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?

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.

Also, you find stealth used for ships and the like. In fact Europe does not have so many airplanes in development at all.

I think a lot of it is driven by Cold War realities that expected USAF combat assets to penetrate significant air defense systems (both Soviet and client state).

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.

And Tornado, for example, was designed to fly fast low-level for deep penetration strikes...

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;

http://www.nitrocandy.com/meet-the-e...pean-stealth-fighterfrom-1981.html

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.

http://www.f-104.de/exponates/english/exp_lampyridae_eng.html

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?

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 5): Here is the only link I could find for a somewhat serious European Stealth fighter effort; http://www.nitrocandy.com/meet-the-e....html

Quoting ArniePie (Reply 6): http://www.f-104.de/exponates/english/exp_lampyridae_eng.html

-The Lampyridae was put on ice, not to endanger the Eurofighter contract

-Other follow-up designs were made as well

-There are a lot of stealth measures on the Eurofighter, but not from an overal geometric standpoint as with the F-22 and JSF.

-There is a lot of knowledge in stealth ships in Europe

-The original theory used by Lockheed to design the F-117 was published by a Russian scientist

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 5): And stealth (like Sonar, Radar, Jet engines, self-guiding missiles) is a game changing technology.

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.

Quoting Moo (Reply 9): Ipso facto, its not worth us spending the extra money.

that's not entirely true. You can bet on it that everything on the drawing boards now has stealth in it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quoting Baron95 (Thread starter): Why Can't Russia/Europe Field Stealth Planes?

How do you know they haven't?   

Scooter01

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.

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

I have a pic, but A.net upload doesn;t work

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 14): Your 3 real threats, Russia, India,

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)

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.

-UH60

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.

[Edited 2008-03-07 07:53:44]

Why should we invest in stealth planes?

The stealth technology is overrated and meanwhile a fairy tale to bluff American tax payers.

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.

Axel

[Edited 2008-03-07 08:36:03]

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.

On a side note: the technology of stealth is not unknown at all: it is used for ships for instance... (external link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visby_class_corvette )

edit: I guess I contradicted myself a little: obviously stealth is a prio considering stealth ships are built. But I still guess stealth aircrafts is a total different ball game.

[Edited 2008-03-07 08:21:27]

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*.

And what contributes stealth to this ability?

pelican

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.

Axel

PS

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]

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 20): the US AWACS are said to not be able to pick up the F22s untill they are way within missile range

At the moment. Weaponry is constantly evolving, as are sensor systems. The problem with your theory is that when detection equipment removes the advantage of stealth, you are left with not many hugely expensive fighters, which could have been lots of capable, but not very expensive 'standard' fighters. Improvements in sensor detection could happen tomorrow, improved stealth could take years.

Baron, I really appreciate your enthusiam for the topic and as an aviation nut would love to see the F-22 in the RAF. Its never going to happen.

Quoting Pelican (Reply 23): 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?

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 entirety of EU defense spending includes spending from a large number of countries whose labor costs are much lower, which translates into lower costs for personnel and for a lot of basic equipment. Thus if you were to consider purchasing power, the EU figure would be somewhat higher than the absolute number.

Quoting Oldeuropean (Reply 21): 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.

Quoting Oldeuropean (Reply 24): Yes, but I wouldn't be suprised when e.g. Iran has by now passive radar systems to detect those F-117s.

Quoting Oldeuropean (Reply 24): It's 450km for normal and up to 200km for stealth planes.

Of course the F-117 has been retired, and the B-2 and F-22 have lower radar signatures.

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 2000D/N's, the three nations operating Tornados, that they would not have to penetrate enemy defences on strike missions!

As stated, Stealth/LO, in the dedicated designs since the 70's, were developed from organisations such as DARPA, DoD, facilities like the Skunk Works, that a very large nation like the US could have, without undermining other vital defence assetts.
Compare with Europe, with a bunch of smaller nations, like for like is not a factor here.

But, beyond stealth aircraft, the first two generations of which were specialised and very expensive, LO has been studied, developed, deployed.
For example, radar abosrbant materials were developed in the UK, for intial fitment to the leading edges of control surfaces of the V-Bombers, but this work only came to light when similar were fitted to RAF Tornados and Jaguars deployed to the Gulf in 1991.
This work was shared with the US.
The UK improvement for the RN's Polaris warheads, the Chevaline project, included low RCS new warheads.

The BAE Replica project, was a demonstration of BAE's competence in stealth aircraft design and construction, it was the companies entry into the JSF at the level they now enjoy.
But building an operational aircraft, would have had a small market, be highly expensive, compared to the sheer economies of scale of the JSF.

While it did not go the the LO levels of the later Visby Corvette, the RN's Type 23 Frigate was the first major warship type to include LO considerations in it's design.

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!   

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 the enemy. Never let the enemy come close to the US. A reason why the US Navy is the largest Navy in the world and has more aircraft carriers than all other nations together. That's the same reason why the US Air force was so interested in stealth planes. Strike the Enemy deep in its own territory.

In Europe during the Cold War we didn't have the luxury of bringing the war the enemy. The Russians and their tanks were standing in our front yard. That's why for example the German Army was build and equipped to stop tanks. Compared to the size of our forces we had a lot of tanks and support troops that made sure the tanks were able move around. Our infantry was mainly anti-tank troops.

Europe had no use for Stealth Fighters/Bombers and still hasn't.

Quoting Caspritz78 (Reply 29): 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 the enemy. Never let the enemy come close to the US. A reason why the US Navy is the largest Navy in the world and has more aircraft carriers than all other nations together. That's the same reason why the US Air force was so interested in stealth planes. Strike the Enemy deep in its own territory.

Not quite correct. The US had to defend its own territory and assist in the defense of multiple other regions or countries, principally western Europe, Japan, and South Korea. The Navy is essential to protecting the supply routes for the distant bases and providing additional fire power to hot spots. For the same reason, the US had vastly more air lift capacity than any European country. The US had to be able to augment European defenses in case of attack by bring more troops and weapons over to support a sustained war effort.

Quote: In Europe during the Cold War we didn't have the luxury of bringing the war the enemy. The Russians and their tanks were standing in our front yard. That's why for example the German Army was build and equipped to stop tanks. Compared to the size of our forces we had a lot of tanks and support troops that made sure the tanks were able move around. Our infantry was mainly anti-tank troops. Europe had no use for Stealth Fighters/Bombers and still hasn't.

There are some other reasons. The US along with a few other countries provided the deep strike capability within Europe via NATO. And neither other Europeans countries nor West Germans felt comfortable with Germany having serious offensive capacity.

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 stealth technology. The choice of weapon systems is based on how you define the role of your military. For example a solely defensive and only local mobile Army doesn't need offensive weapon systems. While a global mobile and more offensive army needs them.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 30): The Navy is essential to protecting the supply routes for the distant bases and providing additional fire power to hot spots

Take a look in this recently published strategy paper http://www.navy.mil/maritime/MaritimeStrategy.pdf

Quote: Page 10: Maritime forces will defend the homeland by identifying and neutralizing threats as far from our shores as possible. Page 12: Forward Presence. Maritime forces will be forward deployed, especially in an era of diverse threats to the homeland.

I think only the British Navy has a similar doctrine. Many other Navys are more for sea border protection.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 30): For the same reason, the US had vastly more air lift capacity than any European country.

That falls under the exact doctrine. The US always wanted to bring the fight to the enemy. So they needed of course a way to get their troops there. And a short look at the map of Europe will show that due to size large air lift capabilities were not needed fro European forces.

Quoting Oldeuropean (Reply 21): 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.

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 fighter would take a Slamer up the nose in short order? Fire a SAM from far away, only to have the F22 turn and supercruise away?

Quoting Oldeuropean (Reply 24): Yes, but I wouldn't be suprised when e.g. Iran has by now passive radar systems to detect those F-117s.

Well the F117 was an atack aircraft and was replaced by two F22 squadrons. Same point as above. even if Iran could detect the F22 what would it do? Even SAMs and BVR AA Missiles still have to lock on to the F22 and would be deteckted by the APG-77 and the F22 would be supercruising away.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 25): The problem with your theory is that when detection equipment removes the advantage of stealth,

Detection is nothing. SR-71s were routinelly detected by radar - and adversaries could do squat about it.

An F22 flying at 50Kft and supercruising at M1.5+ can lobby cheap guided munitions (like the SDM, JDAM) over 50 nm away. It can lobby Slammers at any fighter that comes up twice that far. It can detect SAM launches turn and supercrise way in most scenarios except if it is basically right on top of the SAM when launched.

And that is probably the greatest advantage about having a Stealth Fighter. You can play war games and learn the best way to counteract them. Could you tell me how Russia, China, etc are going to develop tactics against the F22? Running computer simulations? Good luck.

Fact is the USAF never thought the F22 could sneak within firing range of an AWACS, and they found out that they win in all scenarios agains AWACS + F15 CAP.

Will infrared detection, and other technologies mature to counteract stealth? Of course. Would these same technologies be much more effective against a non-stealth aircraft? Of course. Will a stealth aircraft always fare better than a non stealth one? Of course?

How much is stealth worth? Is it worth a 10% premium on your front line fighter? 20%? 30%? 50%? No one is claiming that Stealth represents more than 10% of the F35 or 30% of the F22 fly away costs. Why couldn't the typhoon had been designed with a stealth geometry like the F35 for 10% higher costs or a stealth geometry+materials/coatings of the F22 for 20% more? That is the question.

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 F15.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 33): 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 F15.

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 work goes into reducing infrared signatures AND all radiation/all frequencies reflection.

Having said that, even assuming you are correct and you can detect the F22, what are you going to do about it?

Send a non stealth fighter head on to intercept? In the scenario, a Slammer-D can prob be used up to 100nm away.

Turn-on your SAM radars? An F22 can send a couple of JDAMs or 8 SDB to that site from 50nm away.

Do yourself a favor. Think the scenario through all the way to the end. Don't stop at detection. What can Europe or Russia do to SHOOT DOWN a M1.5+ supercruising fighter with a tiny RCS a tiny infrared cross section, a huge AESA radar, armed with Slammers with 50-100nm range, backed up by data linked battlefield data, etc, etc, etc.

There is a reason why F22s achived 150:0 kills in exercises against current frontline fighters and even AWACS+F15s combos. It is a nasty problem.

I can not believe that Russia, China, EU have not even fielded first generation stealth fighter to at least develop/learn the tactics and possible counter tatics.

At least some European countries like Netherlands and UK will be getting F35s in the next 10 years.

But, since it looks like the F22 won't be exported any time soon, that leaves the EU, Japan, Australia, Israel in need of a true air-to-air Stealth fighter. It would be a great export market if EADS developed it.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 32): Detection is nothing. SR-71s were routinelly detected by radar - and adversaries could do squat about it.

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-117 in Yugoslavia which destroyed the perceived infallability of stealth. Or, in your opinion, has every nation on this planet with radar simply wasted their money.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 32): It can lobby Slammers at any fighter that comes up twice that far.

Wow...you mean it has a missile that goes 100 miles. So did the F-14 with the Phoenix which was in service in the 70's. That level of standoff capability is nothing new, although the technology will have advanced.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 34): Send a non stealth fighter head on to intercept? In the scenario, a Slammer-D can prob be used up to 100nm away. Turn-on your SAM radars? An F22 can send a couple of JDAMs or 8 SDB to that site from 50nm away.

This F-22 is carrying a hell of an internal mission package or is carrying (or has not expended) the correct weapons package everytime it encounters new threats. Warfare is simply not like that.



The F-22 is a supreme aircraft currently in a class of its own but you simply cannot assume this will not change. And however advanced, it is still just an aircraft.

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 35): The F-22 is a supreme aircraft currently in a class of its own but you simply cannot assume this will not change. And however advanced, it is still just an aircraft.

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, entered service at roughly the same time, will be carrying roughly the same weapons (Meteors/MICAs/Slammers for air-to-air), yet one is that much harder to be tracked by radar, infrared and other detection and homing technologies.

The F22 fly away cost is some 50% higher than the Rafale/Typhoon, yet it is in a class by itself. How competitive will the Typhoon and rafale be in 20 or 30 years? to say nothing of the Saabs. Why didn't they invest in Stealth geometries, internal stores, etc? At least to the F-35 level?

In my mind, you don't invest $100B in a new frontline fighter knowing from the outset it is severely outclassed in one critical area. netherlands has it exactly right. I hope they stay the course. I don't think the French, British and German tax payers are being well served. I think the Eurofighter and Rafale were built without a change to a Stealth design simply due to inertia. That is bad. Luckly, the Russians did the same with the Su 27-30 series. However, I think they will have a Stealth fighter in 15 years.

Quoting Pelican (Reply 23): I wouldn't consider Japan as a small fry...

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 fry material in terms of your own worries.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 20): Well the F22 can carry 8 missiles and a cannon internally in stealth configuration

Missiles do not have a 100% hit rate. They don't even have a 100% leave the rail rate. And you really don't want crap hanging off your plane going into AtA combat since retrofitting advanced radars to older frames happens all the time. Double if its an offensive mission you are on.



Last, there are "stealth radar" that works quite well to detect stealth aircraft. Whats funny as hell is the more stealthy the plane the better it works. How? Its simple, in modern 1st world nations the sky is filled with EM radiation of all frequencies. So to find the stealth aircraft you look for the HOLES in it. I doubt any system yet developed is past the stage of being able to track an approximate location, but radar didn't come into military hands as everything it is today, so its possible that the "hole detectors" will get more advanced too.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 34): Turn-on your SAM radars? An F22 can send a couple of JDAMs or 8 SDB to that site from 50nm away.

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 utopical as a marvel comic, pentagon pr certainly works well.
given that you fail to understand the basic principles of a smart brace around a dumb bomb(JDAM) or the conceptually similar SDB, it leaves no doubts about the "made it up" type of validity that your statements on more intricate issues have.

[Edited 2008-03-07 14:53:19]

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 32): Detection is nothing. SR-71s were routinelly detected by radar - and adversaries could do squat about it. An F22 flying at 50Kft and supercruising at M1.5+ can lobby cheap guided munitions (like the SDM, JDAM) over 50 nm away. It can lobby Slammers at any fighter that comes up twice that far. It can detect SAM launches turn and supercrise way in most scenarios except if it is basically right on top of the SAM when launched

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 not about the F22 which isn't just because of stealth superior.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 34): Having said that, even assuming you are correct and you can detect the F22, what are you going to do about it?

Send in a via data link guided missile...

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 34): What can Europe or Russia do to SHOOT DOWN a M1.5+ supercruising fighter with a tiny RCS a tiny infrared cross section, a huge AESA radar, armed with Slammers with 50-100nm range, backed up by data linked battlefield data, etc, etc, etc.

Hmm, what potential foe of Europe has such fighters?   

Quoting Caspritz78 (Reply 31): Quote: Page 10: Maritime forces will defend the homeland by identifying and neutralizing threats as far from our shores as possible. Page 12: Forward Presence. Maritime forces will be forward deployed, especially in an era of diverse threats to the homeland. I think only the British Navy has a similar doctrine. Many other Navys are more for sea border protection.

Well the doctrine of the Bundeswehr is changing towards that direction. Remember what former secretary of defence Struck said about defending Germany at the Hindu Kush?

pelican

Quoting Caspritz78 (Reply 29): In Europe during the Cold War we didn't have the luxury of bringing the war the enemy. The Russians and their tanks were standing in our front yard. That's why for example the German Army was build and equipped to stop tanks. Compared to the size of our forces we had a lot of tanks and support troops that made sure the tanks were able move around. Our infantry was mainly anti-tank troops.

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 with the cold war over, the EU has not fully adopted a more expeditionary concept of military employment.

Like Caspritz...I too do not pass judgement on the doctrine the EU nations choose for themselves, and I've only seen the best of cooperation between EU and US military forces in my career, regardless of the political agenda of anyone's elected politicians. That said...I think it would a great service to the less fortunate people of the world if the EU were to spread it's "wings" a bit more...with or without stealth platforms.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 36): However, I think they will have a Stealth fighter in 15 years.

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 and crucially, will be far more appealing cost wise. Of course, no UCAV will have the F-22's capabilities.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 32): Why couldn't the typhoon had been designed with a stealth geometry like the F35 for 10% higher costs or a stealth geometry+materials/coatings of the F22 for 20% more? That is the question.

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 1990's.
The Typhoon was a decade previous to that, by Typhoon I mean the Eurofighter, after a lot of tweaking had been done to reduce RCS, from the initial European Fighter Aircraft proposals and the British EAP technology demonstrator prototype, which flew from 1986-91.

The two types, aside from age, while both are multi role types, were designed with different primary missions in mind.
Typhoon as a highly agile, fast accelerating, high energy air superiority type, with the newer F-35, the clue was in the initial name for this project, Joint Strike Fighter.

Trying to make a much more stealthy Eurofighter design in the mid 80's, would have been a different, much more difficult proposition, compared to a clean sheet RCS orientated JSF design with all the technology advances a decade and some later.

F-22 is a newer design too, if only by a few years, but for a different mission, and 20% more cost means 20% less inventory.
And doing a European F-22 style design would have been a non starter, since even the USAF is not going to get anything like the number of F-22's it wants.

Quoting Pelican (Reply 39): 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 not about the F22 which isn't just because of stealth superior.

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 infrared signature, supercruise, and much more manouverability, and obviously the immense -77 radar.

Quoting Zak (Reply 38): the weapons you mention have no independent propulsion. i would love to see the speed and the profile flown to a JDAM 50nm.

Would you like to take a look at the links to several such JDAM drop tests? Here is one from a F22 drop (or I should say lobby) from 50Kft that hit a target 24nm away bullseye.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/F_22...sonic_High_Altitude_JDAM_Drop.html

You seem to have no concept of the energy with which a stealth fighter (that can operate at 50K-65K ft, vs hugging the ground to avoid radar) can launch weapons. Just run your high school physics and calculate what a 1,000lbs aerodynamic JDAM balistc trajectory would be when launched from M2.0 and 65K ft in a lobby zoom. You will be surprised. There are many advantages to Stealth. Increased weapons range from being able to fly high is just another one of them.

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 social network beats having 100s of bns in research and subsidy for stealth that only works out when fighting against 2nd and 3rd world countries somewhere far away, something most european countries stopped doing 200 years ago.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 43): Just run your high school physics and calculate what a 1,000lbs aerodynamic JDAM balistc trajectory would be when launched from M2.0 and 65K ft in a lobby zoom.

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 of advanced aeronautical engineering. Please read the following article and realise that spurious claims need to be backed up.

http://angiepalmer.wordpress.com/200...release-system-tested-at-holloman/

Some quotes:

'During a recent test at the High-Speed Test Track at Holloman, researchers from the Air Force Research Laboratory and Boeing Phantom Works used a rocket sled and active flow control to successfully release a MK-82 Joint Direct Attack Munition Standard Test Vehicle at a speed of about Mach 2 (twice the speed of sound) from a weapons bay with a size approximating that of the Air Force B-1 bomber.

“This technology will enable future war fighters to safely dispense weapons at supersonic speeds around Mach 2,” said John Leslie, 846 Test Squadron Test Manager.

“Sled track testing is the only viable means of performing this type of test,” said Kamal Shouman, 846 Test Squadron Test Engineer. “There is no aircraft in the current Air Force inventory capable of performing this test. And if there was, no one would be willing to risk that asset and the pilot to perform this test.”

Air Force Research Laboratory intends to use active flow control technology from HIFEX to develop full-envelope weapon release systems for future Air Force Global Strike aircraft.



Do your homework.

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 20): 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.

I hope that Joel FitzGibbon our Minister for Defriends, er I mean Defence reads you stuff Baron, notwithstanding the reservations of Tristar and Zak

Quoting Scbriml (Reply 28): 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!

I met a man who was not there........!  

Was the first use of stealth in the design of U-boat periscopes and snorts in WWII?

Quoting TristarAtLCA (Reply 45): But no aircraft can launch a munition at M2 at the moment

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 eye 24nm downrange. The mod was to load the LAR SW into one of the standard F22 CMIPs to calculate when the F22 was in range for the release.

Note that the USAF only publishes that the max ceiling of the F22 in 50K+ and max supercruise as M1.5+ (the + part in both cases being classified). So you will only see public info on weapons released up to 50K ft and M1.5. It is pretty obvious that the F22 can operate at 65Kft+, and cruise much faster tham M1.5 (hence the + sign). If you run the physics from 50K to 65K and M1.5 to M2.0 (all very conservative) you get past 50nm. 50 nm is the often quoted lobby range of GPS guided munitions from the F22.

Don't expect to see the USAF confirm that, just as you won't see them confirm that the Slammer-D can have a max balistic range of over 100nm. The tactics to release this weapons will constantly evolve. But one thing is certain. A Fighter that can operate high (due to steatlth) can lobby missiles and bombs very, very far downrange.

Quoting Zak (Reply 44): 24!=50 nm

Read the above. And note that if the USAF publicises the range of a release as X, they usually can do 2X in combat - the actual figure being classified for obvious reasons.

Quoting Zak (Reply 44): germany had a stealth fighter 20 years ago and decided its not worth it. a good infrastructure and healthcare and social network beats having 100s of bns in research and subsidy for stealth

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 outclassed by the F22, will be outclassed by the F35 and the likely Russion stealth fighter to emerge. What is the logic on your argument? Is it that Germany and Europe should only spend the billions of Euros on inferior fighter technology? Why not spend a bit more and get an Stealth Eurofighter that would hold its on for 40 years? Or conversely, why not buy the cheaper F35s like the Netherlands?

You are not making sense. If Germany needs the dozens of Eurofighter typhoons it is slated to get, it must have some really serious air defense needs. And it that is true, shouldn't it get a platform that will last decades, not be outclassed ia few years?

The Netherlands, Australia are taking these decisions very, very seriously, with a lot of debate. Has Germany? Was there any public and governement debate on weather the Typhoon or a stealth fighter was a better option? You may be right and I may be wrong. The point is that the Rafale and Eurofighter Thyphoon went forward simply due to political innertia with no consideration given to a Stealth alternative. That is the bad part. That is why the EU after spending 100s of billions on their two new fighter programs will have only a second rate fighter. And that is why more enlighted countries, like the Netherlands are skipping on both and buying F35s. And many more, I am convinced, would rather buy F22s.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 46): Was the first use of stealth in the design of U-boat periscopes and snorts in WWII?

Depends if you include on the same basis Q ships, commerce raiders and (much further back) the use of false flags.

[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 outclassed by the F22, will be outclassed by the F35 and the likely Russian stealth fighter to emerge. What is the logic on your argument?

Better not tell any Typhoon drivers that they are outclassed by F-22 and the rest.
For a start, they were not designed to do the same thing, even in AD.
Typhoon was built with high performance, very high agility, but also to be reasonably affordable.
The RAF, a force a small fraction of the size of the USAF, could well end up with as many Typhoons, maybe even some more, than the USAF will likely get of F-22's.
So building a 'Euro' F-22, (if it even survived post Cold War cuts, which F-22 nearly didn't), would mean a tiny fleet for each respective AF.
Non exportable too, which will likely to true of F-22 as well, for it's expense, the F-22 damn well better be extra special.

F-35, though it looks to be an impressive performer, AD will be a secondary mission for it, in most respects in air combat, the Typhoon is the better choice, as I pointed out before, the F-35 is over a decade newer as a design too.
And what Russian stealth designs?
They have only just re-started delivering new aircraft, based on legacy designs, mainly the SU-27 series onwards, after an effectively 15 year hiatus.

Plus Typhoon is only at an early stage of it's potential development, RCS was taken into account, from the frontal aspect mainly, but not at the expense of performance and cost.
Again, this would involve trying to 'do' a F-22 some years before the US, with only one government and lavish research in the favour of the American aircraft.

I'd caution against assuming that the F-22 is massively superior to the foreigners, it is extremely impressive, can do things Typhoon cannot (because it was not designed to and is an older design), but this was also believed in 1941 against the Japanese, in the early 50's against the Mig-15 in Korea, to an extent, in close in dogfighting at least, against Mig's over Vietnam.