR: 4 Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 9833 times:
Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 10): that's not entirely true. You can bet on it that everything on the drawing boards now has stealth in it.
strangely enough, most stuff in the pipeline doesn't overtly use stealth.
They are quite correct that the costs of stealth are not justified for most people who want to have an airforce.
Many small nations don't need it as their primary use of an Air Force is to police their airspace, with an eye to keeping their small nation neighbors from getting any funny ideas. So neither side has stealth, both don't have big budgets, and keeping smugglers from using your airspace as a free ride doesn't exactly require a F22.
Lets say you are China then. You have the money to develop a stealth plane. You have the ability to develop a stealth plane. What you lack is the need to spend the money to do so. Your 3 real threats, Russia, India, USA are all in the same boat of not being able to attack you without hurting them self more than they hurt you. Everyone else near you is small frys who couldn't hope to hurt you with conventional military units. So whats the point? Cheap, easy to maintain, and reliable all become far far more important than stealth.
Not to mention small forces of stealth aircraft would suffer the ME262 problem of it doesn't matter if you are better than they are if there is a hell of alot more of them. The P51 in service was the better plane in P51 Vs ME262 matches because one on one wasn't the issue. It was that everywhere the ME262 turned there was another P51 diving in on it.
Same with fielding a tiny fleet of stealth planes. Who cares if you can shoot down several of the opposing aircraft without even being seen? In the mean time the large fleet of conventional aircraft done on the cheap has leveled the airfield, blown up the ammunition dumps so you can't re-arm even if you land, and in general just made your super expensive stealth fighter useless. Fighters only carry so many missiles, and can only be in one place at one time.
This is why the US backs up their top line fighters with "lesser" fighters that are cheaper. To PREVENT sheer numbers from becoming the deciding factor. However if you are say... France and you blow all your budget on stealth fighters, how many do you end up with? How high are the running costs? How many opposing fighters can you stop in a small window of time?
Which isn't to say that nations are not doing the research to find as much "free" or "cheap" stealth features they can integrate into the next generation of fighters they will use. Just that its not the best choice to push this area of fighter design for them.
TristarAtLCA From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2007, 573 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 9824 times:
Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 11): And as to saving money, if it is true that 2 F22s can take on a squadron of F15s and win easily. Isn't a $150M F22 in fact much more cost effective than 3 $50M F15s?
I understand what your saying but cost and mission profile are issues. The UK for example will use the Typhoon in a multi-role package replacing the Jaguar and Tornado's strike role while being the RAF's primary defence fighter. You simply cannot fulfill these roles with a third of the aircraft whilst keeping various bases up to numbers. And in the UK, issues such as welfare, socialised healthcare etc. take a higher precedence. However, the F-35 should redress this signifigantly.
If you was right..................I'd agree with you
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7709 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 9688 times:
If I remember correctly, BAe did a lot of radar cross-section testing with the Eurofighter Typhoon. As such, they were able to significantly reduce the RCS of the fighter, especially reducing the radar reflection from the engine inlets.
F27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1113 posts, RR: 5 Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 9620 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 14): strangely enough, most stuff in the pipeline doesn't overtly use stealth.
are you acquainted with upcoming projects in Europe?
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 14): Lets say you are China then. You have the money to develop a stealth plane. You have the ability to develop a stealth plane. What you lack is the need to spend the money to do so.
-China is developing a stealth plane
-They have the money
Russia and India are developing the PAK-FA togehter, which is stealth, first flight 2009
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 14): Not to mention small forces of stealth aircraft would suffer the ME262 problem of it doesn't matter if you are better than they are if there is a hell of alot more of them. The P51 in service was the better plane in P51 Vs ME262 matches because one on one wasn't the issue. It was that everywhere the ME262 turned there was another P51 diving in on it.
that's why China will probably build 10 J-10s for every F-22
Quoting RayChuang (Reply 17): If I remember correctly, BAe did a lot of radar cross-section testing with the Eurofighter Typhoon. As such, they were able to significantly reduce the RCS of the fighter, especially reducing the radar reflection from the engine inlets.
Typhoon has a lot of reduced RCS measures, just as a moder Super Hornet and F-16 also have. There is a lot you can do before you have to redesign the overall geometry ( a la F-22, B2)
UH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9599 times:
Quoting Moo (Reply 13):
The US budgeted defence spending for 2008 is projected to be $623Billion USD
Just a point of clarification...
The FY08 DoD budget is $481.4billion. Your figure wrongly adds the GWOT Supplemental Spending Bill to the grand total. While it all goes towards defense spending, in the context of this thread, it cannot be considered.
GWOT money goes to funding the operations currently underway... it does not fund R&D of new equipment, such as stealth aircraft. It also does not go to new purchases of equipment, such as stealth aircraft.
I know it may seem like a trivial distinction to some, but to those of us in the military there is a clear understanding of how separate the two budgets are. DoD dollars are for running and operating the 4 services, while GWOT dollars are strictly for units involved in the war.
So when one is attempting to determine if the US military can afford to purchase new stealth aircraft... one cannot consider GWOT dollars into the equation. Thus they can only consider the $481.4billion figure.
Baron95 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1335 posts, RR: 9 Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 9488 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 14): Fighters only carry so many missiles, and can only be in one place at one time.
Well the F22 can carry 8 missiles and a cannon internally in stealth configuration - up to twice that many using the external hard points in less stealthy config (currently only 4 can be fired, but that is easy to modify). So a squadron of 25 F22s can put 200 missiles and 25 cannons in the air in stelathh mode and up to 400 missiles in the air in non-stealth mode. With supercruise, stealth, pwerful EASA radars, and high-energy AMRAAM launches, a single airborne squadron backed up by 4 tankers can easily cover all the airspace in France or the UK, and even if Russia send in 250 fighters (10 x 1), I'd doubt very much that any would get through.
So if France or the UK have say 60 F22, with say 50 mission capable at any one time, and they get them in the air in alternating waves of 25 (25 on station, 25 rearming), that is 200-400 missiles in the air at any one time. Coverage and number of missiles is not your problem.
Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 18): Typhoon has a lot of reduced RCS measures, just as a moder Super Hornet and F-16 also have. There is a lot you can do before you have to redesign the overall geometry ( a la F-22, B2)
True. But there is also A LOT that you can't do unless you redesign the geometry, carry your weapons internally, etc.
Listen. Even against Iraq, a third world country, spent by years of war with Iran, the US could not send F16s, F18s, F15Es in there in the first day of the air war. F117s were the only manned aircraft over the Iraqui capital.
You really need to understand that stealth fighters with supercruise, huge eASA radars and high-energy medium range AA missile laounches change everything. The volume of airspace that a pair of F22s can cover is *HUGE*. The fact that they can lobby an AMRRAM at you at M1.5, turn away and re engage your attack formation 2 or 3 times before you even know they are there is a total game changer. Even the US AWACS are said to not be able to pick up the F22s untill they are way within missile range, and even then, we can't get any missiles to lock on them till they have fired and exited, re-engaged and fired multiple times.
Think about that - you can now shoot the highest value air targets AWACS assets with impunity!!! If you don't understand how monumental a change this is, you are in for a shocker.
Moriarty From Sweden, joined Jan 2006, 166 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 9464 times:
I am no expert by any means but here's my 5 cents:
I would guess the primary reason is that "we" choose to / cannot spend that money.
There are other approaches to stealth rather than the ones used by US I guess. One is size. A small plane might not be invisible in the same sense that a stealth plane is but yet hard to detect. Combined with a data link and some more small planes, we've got a rather stealthy solution however.
Which leads me to number two: using the data link some of the aircrafts may be totally passive, receiving situational awareness and target information from the other planes. Another benefit of this would be that the planes are spread out as opposed to one single stealth aircraft.
Of course this might be achieved by several stealth planes as well, but given the price tag of your ordinary stealth plane compared to a small light weight fighter, we can buy quite a load of them before it's getting near the prices of the stealth plane.
But in the end, I think the main reason (as said previously in the thread) is that it is not considered needed or at least not worth it.
Pelican From Germany, joined Apr 2004, 2530 posts, RR: 8 Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 9427 times:
Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 14): Everyone else near you is small frys who couldn't hope to hurt you with conventional military units.
I wouldn't consider Japan as a small fry...
Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 19): The FY08 DoD budget is $481.4billion. Your figure wrongly adds the GWOT Supplemental Spending Bill to the grand total. While it all goes towards defense spending, in the context of this thread, it cannot be considered.
Nonetheless the numbers seem to be valid for his comparison considering that those European numbers are also including the money for ongoing operations, aren't they?
Quoting Baron95 (Reply 20): and even if Russia send in 250 fighters (10 x 1), I'd doubt very much that any would get through.
F 22s are surely superior to everything the Russians or Chinese can field but 10:1? And there is another point for having higher numbers of fighters. What are you going to do if some aren't operational and you won't have any backups?
Quoting Baron95 (Reply 20):
Listen. Even against Iraq, a third world country, spent by years of war with Iran, the US could not send F16s, F18s, F15Es in there in the first day of the air war.
Of course the US could have done that. It would have meant a higher risk to loose some, though.
Quoting Baron95 (Reply 20): The volume of airspace that a pair of F22s can cover is *HUGE*.
Oldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 1918 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 9415 times:
Quoting Baron95 (Reply 20): Listen. Even against Iraq, a third world country, spent by years of war with Iran, the US could not send F16s, F18s, F15Es in there in the first day of the air war. F117s were the only manned aircraft over the Iraqui capital.
Yes, but I wouldn't be suprised when e.g. Iran has by now passive radar systems to detect those F-117s.
I made a mistake:
Quote: There are passive radar systems like the Czech Vera-E which can easily detect stealth bombers including the F-117 within a range of 450 km.
It's 450km for normal and up to 200km for stealth planes.
[Edited 2008-03-07 08:55:10]
Wer wenig weiss muss vieles glauben
25 TristarAtLCA: At the moment. Weaponry is constantly evolving, as are sensor systems. The problem with your theory is that when detection equipment removes the adva
26 Atmx2000: It is apparent that most European countries aren't spending that much more. One thing to consider is although the absolute figure is lower, the entir
27 GDB: Don't tell any former aircrew, from the 50's onwards, of for example, RAF Canberras, the V Force, French Mirage IVA's, RAF Buccaneers, French Mirage 2
28 Scbriml: It's not widely known, but the UK does have a large fleet of the World's most advanced stealth fighters and bombers. You just haven't seen them yet!
29 Caspritz78: The point Europe doesn't have stealth planes is that we have a different military doctrine. The US military doctrine was always to bring the fight to
30 Atmx2000: Not quite correct. The US had to defend its own territory and assist in the defense of multiple other regions or countries, principally western Europ
31 Caspritz78: To make one thing clear first. I'm not saying the doctrine of the US forces is bad. I just want to explain why especially Europe has no use for stealt
32 Baron95: Even if that were true, which of course it is not, what are they going to do once they detect it? Send non-stealth fighter up to intercept? That figh
33 Burkhard: Stealth only helps against direct radar reflexes. In an area with so much electronic noise as Europe, a F22 or F35 is as bright a spot as a Tornado or
34 Baron95: I don't know where you get this info. But for the reccord, the F22 (and B2/F117 for that matter) stealth design is NOT just about radar. A lot of wor
35 TristarAtLCA: A unique aircraft with a unique set of operating parametres. Detection is everything, as proved by the shooting down of the U2 over Russia and the F-
36 Baron95: Correct. The main point being that the F22 like the Typhoon and Rafale will be in service for 30+ years. They all have the roughly the same mission,
37 XT6Wagon: In terms of military its definitely not capable of offensive action against more than very small nations. If you are china, Japan is very much small
38 Zak: the weapons you mention have no independent propulsion. i would love to see the speed and the profile flown to a JDAM 50nm. your posting is about as
39 Pelican: So why then stealth? In this scenario stealth is not needed and this thread was about why the Russians an Europeans don't field stealth planes and no
40 Curt22: Well said...While the US has decided on a doctrine of fighting it's wars as "away games"...Europe had no such option in the Cold War days, and even w
41 TristarAtLCA: You have also failed to consider that most developed nations are looking at (or have in R&D) UCAV's, which will predominantly have stealth features a
42 GDB: This forgets that as a basic design, Typhoon is older than F-35, the basic config of what would be the JSF winner, the LM X-35, dates from the late 1
43 Baron95: Speed and altitude, plus low reflection coat were the stealth technologies used by the U2 and SR71. The F22 just builds on it with lower RCS, lower i
44 Zak: 24!=50 nm. regarding the topic, germany had a stealth fighter 20 years ago and decided its not worth it. a good infrastructure and healthcare and soci
45 TristarAtLCA: Theoretically, yes. But no aircraft can launch a munition at M2 at the moment. You really need to go beyond high school physics and into the domain o
46 Baroque: I hope that Joel FitzGibbon our Minister for Defriends, er I mean Defence reads you stuff Baron, notwithstanding the reservations of Tristar and Zak
47 Baron95: Possibly true. But the USAF has release info and footage on a JDAM launched from 50Kft and M1.5+ from a production F22 with SW mods and hitting bulls
48 Banco: Depends if you include on the same basis Q ships, commerce raiders and (much further back) the use of false flags.
49 GDB: [quote=Baron95,reply=47]I don't get it. Germany spent billions of dollars in the Eurofighter R&D and procurement only to end up with a plane that is o
50 Petertenthije: LOL. There has been little debate. You want to know what started us on the whole F-35 adventure? Fokker's bankruptcy. After Fokker went bankrupt, the
51 TristarAtLCA: No, Baron. It is fact. Quote from article: This technology will enable FUTURE war fighters to safely dispense weapons at supersonic speeds around Mac
52 NoUFO: Baron is one of many people who completely overrate the concept of "stealth". Sure, low detectability (and even the F-22 can be detected, it's only mo
53 Baron95: Did you bother to read the link that I posted with actual information and footage of an F22 releasing a 1,000 lbs JDAM from 50Kft and Mach 1.5? That
54 Baron95: Possibly the single most valid reason I've read in this thread. That I can understand. If the UK, Spain, Germany, France wanted to have a lower tech
55 AutoThrust: As others said the capability to build stealth planes is there, as the NEURON UCAV demonstrates. But the cost for a "stealth" Eurofighter would be to
56 Wvsuperhornet: I am sure the Pilots who fly those aircraft would argue this I know I would want the most capable aircraft of returning a pilot home if I was to buy
57 GDB: A good point about the UK (and Italy) who are both Typhoon and prospective F-35 users. They do see the two types as being complementary. The Typhoon i
58 Astuteman: Spot on. Most people on here won't have access to the work that goes on behind the scenes here in the UK, some of which, as you say, was a pre-cursor
59 Joni: As noted on this thread, a lot of EU HW has LO ("stealth") features incorporated, from the Typhoon to the Visby to diesel submarines. It's likely tha
60 UH60FtRucker: lol... umm... a freakin' B-52 is stealthy to nations like Somalia --- considering there is no radar to even detect them! -UH60
61 Mortyman: Well Norway don't make planes, but we have made the Skjold class MTB: World's fastest warship ( 70 knots ) In New York: proto type Skjold class MTB at
62 Baroque: Ah yes, there are a number of forms that stealth can take. I think the Germans played around with radar absorbing coatings, but also not especially s
63 TristarAtLCA: Yes and as there was nothing to disagree with you, I did not post comment. But what I said was: In response to your 'high school physics' calculation
64 NoUFO: Of course you'd have an advantage, hence I said "stealth" does improve survivability. But Russian pilots can fly a Mig or Su-27 and manage to disappe
65 Baron95: If it ever does, it is more likely due to insane politically motivated rules of engagement than any of the factors you mentioned. F22s will fly with
66 Alien: Him, the Russians, the Indians, the Chinese and the Pentagon. Everyone else must know something they don't. That's a hard one to live up to consideri
67 Wvsuperhornet: Thats a bold statement!!! The Russians and China only wish that was the case, its why they are spending furtunes trying to counter it. He is wrong al
68 UH60FtRucker: Are you sure about this?? We're all familiar with the story of the British pilot flying the F-22 recently, and the British pilot flying the F-117 dur